Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 08-14-2019, 06:12 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
It’s not indistinguishable.
  #202  
Old 08-14-2019, 06:17 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I also interpret "I'd hit that" as carrying the implication that the "that" is an object of less-than-personhood status.

In my opinion "I'd have sex with her" can acknowledge that the object of desire is a human being, but I don't think this holds for all contexts. Specifically, if "her" refers to a random stranger on the street, and the statement was made solely based on her physical appearance, that the person making such remarks is not referring to "her" the living, breathing woman with thoughts and feelings and hopes and dreams. Instead the observer is referring to "her" the woman's attractive body, which is indistinguishable from "that" in "I'd hit that" if that sentence was used instead.

~Max
Um, based on the language, I can see no valid alternative to but to interpret the "her" as referring to the woman as a person.

Not a person that he cares anything about, but undoubtedly a person. Unless you think he's referring to her as a car or boat or something.
  #203  
Old 08-14-2019, 06:21 PM
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Because if you can construe both "I want to fuck her" and "I want to fuck that" as "I want to fuck that female's body", I do not understand why you say "fuck her" is less offensive than "fuck that" in the specific context of nate's post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Does it have to be more complicated than " 'That' is a term used for things, and 'her' is a term used for people"?
There's your answer, in yet another wording, adding to all the ways this has been phrased in this thread already.

The fact that in an entirely different sort of sentence structure "that" as part of a phrase can also refer to a person doesn't mean that it's a suitable word to use for a human in a sentence in which the word "that" by itself is the object. English just plain doesn't work that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I want to understand your opinion. I am not entitled to that knowledge, but if you are willing to explain yourself, I try to listen - but I might not agree, and that's OK in my book.

Neither am I denying that language has impact, even the possibility that language in this very thread may drive female posters away from the message boards. I wouldn't be surprised. That's not what I don't understand. I don't understand why, in the context of the original post, "she" is less offensive than "that".
Do you understand why being asked to answer the same question, or rebut the same statement, over and over and over and over again might drive away posters, female or otherwise?

I don't mean that only for you, while we're at it.
  #204  
Old 08-14-2019, 06:43 PM
Manda JO is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Maybe we don't disagree. Or maybe we do.

Certainly there's a difference between the thoughts in my head, and expressing them. But the thoughts in my head are, indeed, objectifying women, insofar as I am thinking just of the parts. "I'd hit that" and "I am thinking sexually objectifying thoughts about the new administrative assistant" both express the same thought, IOW. If the first is more offensive than the second, I understand that.
[/QUOTE]

Objectification, at least in the sense I mean it, isn't about an individual. It's a paradigm, a general way of thinking about women across our culture. It doesn't exist in isolation. Saying "I'd hit that" and expecting a generally positive response is establishing and perpetuating the idea that women are objects. Seeing something and having a reaction isn't that, because that's physiological, not cultural. There's no social element at all to the stimulus and the response. Cultural is taking that reaction and framing it in a subject/object relationship, through language. And honestly, if someone's internal monologue often uses the language of things to describe people, I think they can and should strive to change that, because it's perpetuating that cultural idea. But it's not the moment of reaction that is the problem.

To say it another way, in that moment of lust, I think the woman is neither person NOR object. It's like, quantum. When we frame that relationship as I/object, especially aloud and to others, that's when society is being nudged toward a toxic paradigm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I recognize that you and others see a difference, but I don't understand why. That's my angle.

~Max
Because her and she are the more normal and obvious words to use when describing a person. The deliberate substitution of a word that means THING, or the deliberate elision of she/her--which ever way you read it--is dehumanizing.
  #205  
Old 08-14-2019, 07:18 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I also interpret "I'd hit that" as carrying the implication that the "that" is an object of less-than-personhood status.

In my opinion "I'd have sex with her" can acknowledge that the object of desire is a human being ...
That’s it. That’s as far as you have to go. “That” is unambiguously a thing. “Her” is nominally a human being. Period. That’s it. That makes “that” worse than “her.” That makes “that” unambiguously demeaning, while “her” isn’t.

Yes, further context might make the sentence that includes “her” also objectifying and that might be a basis for further criticism. But by using “that,” you are making it unambiguous and unarguable that you are literally speaking of a woman as in object.

