From: gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi)
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Man rapes Man
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:56:15 GMT
	<1993Jan4.163415.3330@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<GPRIORES.93Jan5113335@fish.oracle.com>
	<1993Jan6.001106.8530@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: Oracle Corp., Belmont CA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1993Jan6.001106.8530@midway.uchicago.edu> tb13@ellis.uchicago.edu (leon joel gross) writes:
> In article <GPRIORES.93Jan5113335@fish.oracle.com> gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan4.163415.3330@midway.uchicago.edu> tb13@ellis.uchicago.edu (leon joel gross) writes:
>>> [The word "gay" is] offensive for a variety
>>>of reasons for a variety of people. 
>>Tell that to the organizers of San Francisco's annual "Gay Pride" parade.
> Go back and read the context.
> It's offensive in this context; the context was one of calling a
>rape of a man by a man 'gay'. 

I thought you were objecting to the use of the word "gay" in
general, not specifically in the context of rape.

I stand by my statement in any case.


> Is the rapist gay?  Probably not.
> Is the victim gay?  Probably not.

If I remember the context correctly, the case cited was one of "gay
acquaintance rape"; I did assume that the principals were gay. It
doesn't matter, though:


> Is the act gay?  Probably not.

The act of sexual contact between two men, consensual or not, is by
definition homosexual, even if the participants are not. 


> I assume that gay people would be offended by calling a rape 'gay'.

Would I be offended if a rape were called "straight"? Probably not.


> And I assume that male survivors who are straight do not want to
>think of themselves as 'gay' or having participated in a 'gay'
>action.

They probably don't want to think of themselves as having been
sexually used by a man, either, but that doesn't change the fact that
they have.


> I never said the word 'gay' was offensive. The word 'Jew' is not
>offensive, but the description of banking fraud as 'jewish' is.

The description of rape in general as "gay" would be offensive (as
well as ridiculous). 

"Jewish" is an adjective that is not applicable to the act of fraud
itself; clearly, in describing a banking fraud as "Jewish" I would be
describing some person or organization involved, not the fraud itself.
Not so with rape. Describing a rape as "homosexual" or "gay" clarifies
the description of the act itself; it doesn't necessarily describe any
of the principals. I can describe exactly how the act of "gay" rape
differs from "regular" rape; I cannot do the same with "Jewish"
banking fraud.

Thus, it is semantically (if not politically) correct to use the term
"homosexual [or gay] rape".


> Too bad there is nothing in news.announce about teaching people
>to read and quote in context.

Too bad there is nothing in news.announce about teaching people not to
make silly, gratuitous inflammatory comments.


                                        Cordially,

                                             -g
Newsgroups: talk.rape,alt.politics.correct