It Was "like" A Cult...but It Wasn't A Cult

[StellaBlue]

I agree that normalizing something in society will lead to it becoming more acceptable. As you say, the changing of gay people into being a norm rather than a weird outlier definitely lead to the less homophobic society we have now. But that said, I believe the "I'm going to rape you" in relation to a video game is used as a hyperbolic expression of dominance and degradation, and it is thus like many rape jokes, predicated on the idea that rape is something shocking and terrible

I am quoting your entire post, because it confuses me. I see a real disconnect between your first paragraph, where you seem to understand the difference between the "normalization" of the use of derogatory names for groups of people (where the intent - implicitly or explicitly - is to degrade the group or individual) and the use words that describe violent actions out of context (where the intent - again implicitly or explicitly) is to be extreme.

I would argue that, historically, the "normalization" of derogatory terms used to describe marginalized people actually comes from those groups themselves as a means of empowerment - of taking back the language. (Hence, the entire debate over why blacks can call themselves niggers but it's offensive when a white person does it).

But then you say that the only way to reduce the usage of the word rape to describe things that are not rape is to consider it not to be humiliating, dominating, or particularly negative in any way - except it is. I guess I can understand this from the point-of-view that, typically, the term "murder" doesn't carry with it the same sense of violation and humiliation that rape does (although I would argue that it does).

Like @joeylittle, I believe the words we chose to use have huge implications in terms of what we believe, individually, culturally and as a society as a whole.

I think, in the end, there are a couple of factors on how to deal with folks who use the term rape (or other terms) in a way that one might feel belittles actual victims. They are the relationship and the context. So, using the example of the cousin given by the OP - one might gently say - "it sounds to me like the words you want are violated and disappointed not raped." This opens the door to further conversation and understanding.

 

[Abstract]

@Ragdoll Circus

There is a huge difference between using points of similarity to further your own understanding -hell, any help I can get, from any quarter- and the co-opting / assumption of a thing which is not my own. All that does is muddy already turbulent waters. On both sides.

This is very well said and represents what I believe too. The whole of it.

Ragdoll Circus,
How are you feeling about processing your trauma in this sense? No pressure to answer. That's the important thing in this thread.

 

[Sideways]

@Abstract - I'm still swinging back and forth a bit.

I think, in my case, I would green-light the statement "Some of the elements of my abuse where like you'd see in a cult". I think that's factually true, important for me to quit avoiding, and I'm grateful to the members who have said they're not picking up bad mojo from my saying that.

But in a general sense, watering that down to "it was like a cult" - that's not true. And I think I'm uncomfortable with that. I think it would be fair if some cult survivors found that offensive. But it's borderline unhelpful to me and my recovery as well. Recognising overlap with cult survivors is, I'm thinking, quite a different thing to throwing myself in their camp and using their labels. What I experienced was one on one, not a whole group endorsing and practising the abuse. Different dynamic entirely, and the "group" is pretty core to the very definition of a cult.

Small elements like that, I think, are actually really relevant. Overlap is helpful, but recognising what was different is probably just as important. To everyone. Me, cult survivors, and socially.

And I reserve the right to wake up tomorrow and decide that everything I just wrote is dumb, wrong, and not at all my opinion!

 

[Abstract]

I understand the points you are making and they are legitimate. A group would absolutely complicate some things for the person, I do agree with what others have said about time and place as well. I think its appropriate to be very conservative with language when speaking to someone who has experiences that exactly match the words. Not everyone will be offended but some might. For me "was like" when we are talking about types of apples is neither co-opting others labels nor is it throwing oneself in the camp. The very words specify that it is outside the camp but that there are elements that are similar. There are a lot in your situation. If there weren't then it would be totally different. You have to feel what is right for you though.

"Some of the elements of my abuse where like you'd see in a cult"

This seems helpful. To me "was like" is a shorthand for the same thing but if being more specific helps you then that's fine. It's fine to swing a bit before you settle. JUst don't let overthinking block your recovery. I know I have done and do that a lot.

 

[shimmerz]

Many of us with a mixture of developmental trauma (preverbal especially) and crazy insane situations, grapple for words to use. Because there are no words. So I was encouraged to use 'ish' and 'feels like'. It is part of the healing process in learning how to express stuff.