In the same way as I said before, if you use “male” or “female” as a noun for a human being, that’s intrinsically dehumanizing compared to “man” and “woman.” That doesn’t make what you’re saying with “man” and “woman” okay, but it’s unambiguous and undeniable.

So, how many more ways do you want the same thing explained to you?
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #206  
Old 08-14-2019, 07:25 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post

Finally, though I don't see why (in context) the word "she" is less offensive to some women than "that", I do not base this on whether it impacts myself. Even if I agreed that "she" is less offensive, I am still a male and I am not the random woman walking on the street. My understanding on the impact of language on other people, or the lack thereof, is based on my understanding of other people, which is flawed, but it is the closest thing to empathy I've got.

~Max
Think of it this way. Would you ever say "I'd love to discuss philosophy with that!" referring to a woman? (Unless you were being way ironic.) No, since in that sentence discussing philosophy implies a person with a brain. Use of "that" in the sentence in question implies a body only, not really a brain.
Think about what other contexts you'd use "that" to refer to a person? I wonder if slaveowners used "that" to refer to slaves? I can't think of a lot of other examples.
  #207  
Old 08-14-2019, 07:32 PM
RaftPeople is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 7-Eleven
Posts: 6,688
Max S., I don't think you can perform a low level analysis to figure this one out. The impression of a phrase is based not only on the words themselves, but also on a bunch of other information and associations stored in the brain due to culture, usage, experience, etc.
  #208  
Old 08-14-2019, 07:34 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
There's your answer, in yet another wording, adding to all the ways this has been phrased in this thread already.

The fact that in an entirely different sort of sentence structure "that" as part of a phrase can also refer to a person doesn't mean that it's a suitable word to use for a human in a sentence in which the word "that" by itself is the object. English just plain doesn't work that way.



Do you understand why being asked to answer the same question, or rebut the same statement, over and over and over and over again might drive away posters, female or otherwise?

I don't mean that only for you, while we're at it.
Not really. People are going to be wrong or think differently on the internet and in other realms. That doesn’t mean I am going to withdraw. If I feel a particular line of conversation is not worth investing any time into I will stop wasting time with that particular conversation. But the beauty of a forum or other forms of online communication is that bandwidth and memory are relatively cheap and it’s easy to switch to a different conversation.
  #209  
Old 08-14-2019, 08:01 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
True dat.
  #210  
Old 08-14-2019, 09:08 PM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,026
In fairness to you, Max S., prior to this thread I would have thought of "I'd hit that" as a turn of phrase. Some kind of deliberately awkward grammar, like "Is drifting still a thing?"
Not that it was part of my personal vernacular though.

But when some here said it caused offence, I could appreciate why. It is talking about a woman as if she is a Real Doll.
  #211  
Old 08-14-2019, 10:27 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
I remember when I first heard that idiom in the ‘90s, I found it bizarre and kind of shocking. More for the “hit” than the “that”.
  #212  
Old 08-14-2019, 10:35 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
That’s it. That’s as far as you have to go. “That” is unambiguously a thing. “Her” is nominally a human being. Period. That’s it. That makes “that” worse than “her.” That makes “that” unambiguously demeaning, while “her” isn’t.

Yes, further context might make the sentence that includes “her” also objectifying and that might be a basis for further criticism. But by using “that,” you are making it unambiguous and unarguable that you are literally speaking of a woman as in object.

In the same way as I said before, if you use “male” or “female” as a noun for a human being, that’s intrinsically dehumanizing compared to “man” and “woman.” That doesn’t make what you’re saying with “man” and “woman” okay, but it’s unambiguous and undeniable.
I understand and agree with all that you wrote here. We're making progress!

What I don't understand is why a woman would be more offended if nate expressed sexual objectification with unambiguous and unarguable language versus potentially ambiguous and arguable language. Or perhaps I do understand, but just disagree.

I think people would be rightfully offended at least somewhat either way. He is still objectifying women on the street and endangering himself, his wife, and everyone nearby. Perhaps if he had written "her" instead of "that", some readers would think there is a small chance that he respected the woman as a person while having sex fantasies. Maybe he was also thinking about caring for her when she's sick or raising kids or something. Maybe that small sliver of hope is enough to make you say, "you could have at least recognized that she is a person instead of a thing".

