In this post, tomndebb accurately summarizes the comments that led to my reporting Lib for calling me (if symbolically) a rapist. He acknowledges that Lib is old enough to know of the sexual meaning to the term (indeed, I, at 30, haven’t heard of any other meaning to the term), and that Lib’s subsequent reference to orgasms “clearly indicates the older sexual meaning.”
If he was clearly indicating the older sexual meaning–a meaning having to do with rape–how on earth was he not calling me and priceguy rapists?
Great Debates rules explicitly forbid referring to the sexual gratification of other posters. How on earth is this not in violation of that rule?
It’s your forum to moderate, tomndebb, but sheesh. What am I missing?
He says it’s “more likely a mixed metaphor than an accusation of rape.” My understanding of the rules is that:
I may not call someone “pigfucker” in great debates even as a metaphor, because it’s an insult; and
I may not call someone “pigfucker” in great debates even as a metaphor, because it’s making a metaphorical comment about the sexual proclivities of another poster.
I’m not sure why saying that someone is participating in a gang bang would be any less verboten. Yes, his response seems clear; no, it doesn’t seem to conform to the rules of the forum. It’s the latter that confuses me.
I was not worked up about the thread, contrary to how it may seem, until the gang-bang comment came along. That’s not ill-advised: that’s loathsome, and I’d hoped I wouldn’t be subject to that shit anywhere on these boards, much less in Great Debates.
It was a metaphorical use. It was not actually accusing you of being a rapist.
Lib is very deliberate in the words that he chooses, however. I cannot imagine that he was unaware of the sexual connotations of both comments and to suggest that he had anything else in mind seems disingenuous to me. That is only my opinion. I cannot know his motives. I suggest you ask him straight out which metaphor he had in mind at the time.
I have not read the thread and do not know what other comments have been exchanged. Those particular comments from Lib do not seem to me to be in keeping with the rules of GD as I understand them, but who can argue with the advice that ensued? Wasn’t that more important than who’s right or wrong?
Zoe, I understand it was metaphorical, and I’m pretty sure it’s clear from what tomndebb quoted that I understood that.
Lib is extremely careful in his use of language. He is deceitful with it all the time; his response to my anger at his metaphor was to imply that he was saying something else–clearly absurd, but he uses language to obfuscate when it serves him.
The advice that ensued was fine. I am puzzled and concerned, however, by what seems to be a relaxation in the rules of Great Debates in an area where I very much do not want to see a relaxation.
You were told what you were missing, you just didn’t want to hear it.
A gang-bang is not a rape, and I have never heard it used in association with rape. And I’m 29 years old. A gang bang is nothing more or less than some chick getting tagged by an indeterminate number of men. How does that constitute rape in any way, shape, or form?
You’re acting like he called you a murderer. From someone who was called a murderer in GD (and the offender got away with it, with moderator approval), my advice to you is to calm down.
Most posters would likely argue that rape is not a form of sexual gratification (the power/domination theory) and thus, in a trial before SD peers, Lib would skate on a technicality.
This sounds like a tempest in a chamberpot to me.
Maybe some nice green tea?
I’ve always heard it as sexual, though not always as rape. (“Bishop jumps queen!”)
I remember feeling very confused when I first heard the term in reference to gang activities. Still am, actually, but I first heard it in Salt Lake, in mixed company. No one batted an eye, which confused me even more.
It’s a silly term for anything but intercourse, IMO.
Well, maybe I’m overreacting. I still cannot see how there’s another plausible reading beyond the one I made, given the context, but since so many other folks are seeing a plausible alternate reading, I’ll let it go.
Good point. If the intent was to evoke the “group of men having sex with a single woman, consensually” version then you’d expect orgasms on both sides, wouldn’t you?
Wikipedia (I know, not the most reliable source, but still) says the original usage was descriptive of rape.
And to add to our survey data, I’m 39, male, from Minnesota, and the original meaning of the term as I understood it was non-consensual sex with one woman and many men.
For anyone interested, I was using gang bang to mean pile-on, which I thought was clearly expressed in this post:
“I physically can’t keep up with two to one posting, and you know it. Why don’t you use your much lauded majoritarianism to pick a spokesman? Or is it good for nothing but gang banging?”.
The metaphor was “orgasm”. In other words, he seemed to be enjoying the pile-on.
NY/30 Multiple men, one woman, ‘all night long.’ Not in and of itself rape, but it takes a really screwed up kind of woman to enjoy it. Mostly either (stereotypically) biker mamas or cheerleaders.
if you doubt it’s current generally accepted meaning… download some porn, and you’ll find that it’s quite consentual… … not that i ever download porn :dubious: