Why aren't murder ''jokes'' as bad or worse than rape ones?

Scroll to see replies

It would only be controversial if a woman was raped. Same with the murders in games like GTA. Feminists were outraged that you could kill women in it ignoring that all the kill missions are about killing men and at the same time you can kill any guy on the streets as well. If anything, males are much more likely to be the victim of violence just like in real life. If the game is mis-anything it's misanthrope, not misogynist. But as usual, they find it impossible to remove their feminist blinkers.

I call bull ****.

Reply 61

TolerantBeing

Original post by miser

Murder, generally, is more palatable to us than rape. We can see this for example in the controversy over Game of Thrones - people are very sensitive about the portrayal of rape, nevermind all the murder, which is otherwise considered the graver crime.

It reminds me of the criticisms of Tomb Raider II back in the day. Animal rights organisations didn't like Lara killing bengal tigers. At least you know the tigers are going to be dangerous - killing everyone you see without knowing who they are gets a pass, however.

To be fair, all the men you'd kill in Tomb Raider 2 were coming at you with cricket bats, machine guns, shot guns etc. It's not like Lara was killing innocent bystanders, but I suppose even though the tigers would attack, it's because they saw Lara as prey, and they need food. So the tigers to me would always be more innocent than the armed men she shot.

I used to try and avoid killing the tigers :tongue:

On a related note, wasn't there a rape scene in the latest Tomb Raider?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 62

TolerantBeing

Original post by MostUncivilised

In spite of all the comparisons and rationalisations on this thread, I would rather be raped than murdered. By a long shot.

Which means the question remains, why are rape jokes worse than murder jokes when murder is worse than rape?

Well obviously it's personal. Just because you feel that way, doesn't mean everyone else does, or should. I don't think it's fair to dictate what people should feel us worse, and what sort of jokes we should feel is worse.

Rape arises a completely different set of emotions to murder. I think in there is the answer somehow.

Reply 63

Jammy Duel

Original post by TolerantBeing

On a related note, wasn't there a rape scene in the latest Tomb Raider?

Not exactly, there was implication of, not sure whether it's that it happened or was going to happen (waiting to be played but not got round to it yet), which caused some controversy, but so did the killing tigers in II.

I think what might be better to consider is a lot of the sandbox shooters, in missions people have no problem with you killing the target, but similarly in free roam (and in missions) nobody seems to have an issue with you mowing civilians down either with little or no penalty.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 64

yo radical one

Emotionally I do think rape brings about worse feelings than murder. I've thought about this and tbh, I would be more comfortable around a murderer than a rapist.

Reply 65

miser

Original post by TolerantBeing

Nah, Lara can't be sure they're villains. Hell, even if she is, it's hugely illegal because it's rightly seen as a condemnable action. She's murdering people without trial, no justice. Her intention to shoot first, ask questions later even justifies their retalliation.

Original post by TolerantBeing

On a related note, wasn't there a rape scene in the latest Tomb Raider?

Nah it wasn't a rape scene. A guy basically ties her up and maybe he was going to have his way with her, maybe not, but the danger pushes her to escape and begin to kill.

Reply 66

ClickItBack

Everyone saying rape is worse than murder is COMPLETELY off their rocker, and missing the heart of what could actually be an interesting philosophical/semantic/cultural debate.

First, rape needs to be broken down from a singular description to the many different ways it is perpetuated. It is not universally a crime of violence, and does not universally induce trauma in the victims concerned. Sometimes the victim does not even consider the rape harmful, e.g. in a situation where a long-term sex partner technically did not obtain did their consent while the victim was drunk.

Concentrating then on the more severe cases of rape which do go on to have lasting effects on the victim, there is still no question that murder, in its consequences and severity, is worse than most cases of rape (I allow the possibility that some particularly brutal/torturous rape over an extended period could be on par). The interesting question is why we, as a society, are then so much more comfortable with the idea of displaying and flippantly talking about the former crime, but not the latter.

It may help to examine a similar crime: violent assault, and in particular, by someone significantly stronger than you, so that you are helpless in defending yourself. Such assaults are also more than capable of leaving the victim with long-term mental scars and trauma. However, violent assaults are extremely common in our media and in our everyday language e.g. a plethora of video games, "I'll beat that dude up so hard he won't be able to feel his face after", etc. The other argument of many on this thread - that the victim continues to suffer from portrayal of rape - is at least equally valid for violent assault too. Given their similarity, the disparity in the treatment of violent assault and rape is puzzling.

On the other hand, if we look at a crime such as torture, no one really jokes/makes flippant comments about that - and any portrayals of it in media are generally controversial. Torture, though, is at least debatably a worse crime than murder - it can be a mercy to kill a sufferer rather than subject them to continued torture. Obviously extreme cases of rape can be construed as torture, but that only constitutes a small percentage of rape cases.