Here is part of the original post with "her" instead of "that":
I mean, I'm kind of curious about if you were really honest, walking down the street and you see any attractive women, how can you help your brain not automatically think "damn, I'd like to fuck the hell out of her". Especially if they are dressed in some sort of risque, butt-cheeks hanging out, skinny tanned legs outfit.
And here is the followup post with "her" instead of "this":
As a (horrid, to some) example, I was driving with my wife in our minivan, stopped at red light and this girl pulled up next to us on a scooter. The way she was sitting, the short shorts she was wearing, her body's shape, I don't know, I couldn't even hold a conversation with my wife even when she was complaining about me being distracted by her... it's like it didn't matter to me, I couldn't bypass it, I had to just take in the sight of her and I didn't care how irritated my wife was. I know I sound like a real winner, but I'm just being honest.
When I read this, I have no doubt that nate sexually objectifies women - on purpose or not, he sees an attractive woman and dehumanizes her, he is captivated by her body and violates her in his mind. I dismiss any possibility that he thinks of a woman as a full person when imagining himself having sex with her; after the sex fantasy perhaps, but not during it. Therefore I disagree that there is a small advantage in saying "her" over "that". For others, perhaps they really think if he had thought or written "her", that might indicate a small possibility that he respects women.

That's an explanation I would understand, though I might not agree with it.

~Max
  #213  
Old 08-14-2019, 10:44 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Does it have to be more complicated than " 'That' is a term used for things, and 'her' is a term used for people"?

I mean, I get it - both phrasings are objectifying as hell in context. I'm not sure there's any way to say, "I see that woman as a fucktoy and want to use her sexually purely on the basis of her appearance with no regard to anything else about her" without it being objectifying. But even given that, there's still the fact that one phrasing uses a term about people and one uses a term about things.

I mean, the phrases "I quit." and "Fuck this fucking goddamn shit, I'm fuckin' outta here!" mean the same thing, but I'm quite sure that my mother would react to them differently based on verbiage alone. This 'that' business seems the same.
Maybe I think about language differently than you do. I believe the meaning of the words in context take priority over their normal definitions or connotations. nate apparently thinks that way so I am a little hesitant to call him out in a thread about sharing his thoughts, not because he has a sexist mind or sexually objectifies women, but because he accurately relayed his thoughts.

~Max
  #214  
Old 08-14-2019, 10:50 PM
Manda JO is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,332
The issue is that by deliberately breaking all conventions of English usage, he's going out of his way to showcase that he objectifies her. We can parse the sentence, It's not incidental objectification, the objectification is a substantive part of the experience for him and he is inviting his audience to share the thrill of making her into a thing.

I mean, I'm not saying that's his conscious goal, but the phrase has currency among people who wallow in this sort of gratuitous objectification.
  #215  
Old 08-14-2019, 10:50 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Um, based on the language, I can see no valid alternative to but to interpret the "her" as referring to the woman as a person.

Not a person that he cares anything about, but undoubtedly a person. Unless you think he's referring to her as a car or boat or something.
Actually yeah, I think he is still objectifying the woman as a tool to satisfy his own sexual desire. Ergo, even if he says or thinks or writes the word "she", in the most primitive sense, while having his sexual fantasies he is mentally stripping the woman of personhood and using her as a personal mental sex toy.

~Max
  #216  
Old 08-14-2019, 11:07 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
The fact that in an entirely different sort of sentence structure "that" as part of a phrase can also refer to a person doesn't mean that it's a suitable word to use for a human in a sentence in which the word "that" by itself is the object. English just plain doesn't work that way.
You've got me all wrong, thorny locust. I don't think using "that" as a demonstrative pronoun to refer to a person is appropriate. I am saying that when he writes "her", it does not mean he is talking about a person. He is still dehumanizing the girl just as much as saying "that" would. In my opinion, in the context of the original post, "that" and "her" refer to the woman's body, not her person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
Do you understand why being asked to answer the same question, or rebut the same statement, over and over and over and over again might drive away posters, female or otherwise?

I don't mean that only for you, while we're at it.
That's a totally different thing if I am driving people away from these boards... I'm not too concerned if people get tired of me or this particular thread. But if you think my participation is driving people away from the straight dope, if you really think that is true, I will stop.

