Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fojodef)
    i never said i would kill myself. i said i would fight to the death.
    And if you had to choose death or rape? Say the rapist has subdued you, and he says either I can rape you, or I can slit your throat now. Which do you want?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    And if you had to choose death or rape? Say the rapist has subdued you, and he says either I can rape you, or I can slit your throat now. Which do you want?
    lol i wouldn't participate in the choice.

    but if it was a case where i was a in a prison shower and 3 guys with knives said they were gonna rape me or im dead i would fight them with the hope that they have to kill me to subdue me.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    this is a very valid point

    Given that the audience for any celebrity joke (disclaimer: neither comment in the OP is a joke) will likely include both victims and perpetrators of the crime it may be we're more shocked/repulsed by trivialised comment re rape over murder because noone wants to sympathise with rapists.

    Most murderers don't kill for their own pleasure. While many rapes are not about sex per se most rapists will derive pleasure from the act.

    I think that adds a level of disgust to rape that isn't there for murder.

    Disclaimer: points above are about the general PERCEPTIONS of the 2 crimes/victims/perpetrators. Perceptions does not equate to reality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fojodef)
    lol i wouldn't participate in the choice.
    That's not how this game works, and if you'd truly rather death over rape, then you would choose to let him kill you every time. I thought you weren't afraid of death and you prefer it over rape, so what is the problem? If things are as simple as you say, then you shouldn't be avoiding the question.

    Throughout history, when invading armies have besieged a city and after a long and bitter fight they are about to break through the gates, the noblewomen would take the dagger and end their own life rather than allow the enemy horde to rape them. Why aren't you taking the option they did?

    but if it was a case where i was a in a prison shower and 3 guys with knives said they were gonna rape me or im dead i would fight them with the hope that they have to kill me to subdue me.
    What if they subdue you by holding you down face first, and then they rape you. Would you then kill yourself in the aftermath in order to follow up your preference for death over "dishonour"?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    That's not how this game works, and if you'd truly rather death over rape, then you would choose to let him kill you every time. I thought you weren't afraid of death and you prefer it over rape, so what is the problem?

    exactly. in the first scenario he could do either. by giving me the choice hes toying with me. its a power thing. by choosing your accepting he is in control.

    What if they subdue you by holding you down face first, and then they rape you. Would you then kill yourself in the aftermath in order to follow up your preference for death over "dishonour"?
    if they subdue me then so be it. theyve bested me.
    i wouldnt kill my self in the aftermath. the whole death is BEFORE dishonour. i dont see much point in the japanese harikiri/seppoku system of being disgraced and then killing yourself. if they succeeded in the rape and didnt kill me after then i would get revenge. not self destruct.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fojodef)
    if they subdue me then so be it. theyve bested me.
    i wouldnt kill my self in the aftermath. the whole death is BEFORE dishonour. i dont see much point in the japanese harikiri/seppoku system of being disgraced and then killing yourself. if they succeeded in the rape and didnt kill me after then i would get revenge. not self destruct.
    I completely agree with all you've said there, and I couldn't agree more on the issue of revenge. Thus, I find the "fight to the death" attitude still somewhat puzzling.

    Given you have accepted that if they subdued you and raped you, afterwards you would be resilient enough to bounce back, to take your revenge, and so on. So why not take that approach generally?

    I mean, I certainly say fight a rapist off to the best of your ability, but when you get to the point of diminishing returns (say they have a huge knife, and you fighting will almost certainly result in your death), then I think being subdued rather than having them slice you open is better
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MC armani)
    x
    Never said there was so few.

    I understand that the dead are dead, and they don't have the chance to make their live better for themselves like other victims have the chance.
    Just, that a rape victim and their family have to live through what's happened, plus, rape victims are grieving because they too have lost out, but murder has been glamourised so much it's not taken so seriously. It's like the growing trend of romanticising self harm and mental illness, and soon enough that'll be a joke like everything else.

    im sorry if my "opinion" wasn't well thought out from the point I was trying to make or wasn't up to TSRs standards.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    I completely agree with all you've said there, and I couldn't agree more on the issue of revenge. Thus, I find the "fight to the death" attitude still somewhat puzzling.