We see, therefore, that society is really quite scattershot in its treatment of different crimes. The nuanced point is that rape is perhaps the crime with the greatest spread of severity, from one where the victim may not even care or feel there was any problem worth mentioning, to one where it is indistinguishable from torture. Perhaps the fact that it can take such a wide spread is what keeps it somewhat taboo; getting called out for being insensitive to that small minority of horrific cases is a big deterrent, in the same way that joking about torture would get universal censure. However, that rape and violent assault are treated so differently when they share so many similar characteristics is still an odd quirk. It would be interesting to look at the historical portrayal of both to see if the disparity is indeed a recent phenomenon.

Original post by Misovlogos

Rape is not insignificantly the product of systematic linguistic practices within a given community (i.e. how the female subject, gender and sexuality are conceptualised). Murder happens for a whole range of reasons which, in the Western world, are usually isolated or criminal. To invoke the word rape in banal instances, such as the result of a football team, is at potential fault for two reasons: (i) it normalises rapes in common linguistic practice, albeit subtly; (ii) it effects psychological harm in rape or sexual abuse victims. To do the same to murder, is marginally culpable for the latter, although two things are relevant: victims of murder are, obviously dead; there are, in the Western world, significantly less instances of murder than rape.

Far too sophist an argument: violent assault does both i) ("e.g. I'll beat the living **** out of that guy") and ii) and there are significantly more cases of violent assault than rape, and the victim is not (usually) dead either.

Reply 67

Chicken.M.

Never knew about the whole 'rape joke' thing until I found TSR. Used to say it all the time on video games. "Ya just got raped mate." "1v1 me I'll rape ya mate."

But ye I'm gonna carry on saying it because the attitude towards it on here is ridiculous lmao. And to the OP. "ya just got killed son" doesn't sound as catchy as "ya just got raped son"

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 68

MostUncivilised

Original post by Jordooooom

If a straight male was raped by another man then there would be a far greater deal of shame than if it was a female or homosexual victim.

Nonsense. You seem to be confusing actual shame with what a bunch of Zoo-reading lads might think. Big difference

Reply 69

MostUncivilised

Original post by TolerantBeing

Well obviously it's personal. Just because you feel that way, doesn't mean everyone else does, or should.

I'm not telling people what they should feel, I'm telling them what they do feel but seem to think they need to say that being raped is worse.

It is utter crap; actually faced with the choice no-one would choose to die.

Reply 70

MostUncivilised

Original post by fojodef

on me like some retarded relative or if i had children maybe id think twice. but at the moment if i was to die nothings gonna be affected other than family n friends being upset.

I'm sorry, I just don't believe you. Maybe you think you would choose death over rape, but I simply do not believe you'd make the same choice in that moment.

Unless someone is suicidal, the instinct to survive is far too strong

Reply 71

fojodef

Original post by MostUncivilised

its not strange for men to fight, kill and die over honour.

Reply 72

MostUncivilised

Original post by fojodef

its not strange for men to fight, kill and die over honour.

What is this, the 19th century? When was the last time two men duelled over honour?

Reply 73

fojodef

Original post by MostUncivilised

What is this, the 19th century? When was the last time two men duelled over honour?

duelled? thats the 19th century twist you've put on it yourself.
fight? stab? shoot? yea.
I've heard of and experienced 1st hand many incidents of people getting violently attacked in the name of pride, respect, honour or keep from being stripped of dignity.

it happens quite a lot.
prisons full of people like that.

go to hospital on a friday/saturday night. speak to anyone that works in areas where they would see this type of behaviour like police, paramedics and doormen.

or maybe even just go out on the town n see this stuff yourself.

Reply 74

MostUncivilised

Original post by fojodef

it happens quite a lot.
prisons full of people like that

go to hospital on a friday/saturday night. speak to anyone that works in areas where they would see this type of behaviour like police, paramedics and doormen.

As I said to Jordooom, there is a profound difference between, "You slept with my daughter, sir. I challenge you to a duel" and "You looked at my girl you ****in poofter, come 'ere" smash, bang, crash.

The former is driven by genuine outrage and injury to one's honour and standing, the latter is drunk plebs doing what drunk plebs do. Besides, to act on a matter of honour, you actually have to be an honourable person, a person of substance, in the first place.

or maybe even just go out on the town n see this stuff yourself

I've seen plenty of fights (though admittedly far less since I came to London, far more in Sydney where I am from) on nights out on the town. But these were hardly matters of honour, these were drunk ********s looking for any reason for a punch up

Reply 75

MostUncivilised

Original post by fojodef

or maybe even just go out on the town n see this stuff yourself.

I also thought I'd add, I can certainly understand why in some cases in history a man might choose death over being raped. Say you were a Roman patrician who had been fighting the battlefields of the Empire. Even better, say you were Coriolanus, and Aufidius was going to rape you.