~Max
  #217  
Old 08-14-2019, 11:14 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Think of it this way. Would you ever say "I'd love to discuss philosophy with that!" referring to a woman? (Unless you were being way ironic.) No, since in that sentence discussing philosophy implies a person with a brain. Use of "that" in the sentence in question implies a body only, not really a brain.
I agree, so you and I are definitely miscommunicating. I accidentally used "she" in the post you quoted whereas I should have used "her". I don't think usage of "that" is OK, I think "her" is more just as offensive as "that" because even if we put "her" into the original post, the post still shows the exact same sexual objectification. As I understand it, this objectification is the offensive part of that sentence, so if it is still the same objectification with "her", why would it be less offensive than using "that"?

~Max
  #218  
Old 08-14-2019, 11:19 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaftPeople View Post
Max S., I don't think you can perform a low level analysis to figure this one out. The impression of a phrase is based not only on the words themselves, but also on a bunch of other information and associations stored in the brain due to culture, usage, experience, etc.
Hmm. Could it be that some women are conditioned to be more offended by the word "that" then "her", despite the semantic identity in the original post?

Sort of like a racial epithet coming from a white man versus a person of the disparaged race.

I feel awfully stupid now, and that makes a lot of sense.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 08-14-2019 at 11:21 PM. Reason: duh
  #219  
Old 08-14-2019, 11:35 PM
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 984
Max.

There is a difference between 'I disrespect this person' and 'I'm not even acknowledging that there is a person there.'


Your failure to understand that is not a failure on the part of the people who are finding both of these problems in the OP's posts.
  #220  
Old 08-14-2019, 11:37 PM
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
You've got me all wrong, thorny locust. I don't think using "that" as a demonstrative pronoun to refer to a person is appropriate.
Then why did you include all that stuff in the spoilers?
  #221  
Old 08-14-2019, 11:48 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
There is a difference between 'I disrespect this person' and 'I'm not even acknowledging that there is a person there.'
There is a difference, but I don't think changing the single pronoun in the original post moves it from "I'm not even acknowledging that there is a person there" to "I disrespect this person". The semantics either way indicate that, for at least the duration of the fantasy, he did not acknowledge that the woman is a person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
Your failure to understand that is not a failure on the part of the people who are finding both of these problems in the OP's posts.
It's probably just me, and I do not mean to say that you or any other poster - even nate - is responsible for my lack of understanding on some issue.

I thought I might have gotten it with that last post, but I guess not.

~Max
  #222  
Old 08-14-2019, 11:58 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
Then why did you include all that stuff in the spoilers?
The spoiler text was a response to Broomstick saying she could not imagine her husband saying with affection: "My wife, I want to have sex with that". I planned on responding with an analysis of that sentence's syntax and semantics. The conclusion of my analysis was that a husband (not necessarily Broomstick's) could conceivably say that sentence with affection. Using "that" will always be dehumanizing, but affection and dehumanization are not mutually exclusive.

After I finished writing everything up I realized it had nothing to do with nate's post, which involves objectification regardless of the pronoun used. I'm a little proud of what I did so I stuck it in a spoiler instead of chucking it.

~Max
  #223  
Old 08-15-2019, 12:32 AM
RaftPeople is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 7-Eleven
Posts: 6,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
... despite the semantic identity in the original post?
I don't think you can say there is semantic identity because our brains don't work that way. We connect all kinds of additional information to words and phrases based on context.
  #224  
Old 08-15-2019, 12:52 AM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaftPeople View Post
I don't think you can say there is semantic identity because our brains don't work that way. We connect all kinds of additional information to words and phrases based on context.
Is it pointless for me to try and understand why others are offended while I am not?

~Max
  #225  
Old 08-15-2019, 03:42 AM
LiveFree is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I was at the pharmacy yesterday getting my father's prescription filled. As I was waiting in line, I noticed the woman ahead of me who was at the counter. She was wearing a pair of short shorts and I was looking at her ass and legs.

Now I did check her out. And this did divert my attention away from what I was doing. But what I was doing was standing in line in a drugstore.

What I didn't do:

I didn't get so distracted, I lost my ability to stand in line. I didn't rip off my clothes and attack her. I didn't make catcalls. I didn't try to pick her up. I didn't nudge other men in the area and say "Check out the ass on her." I didn't leer and make her uncomfortable.

We can't control what happens in our head. But we can control how we act.

I don't need women to wear a burka so I can behave.