Most of the work I did with my T was about reframing the brainwashing that happened when I was young. How I confused love with being shifted from abusive home to abusive home. They attempt to give us a better understanding of how the gaslighting, the screwed up sense of normal, the word games that were played with us, as negatively affecting us.

When we get to concepts that have been presented by the psychiatric industry, and they don't necessarily fit our situation, we grasp for pieces that fit our particular situation. It is a process. And we don't always fit into the box that researchers have presented. It is confusing. It is painful.

We have dealt with invalidation all of our lives. So much so that we buy into it because it is next to impossible to figure out what actually happened to us without the support of others. Ish's and feels likes, were the path that I used to get to what has actually been driving my decision making and behaviours all of my life and it has been really helpful to me in correcting it.

When I am not ready to grasp onto a concept, then yes, denial is a great substitution. Or looking for reasons why it couldn't have been this or that. I have learned that if something feels (my T used to call it resonates) with me, that there is most likely some truth in it, but that it was an exploratory process.

I am not so certain that those of us who are exploring avenues have to be dead on correct when using terminology - understanding that yes, there were things that were eerily similar to XXX but not exactly the same.

I feel like this ramming of 'facts' down someone's throat if it doesn't fit exactly as presented, is invalidating to those of us who are exploring these concepts to see how much fits into our experience and how to move forward from there. It is not meant, in any way as an invalidation of others' experience. And I think if it brings feelings of invalidation to others, then that speaks to an issue with that person. My healing path is different from others. I am not sure how insisting an experience doesn't apply to someone is, in and of itself factual. Who is anyone here to tell anyone else whether something is true about their lives or not?

I have been working on language for 10 years. I am still not there yet. If someone's only words that come to them from an experience is 'it felt like rape' when, in fact, it wasn't rape .... perhaps some tolerance for the fact that they don't know how rape feels and don't have a repository of proper words to express what was obviously a really disturbing situation for them wouldn't be a bad thing. I am not certain how being offended helps in the situation. Maybe helping them to express more clearly and with compassion would be a better solution.

 

[Abstract]

Shimmerz, I agree with most of what you said here. Especially about the grasping for words expressing impossible feelings/concepts and the invalidation and denial.

I will add though that I think its unhelpful and potentially invalidating to say that people shouldn't be offended by extreme random use of topics like rape. Or use of anything that does offend them. Offence is usually mostly about ourselves and not the other person and it may not be productive on a personal level to feel offended and it may potentially be unhelpful for the person doing it (as apposed to setting them straight) but feelings when it comes to trauma are what they are and are legitimate. If people feel offended then there are reasons for that. Feelings are not about whether something is productive or not, they just are. Working our way towards what is most helpful tends to be a process in my opinion.

I suspect feeling invalidated when it comes to anything relating to trauma tends to be about previous chronic invalidation, lack of feeling heard, continued relentless lack of understanding and judgement from others, and lack of a voice or words when it comes to these concepts or feelings (whether it be on a personal or global level). Both feeling offended because of others use of terms and feeling muzzled when trying to put words to feelings and difficult concepts can bring up those feelings of invalidation. To me they are two sides of the same coin. When we are only talking about apples. Somehow I think we have to flexibly try to honour both. To my mind they are both legitimate and real. Personally, bouncing from one of these to the other has hindered my recovery. Just my take.

 

[shimmerz]

Agreed @Abstract, it is a tough call when dealing with invalidation. I think much of that comes from our troubled pasts. Many people don't need external validation. Aren't so reliant on it. That feeling of invalidation, for me is a sign that I am not processing something correctly.

 

[Air]

I am quoting your entire post, because it confuses me. I see a real disconnect between your first paragraph, where you seem to understand the difference between the "normalization" of the use of derogatory names for groups of people (where the intent - implicitly or explicitly - is to degrade the group or individual) and the use words that describe violent actions out of context (where the intent - again implicitly or explicitly) is to be extreme.

