In the previous thread about the thin line between an ordinary guy and a rapist, Sailorman writes:<\/p>\n
rethinking this: why do folks insist on using \u201crape\u201d or \u201calmost rape\u201d or \u201clike rape\u201d to describe things that, well, aren\u2019t rape?<\/p>\n
I can see it if you think those things should be legally punishable. (in other words, it makes perfect sense if you think those things ARE rape)<\/p>\n
But if you DON\u2019T want to put those in the legally punishable category, then I wonder if it\u2019s not such a powerful word as to be ineffective. It\u2019s polarizing. You\u2019ll get men to admit their behavior is \u201cwrong\u201d or \u201cbad\u201d way before you\u2019ll get them to admit it\u2019s \u201calmost rape\u201d or \u201cvery similar to rape.\u201d** So using those terms increases the \u201cpreaching to the choir\u201d aspect. I\u2019m not sure that\u2019s functionally a good idea.<\/p>\n
And it\u2019s also a bit a priori which i find sort of annoying: because rape is bad then \u201c\u2026____ like a rapist\u201d means ___ is very bad. So using that label assigns those things a \u201cfault level\u201d that is fairly high.<\/p>\n
The problem with THAT is that these conversations inevitably contain a lot of things that differ hugely in how bad they are. But because \u201clike a rapist\u201d = \u201cveryvery bad\u201d that makes no sense: surely telling someone they\u2019re \u201cprude\u201d because they won\u2019t sleep with you is in an entirely different category from, say, filling someone\u2019s drink with the goal of getting them drunk enough to agree to sleep with you when you know they wouldn\u2019t do so sober. **<\/p>\n
There are a few\u2013very few\u2013generalizations one can accurately make, when one includes such disparate behavior. Why is \u201ccalling someone a prude\u201d lumped in as Teh Eevil Misogyny together with wanting to rape someone? That\u2019s just ludicrous.<\/p>\n
Are some of those things bad? Yes. Some are VERY, VERY, bad. But some are, in the grand scheme of things, not that big a deal. And if there\u2019s not going to be any distinguishing between those categories, I don\u2019t think this is a good argument.<\/p>\n
**The power of the word \u201crape\u201d is not necessarily beneficial. A parallel exists in racism. There used to be things that were referred to as \u201cprejudiced,\u201d which was sort of \u201cracism lite.\u201d Now, \u201cracism\u201d has been deliberately expanded to include all of that, and a whole lot more. The benefit? People get to use a very powerful and socially unacceptable word, \u201cracism,\u201d to control and comment on behavior. The downside? You might have gotten someone to admit they\u2019re a bit prejudiced; not many people will admit to being racist.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
After a bit of back and forth, my reply was:<\/p>\n
Sailor,<\/p>\n
You wrote this: “I can see it if you think those things should be<\/i> legally punishable. (in other words, it makes perfect sense if you think those things ARE rape) ”<\/p>\n
That suggests that the only definition of rape that is acceptable is one with a legal ramification, because it suggests that one only thinks things ARE rape if one seeks to make them legally punishable. That means that you’re saying that a personal definition of rape should be consonant with one’s desired legal definition of rape, and thus that the deciding factor of rape is the legal system. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Which I meant to support the following assertion: “The legal system is not the sole arbiter of meaning. Period.”<\/p>\n
Since various people, including Sailorman and myself, feel that this line of discussion is a distraction from the other thread, I’m reposting it here so that it can be explored by anyone who wants to. If people want to repost comments from the other thread here, that’s cool.<\/p>\n
I’m locking this to pro-feminists only, in which category I am intending to include Sailorman in case that’s a question (I know he was excluded last time this came up).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In the previous thread about the thin line between an ordinary guy and a rapist, Sailorman writes: rethinking this: why do folks insist on using \u201crape\u201d or \u201calmost rape\u201d or \u201clike rape\u201d to describe things that, well, aren\u2019t rape? I … Continue reading