The OP never said any of those things that you "didn't" do. Those are actions. Why blow his original post out of proportion??
  #226  
Old 08-15-2019, 06:10 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Hmm. Could it be that some women are conditioned to be more offended by the word "that" then "her", despite the semantic identity in the original post?

Sort of like a racial epithet coming from a white man versus a person of the disparaged race.
I don't think this is about "some women being conditioned to be more offended" by one word than another.

Because you brought up the issue of race here, let's try to analogize.

Someone can write an offensive and demeaning statement about a racial group. In the context of that statement, E can use a range of terminology -- African-Americans, black people, blacks, Canadians, coloreds, negroes, darkies, spooks, spades, thugs, n------.

Those words represent a spectrum of disrespectful terminology. The issue of what terminology you are using is a valid subject of discussion and criticism, in addition to the message and attitudes reflected by the text as a whole. Choice of words constitutes an additional message, on top of the message conveyed by all the words together. It doesn't make the overall message better or worse, necessarily, but it is another thing that the speaker communicated.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #227  
Old 08-15-2019, 06:38 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Canadians?
  #228  
Old 08-15-2019, 07:17 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
"Sometimes I think that guy's a creep" doesn't translate into "all men are good for is sperm donation". Neither does "nice ass" translate into "all women are good for is sex".
That's not what I said. Thanks for twisting a post yet again.

The proper comparison is between "men are creeps" vs. "that man is a creep". Way to misread the post, good job.
  #229  
Old 08-15-2019, 07:56 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
Objectification, at least in the sense I mean it, isn't about an individual. It's a paradigm, a general way of thinking about women across our culture. It doesn't exist in isolation. Saying "I'd hit that" and expecting a generally positive response is establishing and perpetuating the idea that women are objects. Seeing something and having a reaction isn't that, because that's physiological, not cultural. There's no social element at all to the stimulus and the response. Cultural is taking that reaction and framing it in a subject/object relationship, through language. And honestly, if someone's internal monologue often uses the language of things to describe people, I think they can and should strive to change that, because it's perpetuating that cultural idea. But it's not the moment of reaction that is the problem.

To say it another way, in that moment of lust, I think the woman is neither person NOR object. It's like, quantum. When we frame that relationship as I/object, especially aloud and to others, that's when society is being nudged toward a toxic paradigm.
Then I think we are close to agreeing, at least about what I am talking about. At least, what I think I am talking about.

When I say that I am thinking "nice ass" or something, I am describing the thought in my head, not boasting and not expecting a positive reaction. If it is possible to express that I am thinking like that without nudging in the direction of the paradigm you describe, I can't tell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick
That's not what I said. Thanks for twisting a post yet again.

The proper comparison is between "men are creeps" vs. "that man is a creep". Way to misread the post, good job
I was comparing "nice ass" vs. "women are only there for sexual purposes". Just like "that man is a creep" does not translate to "all men", and "nice ass" does not translate to "all women".

Regards,
Shodan
  #230  
Old 08-15-2019, 08:55 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Canadians?
Southern racists adopt "Canadian" as a euphemism for "black"
https://boingboing.net/2008/01/27/so...cists-ado.html

Quote:
Last August, a blogger in Cincinnati going by the name CincyBlurg reported that a black friend from the southeastern U.S. had recently discovered that she was being called a Canadian. ...

"After this happened several times with different patrons, she mentioned it to one of her co-workers. He told her that ‘Canadian' was the new derogatory term that racist Southerners were using to describe persons they would have previously referred to [with the N-word.]"
Is term 'Canadian' used as racist word?
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/200...cist_word.html

Quote:
Is "Canadian" the new black? Perhaps – that is if you're a racist speaking in code.