I can understand killing yourself to deny your greatest enemy the satisfaction, to choose death over dishonour of that kind.

But it seems like pretentious posing for a young 20/21 yr old in 21st century Britain, tapping away on his keyboard, or indeed having a punch up on the pier at Blackpool, to say his honour is so profoundly important to him that he would kill himself before being raped.

Better men than you have been raped. TE Lawrence, for one. And he wrote about it in his autobiography, he was raped by a Turk. He was not shamed for this, and he lived in a much more judgmental and honour-oriented time.

Reply 76

fojodef

Original post by MostUncivilised

Really? Prison? I doubt those scumbags even know the meaning of the word honour. If you're the kind crim who goes around robbing people's houses, and then in prison someone looks at you funny and you consider your honour has been injured, that is not in fact a matter of honour, it being a sanctimonious, self-righteous prat who obviously just wants to attack people.

As I said to Jordooom, there is a profound difference between, "You slept with my daughter, sir. I challenge you to a duel" and "You looked at my girl you ****in poofter, come 'ere" smash, bang, crash.

The former is driven by genuine outrage and injury to one's honour and standing, the latter is drunk plebs doing what drunk plebs do. Besides, to act on a matter of honour, you actually have to be an honourable person, a person of substance, in the first place.

I've seen plenty of fights (though admittedly far less since I came to London, far more in Sydney where I am from) on nights out on the town. But these were hardly matters of honour, these were drunk ********s looking for any reason for a punch up

ok perhaps the word honour is something that should put aside as its flexible use and loaded meaning is distracting from the point im making.

to use a better word. justice. people no matter who logical or insane they are often when engaging in violence do so because they feel justified to do so. the rest of the world might think they are d***head but they in their own warped sense think they are justified. now thats something that is shared by both your 19th century duelling man and the rabid meat head looking to pick fights to raise his self esteem. both feel justified in their actions. society however may differ.

if someone decides to think your an easy target, picks on you and demands you submit to them for say, stepping on their shoe whilst they square up to you, expecting you to cave in and apologise. would you apologise and submit? or on principle would you stand up to him and in doing so start a fight?

Reply 77

Chicken.M.

lol at people saying they'd rather die than have sex

Reply 78

MostUncivilised

Original post by fojodef

to use a better word. justice. people no matter who logical or insane they are often when engaging in violence do so because they feel justified to do so. the rest of the world might think they are d***head but they in their own warped sense think they are justified. now thats something that is shared by both your 19th century duelling man and the rabid meat head looking to pick fights to raise his self esteem. both feel justified in their actions. society however may differ

if someone decides to think your an easy target, picks on you and demands you submit to them for say, stepping on their shoe whilst they square up to you, expecting you to cave in and apologise. would you apologise and submit? or on principle would you stand up to him and in doing so start a fight?

Yes, of course I would fight. What I wouldn't do is say, "Instead of letting him stomp on my foot, I'm going to kill myself so he doesn't have the pleasure". It's simply a matter of degree.

The idea that you would kill yourself to deny him the "pleasure" is bizarre. There seemed to be something in saying a man would kill himself after he was raped, because he simply wasn't resilient enough to deal with it, he lacked the fortitude and it ruined him. But to kill yourself just so someone can't commit a lesser crime against you? Ludicrous.

And, as I have said, I simply do not think you would actually choose that in the moment. The human instinct to survive is too strong, and all the citing of the fact that plebs fight each other on the weekend has almost nothing to do with whether someone would choose to die over this. They wouldn't, I feel quite comfortable in saying that they wouldn't do so.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 79

fojodef

Original post by MostUncivilised

I don't say all duels were justified, some were from utterly horrible men who would take offence at the smallest slight (just like these dickheads you mentioned).

So what if these violent idiots feel justified in their actions? They are dickheads. What do their actions have to do with honour, as opposed to being a knobhead? There seems an obvious difference between "You slept with my daughter, duel" and "You looked at me funny". Just because they are angry, poorly educated oiks doesn't provide any objective justification

Yes, of course I would fight. What I wouldn't do is say, "Instead of letting him stomp on my foot, I'm going to kill myself so he doesn't have the pleasure". It's simply a matter of degree.

The idea that you would kill yourself to deny him the "pleasure" is bizarre. There seemed to be something in saying a man would kill himself after he was raped, because he simply wasn't resilient enough to deal with it, he lacked the fortitude and it ruined him. But to kill yourself just so someone can't commit a lesser crime against you? Ludicrous.

And, as I have said, I simply do not think you would actually choose that in the moment. The human instinct to survive is too strong, and all the citing of the fact that plebs fight each other on the weekend has almost nothing to do with whether someone would choose to die over this. They wouldn't, I feel quite comfortable in saying that they wouldn't do so.