Well it's precisely because it's always the connotation of the term that changes the way it affects people. When we use the term gay to describe something stupid or undesirable, we are implying gay is stupid and undesirable. When we use the term rape to describe something involving domination and degradation, we are implying rape is something that involves domination and degradation. I mean when we use terms like "they murdered them", "they were annihilated", "he destroyed him", "that match was carnage", etc... we are doing the same thing, and the only reason those terms make sense is because of the severe negative connotation. No one wants to murder the other team, they don't want to tear their bodies up, but we still use this blatant exaggeration with no problems. If the terms were "wow they totally soaked the other team" or "he totally hugged him in last night's match" it just wouldn't carry the same connotation. Words have to have strong negative connotations to make sense in these kinds of phrases.

I guess I can understand this from the point-of-view that, typically, the term "murder" doesn't carry with it the same sense of violation and humiliation that rape does (although I would argue that it does).

I think it carries more of a connotation of that because rape is a more personal crime. I mean if you murder someone you can do it out of necessity, in war or self-defense, but I can't come up with a realistic situation where someone would rape another person without being a total piece of shit. I've heard debates that go on for ages and get extremely heated over whether rape is worse than murder but I really don't think that matters, it's certainly a violating and severe crime either way.

 

[Ronin]

rape is a more personal crime.

You have clearly no experience with murder, or killing as is.

Which is where I leave this.

 

[Air]

You have clearly no experience with murder, or killing as is.

Which is where I leave this.

Well you can accidentally kill someone. You can hit them with a car, you can do it on impulse, it's faster, etc... Rape requires deliberation, it requires an sustained attempt to continue, you (in almost all cases) would not rape someone and then feel regret as soon as you finished. From their end it is certainly more personal. You can be killed from a distance and not know who did it, you can be poisoned and not even know you were murdered, even if someone shoots you face to face the amount of time they spend committing the crime is lower. You certainly can murder someone in a way that would be as personal and as deliberate as rape or more so, but it is definitely not required.

If we want to go this route, I can say that you can't argue either way unless you have both raped someone and murdered someone.

 

[Ronin]

The amount of time on anything has zero bearing on how personal it is, or is not.

What makes you believe any of your listed accidents or long distance acts are by default non personal?

Apples and oranges. A method of anything and purpose and intent and proximity and gazillion things all mixed up, that have very little to do with one another.

 

[joeylittle]

Spoiler: Off topic to the main content, on-topic to the language debate

Murder has only been an oath and slang for longer, is all. Doesn't make it right, just makes it older.
Annihilate has never been slang, and it's not a word for a crime, or a slur, or anything. It doesn't fit the examples.
Rape has become 'slang' very recently. I predict it will lose it's power as a word, the more it becomes slang for 'beat' or 'triumph over'
Gay has been reversed, there is more awareness now - not everyone, but many.
Retarded is one that seems cultural. I notice the people from AUS and NZ use it as a derogatory. Fewer people from the US, but some. I believe in Britan the equivalent is 'Spaz' (?). They all mean 'stupid/backwards' as slang, but, like 'gay', it became slang It was a short form of retarded development', what we now call 'developmentally delayed', because the slang meaning either couldn't be reversed, or people didn't feel like bothering.
Using 'God' or 'Jesus Christ' as an oath devalues it's meaning, perverts it, even - so says the churches who believe in Jesus and God.

Holocaust is a wonderful example - the origin of the word translates into 'completely burnt offering by fire' (greek/hebrew roots). It was being used to mean mass destruction or slaughter (by fire) as early as the 18th century. The Holocaust (capital H) now refers to the mass slaughter of the Jewish people under the Nazi regime. It was first associated with the Nazi party after a book burning they held in 1933 (holocaust of books), but achieved its full meaning following the mass slaughter of the Jewish people and destroying of synagogues over 2 days, nov. 1938 (Kristallnacht). Eventually The Holocaust was adopted by the UN as the proper title for the whole sweep of the atrocities of the Nazi party. When a sportscaster calls a sweeping sports victory 'a holocaust' (as in, annihilation) - it's considered by many to be in very poor taste at best. If 'holocaust' became slang for something other than its full meaning (like 'rape'), would that be problematic, or just a sign of the times? My opinion - problematic. Others might say - sign of the times. The point of the paragraph was not so much to say what is right or wrong, but to provide a parallel, concrete example of how meaning changes over time - and I would disagree that it's to do with intent. I believe it's to do with usage, only.