Recent revelations that the term "Canadian" is being used to replace racist names for black people have got a Texas assistant district attorney into trouble and have left others wondering what exactly it means to be labelled a Canadian in the American south.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #231  
Old 08-15-2019, 10:03 AM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
I don't think this is about "some women being conditioned to be more offended" by one word than another.
Darn, I thought I had it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Those words represent a spectrum of disrespectful terminology. The issue of what terminology you are using is a valid subject of discussion and criticism, in addition to the message and attitudes reflected by the text as a whole. Choice of words constitutes an additional message, on top of the message conveyed by all the words together. It doesn't make the overall message better or worse, necessarily, but it is another thing that the speaker communicated.
My understanding of the offensive nature of profanity (eg: n-, c-, dy-) is that people are conditioned to be offended when they hear that particular word, more offended than if another less-profane word was used to the exact same semantic effect. The fact that not all profanity is offensive in all situations, especially with the N-word, reinforces my hypothesis. People are told from a very young age that profane words are more offensive than non-profane words even when they mean the same thing (a la "darn", "crap", or "frick"). In my experience and what I have heard of others, the concept of profanity is instilled with negative reinforcement. This causes profanity to be reserved for especially abusive use, and when people are at the end of a profane statement it tends to be offensive and insulting semantically, which is positive reinforcement. Therefore the offensive nature of profanity is a result of conditioning.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 08-15-2019 at 10:06 AM. Reason: positive reinforcement, too
  #232  
Old 08-15-2019, 10:11 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I think I am beginning to understand... would you say the phrase "I want to fuck her" never has the meaning "I want to fuck that female's body"? Or maybe would you say the phrase "I want to fuck that" never has the meaning "I want to fuck that female's body"?
"Never" is a pretty comprehensive term. I think you're trying really hard to understand this and I truly appreciate that. What it comes down to is that context is very important with all this. What two lovers say between each other in private can be vastly different than what either would say to anyone else, and some people, in the context of sex play, get off on all sorts of role play. In that context anything could mean almost anything.

But, in the context of typical and public speech, referring to a woman as "that" can probably be stated as something you should not do if you want to be polite and respectful. Now, there are definitely occasions when one may not want to be "polite" or "respectful" to a particular person, but the proper way to do that (IMO) is to make it clear that your ire is directed to an individual rather than half the human race.

And I suppose that there might be a very rare occasion where someone outside the typical gender binary asks to be referred to as "it" or "that" or some other atypical for a person pronoun in which case you should do so because it requested that but it would be a very, very rare and highly specific instance.

Of course, when a man (or a woman, for that matter) says "I want to fuck her" (or him) there is also a subtext of "I want to fuck her (his) body" - that normally is how you engage in sexual intercourse, which is what is being referred to. When my doctor inquiries whether or not I have constipation I'll most likely say "I had a bowel movement after breakfast" rather than "I took my morning shit after breakfast" even though both convey the same information because one version is more polite than the other. Other alternates are "took a crap" or "defecated". Again, all convey the same data but they also all carry slightly different subtext or emotional content.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Because if you can construe both "I want to fuck her" and "I want to fuck that" as "I want to fuck that female's body", I do not understand why you say "fuck her" is less offensive than "fuck that" in the specific context of nate's post.
On a certain level it's not important that you understand why but that you understand it does.

An example from the language/racism file: I do not, for the life of me, understand why it is acceptable for dark-skinned people of African descent to refer to each other by certain word(s) of two syllables starting with "n". I have read/viewed/asked some trusted friends of that group why this is so because I want to understand the nuances but I have to admit I don't get it. I've been told it's actually two different words (on my part, I can't hear the spoken difference even if I've seen alternate spellings). I've had people try to explain cultural and historical reasoning behind it. I just don't get it... BUT, because I don't want to cause offense I refrain from using that term(s). Even to the extent of not using them when discussing them, as in this paragraph.

While it would be great if I had a true understanding that is NOT as important as my understanding that using such language will cause hurt and offense to other people, and my choice not to use such language. I also don't rail about not being "allowed" to use such language when other people are - I am not African-American, while I might have an intellectual understanding of some of their issues I don't have a visceral understanding and never will. If by refraining from ever using two or three words out of the hundreds of thousands available in the English language I can avoid offense that's a pretty easy way to be polite and respectful and what they do amongst themselves is THEIR business, not mine. No white person should weigh into that conversation, that would be "whitesplaining" in the worst sense, and insulting and disrespectful.

Now, the particular language use in the OP does not rise to the level of the infamous "n-word", but it does deal with sexism. It's more important for a man to understand that the language used was offensive to multiple women (so it can't be dismissed as just one person's opinion) than exactly WHY it was offensive. It's even possible that different women find it offensive for different reasons, or there are multiple reasons. Analyzing why can be an entertaining exercise, but it's not as important as knowing it causes offense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I had written up a long analysis of those sentences, but on second thought that was largely unnecessary. It would be a shame to just throw it away though, so I'm putting that in this spoiler.
That's an impressive amount of work. However you are missing the forest for the trees.

