At 02:42 PM 10/15/01 -0700, miroslav. wrote:
>I can see how that was offensive, and I will put a
>stop to it henceforth.
>
>One thing I will say in my defense: I didn't say
>*ANYTHING* about rape or any other words to create
>implications of unconsensual sexual behavior in my
>comment. To be honest, it hadn't even cross my mind
>when I wrote that (not much did). While my comment
>was sexist and immature...I insist on making it 100%
>clear that my motivations and principles are such that
>do NOT in any way shape or form approve of or take
>lightly the concept of someone actually being raped.
>Sometimes I'm stupid...but I don't deserve to be
>labeled as morally aligned with evil or cruelty.
>
>I'm done. I'm sorry.
>
>miroslav.
I suppose the entire concept of a "consensual gang-bang" is verboten to
some; I'd suggest they peruse the big-city personals ads sometime if they
believe that there is no such thing. And I'm sure that many would propose
that the women looking for such (ruling out the Annabel Chongs & Houstons,
& Jasmine St. Clairs of the world, who are clearly being economically
exploited and/or auto-exploited), w/or w/o the approval/encouragement of
their partners, are somehow "brainwashed".
Still, it seems like one should be able to discuss the concept of
"gang-bang" without being told one is making light of or condoning
rape. That's a bit of a leap.
And yes, the term has always had that meaning in the states. Then the term
"gang-banger" started being used (internally at first, I believe) amongst
various crip/blood-style units, which I always thought was kind of odd.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Oct 16 2001 - 00:32:31 CEST