    Given you have accepted that if they subdued you and raped you, afterwards you would be resilient enough to bounce back, to take your revenge, and so on. So why not take that approach generally?

    I mean, I certainly say fight a rapist off to the best of your ability, but when you get to the point of diminishing returns (say they have a huge knife, and you fighting will almost certainly result in your death), then I think being subdued rather than having them slice you open is better
    i guess its to do with dignity. id rather go out in some blaze of glory than be subdued. but if im already subdued and the blaze of glory option has been taken away then i search for more pragmatic means of revenge.

    1st choice would be whoop all the guys asses
    2nd would be hold my own enough so that they lose taste for the fight
    3rd would be me doing some william wallace meets remember the alamo stuff fight to the death stuff.
    4th would be the unavoidable defeat and a slow bitter revenge plan that always risks never germinating.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fojodef)
    i guess its to do with dignity. id rather go out in some blaze of glory than be subdued. but if im already subdued and the blaze of glory option has been taken away then i search for more pragmatic means of revenge.

    1st choice would be whoop all the guys asses
    2nd would be hold my own enough so that they lose taste for the fight
    3rd would be me doing some william wallace meets remember the alamo stuff fight to the death stuff.
    4th would be the unavoidable defeat and a slow bitter revenge plan that always risks never germinating.
    I am fullly on board with options 1, 2 and 4. I just think that if you were faced by a group of really tough, hard guys who had machetes, and they were waving them around menacingly, and if you even got close to them you would be chopped, then I simply don't think you would run into the chopping blades.

    Instinct would not allow you to do that to yourself
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LadyEcliptic)
    [SIZE=2]

    Never said there was so few.
    What does this even mean?

    I understand that the dead are dead, and they don't have the chance to make their live better for themselves like other victims have the chance.
    Just, that a rape victim and their family have to live through what's happened, plus, rape victims are grieving because they too have lost out, but murder has been glamourised so much it's not taken so seriously. It's like the growing trend of romanticising self harm and mental illness, and soon enough that'll be a joke like everything else.
    And a murder victim's family doesn't have to live through what's happened? And in what parallel universe is mental illness romanticised? Come on now.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    “Either Everything’s Okay Or Nothing Is”
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I think this is a new phenomenon. For instance, consider this story from a few months ago of a Conservative councillor condemned for using rape in an analogy. What's weird about this story is that the councillor was a woman, but what makes it much less weird is that she is over 60. Her remark was clearly intended in the sense of wry resignation, like "If you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite." - not intended as a serious endorsement of cheerful and good-mannered murder! Unfortunately, she didn't realise the social context had changed and it is no longer taken for granted that anyone, even a respected woman in a position of authority, is not actually in favour of rape.

    And I've got to agree with Cllr Driver that this modern phenomenon is unusual, if not downright creepy. It hasn't arisen in response to a movement to legalise or normalise rape; if anything, heterosexual conduct is a lot more repressed today that it was in the 60s or 70s, at least in practice if not in law, as the recent abuse trials have shown. Rather, it is being used by a rigid moralising movement as a weapon with which to bludgeon its enemies on unrelated social issues.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Den Haag)
    I am talking about cases where it doesn't involve prisoners and situations where making the same joke about a woman would be completely unaaceptable. Just look at the male rape scene in Deliverance, it's the gold standard for ''LOL male rape is funny''. Would never happen if the victim was a woman.

    And do you watch ''Loose women'' and other similar shows in both US and UK? If there were similar shows that had 1% of the vileness and ''banter'' but this time addressed to the other sex, they'd be pulled off the air the same week it started.
    What? The Deliverance rape scene is supposed to be horrifying, not funny. If you think they intended that scene to be funny then you're the one with the problem.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Last timeI saw Deliverance was a few years ago on BBC1.
    As a matter of interest, do you think the rape scene would be shown, the way it is, if it was a woman being raped, with the victim sqealing like a pig as instructed, as she is raped, on BBC1 at 10pm?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MC armani)
    What does this even mean?