Here's the analogy: you're analyzing language as if you were analyzing a fine painting by examining it with a magnifying glass, identifying the chemicals used as pigments, the type of brushes used to make the strokes, oil vs. acrylic vs. some other media, and so forth. And while there is value in such analysis, other people are standing back ten feet and discussing light and shadow, abstract vs. impressionist vs. realist vs. surrealism, and engaging with the visual image and its emotional impact rather than analyzing the structural elements. You are all talking about the same painting, but examining it on very different levels.

Likewise, by drilling down through the exact grammar you are analyzing the OP in structural manner while others in this thread are discussing it in the context of cultural and social dynamics, history, and other meta level aspects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I don't think nate's posts come close to showing affection. My point is that, in context, saying "I want to fuck the hell out of her" about a stranger is equally sexually objectifying as "I want to fuck the hell out of that".
TO YOU they are equally bad. TO OTHERS one is less bad than the other (although neither is good). You are not required to understand or feel this on the same level as the women in this thread. It's totally OK to say "I don't feel the same way" or "I don't perceive a difference" as long as you acknowledge that others feel/perceive differently. Which I think you're doing.

To put it more crudely - Because I don't possess testicles I am never going to understand on a visceral level, the way men do, that getting kicked in the balls is so damn painful for men... but I don't have to. I just have to understand that getting kicked in the balls is really fucking amazingly painful for men and refrain from performing that action. Probably best I don't even threaten to do that verbally, it seems to make them uncomfortable just to think about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
This is unlike you and your husband, because presumably you and your husband are on intimate terms. As you said, you can imagine your husband saying he wants "have sex with her", where "her" is you but no sexual objectification occurs. With your husband, context matters.
Yes, my husband and I were intimate.

We were also open enough that he would, at times, mention that he found another woman sexually attractive (which was OK - we were both self-confident enough and trusted our partner enough we could discuss sexual attraction to others outside the marriage without worrying that someone was straying). And I remember him saying "I would do her" but never recall him saying "I would do that" He definitely had preferences for certain body parts, but he also very much saw women as individuals, too. Which had a lot to do with why even though he was short, overweight, and disabled he never had problems with getting a girlfriend, gosh darn, it really does work if a man treats women as human beings. (Yes, some women would refuse to give him the time of day because he was short/fat/disabled but he didn't waste time pursing them, as there were a lot of other women out there who, as he put it, "are really interesting people".)

Granted, that's anecdotal (based on a 30 year marriage) but while anecdote is not data that doesn't make them completely useless for illustrating a point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I don't think the same can be said about nate or any person walking down the street, looking at an complete stranger and thinking "I want to fuck the hell out of her". No matter how you cut it, that is sexual objectification of the first degree.
I see your point but, again, these are things along a spectrum. All of them are objectifying, but how you talk about it can be more or less objectionable.

There is "I want to fuck the hell out of her"
There is "I want to fuck the hell out of that"
There is "I want to fuck the hell out of the fembot"
There is "I want to fuck the hell out of that whore"
There is... well, you get the idea. It's not just the idea - that you see a human female and you the adult human male want to fuck her, which is a biological urge and normal - it's also about how you think/speak about the situation. You're analyzing the language and the grammar, women are analyzing word choice and emotional nuance. That's why we're still having trouble communicating. You are correct - grammatically there is little to no difference is all those sentences. However, word choice and cultural context makes them significantly different. That is why a language like English has so many words that have such similar meanings - they all convey slightly different messages regarding culture, social status, emotional nuance, etc.

For another analogy with race - can you understand that a 50 year old white man referring to a work crew of four 25 year old white men as "boys" carries a very different impact than the same 50 year old white man referring to a work crew of 25 year old black men as "boys"? It's not about the grammar, or in that case even about the words (which are exactly the same) but about historical and social context and baggage that are very important in modern America.

In the OP, a lot of the objections are coming from historical and social context more than the actual grammar and language structure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Apologies, I clearly misrepresented your position.
Accepted but not necessary. We aren't going to improve the situation without being able to discuss the topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Honestly I'm not sure how to avoid unconscious sexism. You feel like I am devaluing your position based on my life experiences, yet I am too dense to understand why you might feel that way.
Avoiding unconscious bias of any sort is hard - you're not even aware you're doing it. The first step is to actually listen when someone says you're being offensive instead of having a kneejerk response of "no, I'm not". I find replaying with "I'm sorry - I did not intend offense and I'm not sure how I did that. What, exactly, am I doing wrong here?" Sometimes it doesn't work - not everyone wants to discuss things. Sometimes I wind up learning something new.

