since we're talking rape, just semantics, mind you. Not judging here.

So I read about the sicko mom who seduced her own kid. Ptui. Yuck. Rotten mom. Poor kid. But it got me thinking about the word rape again. The news media call it rape. Sounds like she seduced and deceived him. Not a happy scenario by any means, but not violent.

I think of rape as a violent word, like knifing. So when it's used in that case and with "statutory rape" it just seems a bit.....off. Like there should be another word for what goes on in those cases.

I wonder if someone who's been raped as in forced by someone to have sex against her (or his) will reads about statutory rape and thinks, that's not rape. It just doesn't share anything with the violent act of rape except sex and (sometimes) taking advantage of another (0ccasionally weaker) person.

Or is it like the word "thief" which could mean anything from someone stealing your half-eaten candy bar to someone breaking into your house, beating you senseless and stealing everything you own? No, see, I didn't want to talk about degrees of harm because (especially if it's handled wrong) that first case really is horrible. But it doesn't seem like rape.

Anyway. Maybe there should probably be more words out there for this stuff. And maybe I should get to work.

Comments

  1. Anonymous6:13 PM

    The problem with interpreting "rape" as requiring violence though, is that it leaves it open for people to insist that any act that wasn't actively violent wasn't rape. Threats and coercion can be used to rape someone without physically hurting them. Or perhaps you're including those in your definition of "violent," I don't know. -- willaful

    ReplyDelete
  2. yeah, I think if there's any kind of noncooperation during the act--verbal, whatever-- calling it rape makes more sense than putting that label on these other incidents. They are often unpleasant and have bad consequences (although I refuse to denounce sex for the under 18 crowd) but just don't seem like they fit with that word.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's also a question of psychological violence, I think. I hadn't heard this story (talk about disturbing!) but I have to wonder how a mom managed to seduce her own kid. What kind of head games were happening there--and for how long?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous7:51 PM

    Okay. You officially have too much time on your hands! How did you even find this article? Surfing Fox News? ..........

    Argghhhhhhh. Kate, Kate, Kate.
    xxoo, WD

    ReplyDelete
  5. It popped up in my mailbox. I surely did NOT go looking for it. And why fox news is showing up there, I couldn't tell you. Probably some loop or another.

    Now freaking http://www.swoopo.com THAT is a place for people with too much time on their hands. I thought of you after I actually bought some damn fake money on this site. It's addictive to people with insomnia.

    hey, speaking of timewasting you introduced me to ebay, ya hore.

    xxoo I miss you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous1:40 PM

    Think! Without Consent. Violence is merely a tool to achieve the ends. And violence can take many forms NOT just physical.

    Also, consider the term violation.

    I am concerned on two fronts. Firstly, Sematics ARE important for clarity of what you are attempting to say. Semantics is 50% of the content. Syntax could be argued as contributing the other 50%.
    Meaning IS important.
    Secondly Are you really suggesting that it was seduction because it was a Woman??
    You might as well suggest the boy was asking for it!
    Now reverse the gender and re-run it. Then examine your own prejudices.

    You may detect some emotion in my reply because, yes, I was a similar victim.

    'Just' sematics?' Yeah, right.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Thursday 13 Things To Sign In Books