    And a murder victim's family doesn't have to live through what's happened? And in what parallel universe is mental illness romanticised? Come on now.
    A) responding to your first reply

    B) have you never seen the posts on tumblr?
    Of course a murder victims family has to live through it, I never said they didn't.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    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.
    That's very uncharitable of you; my argument is logically coherent, contend the premises if you like (which you don't explicitly). (i) as stated very clearly, I take the rules constitutive of prevailing language to systematically gender social relations in such a way as to be conducive to rape; the same cannot generally be said for murder in this country, which is archetypally individualised (i.e. personal feuds); (ii) violent assault doesn't generally implicate the life-long psychological trauma and damage that rape does. Of course, as stated before, murder jokes - and indeed violent assault moreso - are culpable for a degree of psychological harm.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I think this is a new phenomenon. For instance, consider this story from a few months ago of a Conservative councillor condemned for using rape in an analogy. What's weird about this story is that the councillor was a woman, but what makes it much less weird is that she is over 60. Her remark was clearly intended in the sense of wry resignation, like "If you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite." - not intended as a serious endorsement of cheerful and good-mannered murder! Unfortunately, she didn't realise the social context had changed and it is no longer taken for granted that anyone, even a respected woman in a position of authority, is not actually in favour of rape.

    And I've got to agree with Cllr Driver that this modern phenomenon is unusual, if not downright creepy. It hasn't arisen in response to a movement to legalise or normalise rape; if anything, heterosexual conduct is a lot more repressed today that it was in the 60s or 70s, at least in practice if not in law, as the recent abuse trials have shown. Rather, it is being used by a rigid moralising movement as a weapon with which to bludgeon its enemies on unrelated social issues.
    Not really, it's a culmination of the linguistic turn that's been going on in philosophy and social theory over the course of the last century, if not longer; language is no longer seen as unproblematic or apolitical, but as a site of social power.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Misovlogos)
    Not really, it's a culmination of the linguistic turn that's been going on in philosophy and social theory over the course of the last century, if not longer; language is no longer seen as unproblematic or apolitical, but as a site of social power.
    That's not new; language was used to acquire and secure political power by the Greeks, Babylonians, and if your definition is broad enough, even by cats and rodents.

    So the change is that some people now think there is a pro-rape movement that they need to counter. Is that a reality, or a paranoid conspiracy theory like "reds under the bed"? If the latter, which is the side really using language to wield power over others here?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckingalt)
    Rape is a crime in which the victims continue to suffer through shame and humiliation long after the assault occurs. The added stigma towards rape jokes, is a result of a "social conscience", which seeks to discourage any behavior that potentially contributes to that enduring humiliation and shame.

    Murder victims require no such protection.
    Perhaps, but then surely rape jokes would be more comparable to jokes about torture or castration?

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Obviously, we're dealing with quite morbid humour here.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    That's not new; language was used to acquire and secure political power by the Greeks, Babylonians, and if your definition is broad enough, even by cats and rodents.

    So the change is that some people now think there is a pro-rape movement that they need to counter. Is that a reality, or a paranoid conspiracy theory like "reds under the bed"? If the latter, which is the side really using language to wield power over others here?
    Firstly, my point was that concern for language as a site of social power is not unusual in any ordinary sense, but the culmination of a philosophical consensus borne out over the last century. It should not warrant clarification, although it does here given that you appear to fundamentally misconstrue the point, that this is a question of people becoming aware of - or valorising as a subject of intellectual concern - certain aspects of language in a particular way, not those aspects of language being new in and of themselves. As such, it is a patent strawman to say that the linguistic turn is nothing new given the historical social power of language. The question is one of a particular conceptualisation and approach to language, which is local to the last century (although anomalous traces can be found, most of all in Herder's critique of Kant), and has thus had effects previously absent. No one denies that the nature of language has not relevantly changed, and thus those aspects of power now conceived preceded their current conceptualisation.

    Secondly, it is an empty caricature to impute the belief of a 'pro-rape movement' to those who acknowledge role of language and intersubjectivity in structuring thought and action. Firstly, no one thinks there a unified mass of persons subordinate to a formal structure, adhering to broad doctrines and conceiving of themselves as a movement. Secondly, no one thinks that people party to gendered language and social relations generally have intention or preference for rape; they merely think them implicated in a systematic linguistic context which perpetuates those practices. For those reasons, I think very few people conceptualise the problem as a 'pro-rape movement'.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.