As an example from a few decades back when I first moved to Chicago - in the sub-culture in which I was raised you generally didn't speak to people you didn't know in passing. So, working in a large company us white folks who didn't really know each other would pass each other in the hallways without saying anything. A black co-worker one day asked me why "you white folks" were so incredibly rude. Instead of getting defensive I said "I wasn't aware I was being rude - what am I doing wrong?" Instead of getting angry she actually explained to me that black people routinely greeted strangers - even if she didn't know the person at all, even if she had never seen them before, she would say good morning or hello. Basically, she would acknowledge their presence, that they existed as living human beings (that's actually a paraphrase of what she said, along with a bit of history regarding how slaves used to be treated as part of the furnishing or decor). And I said, oh, I get that, and I mentioned how in my sub-culture you didn't do that because it was considered polite not to "bother" other people you didn't know and how the whole "recognized as a person" thing probably wasn't as important to white people who never had to worry about not being viewed as a full human being in our culture. So, going forward, she said she'd try to take that into consideration that a white person might not be shunning her or deliberately rude as being culturally conditioned not to speak to total strangers, and going forward I've tried to make a point of saying "hello" or "good morning" to everyone, a practice that serves me very well today working in retail with people from all manner of backgrounds and cultures. Yes, occasionally I get a negative reaction but infrequently enough I can put up with it, the benefits greatly outweigh the negatives.

But that's an example of WHY we need some frank discussions about race, culture, gender, and other divisions in our multi-cultural society in order to make things work. I don't have to understand things on the same level or to the same degree as another, the important thing is that I understand something is important.

It is very important, ESPECIALLY in sexual contexts, for women to feel like that are recognized as a whole human being because for so often we have not been, and still aren't far too often. This is really not as difficult as some men make it out to be. As I pointed out in an earlier thread, sometimes it's just as easy as saying "her" instead of "that". "Woman" instead of "female". "I know there's an entire woman attached to the pair of tits, but these tits were AMAZING, I really wanted to titty-fuck, I couldn't think of anything else..." or "Her ass-cheeks were hanging out and they were so sexy I had trouble remembering there was a whole person attached to those ass-cheeks, I just want to squeeze them and fuck her and I was so distracted..." Avoid "that" and "it" and other words that dehumanize. Nobody is expecting you to do it perfectly, but at least try.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Sometimes in the end I have to say "I still don't really understand, but I'll take you at your word that that is a problem and try to avoid it in the future".

My best guess is that next time I make an assertion as I did in post #165, I should state explicitly that I believed "that" and "her" are equally objectifying in context. But I'm not sure why that would convince you that I am not devaluing your position.
Well.... what works for me is someone saying something like "I still don't get why this is such a big distinction, but I do see that it is important to you." That last bit is important, because it says that even if you don't see it or don't agree with me, even if you think I'm wrong, you are still acknowledging my different viewpoint rather than dismissing it out of hand. In other words, we agree to disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Maybe I ought to have explicitly asked Mijin to explain how "that" is more objectifying in a way that "her" is not.
It's been explained to you multiple times by multiple people. This can be very frustrating to those of us on this side of the fence, especially since all of us have had to explain our position(s) over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again throughout our lives. It gets tiring.

At which point it's fine to say "I don't really get it, but I do see that it is important to you" Even better is to say "I'll try to refrain from using these words and use those other words instead" but it's not like we can compel you to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
But I am afraid my failure to understand how "that" is very clearly objectifying in a way that "her" is not would be seen as sexism on my part.
That is a problem. Or several problems, one of which is that we live in a society that has historically been sexist and still is on many levels, and that language itself can have sexist aspects to it, customary language use can be sexist, and we all have a certain level of bias. However, the first step to reducing sexism is to recognize that it exists, including our own sexist behavior we are not aware of until someone else points it out. If you aren't willing to admit to that flaw there's no way you're going to reduce or eliminate it. And I very much include ALL of us in that statement as we all exhibit unconscious bias.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I have now read this thread and the ATMB thread through multiple times and I still don't understand how you can think the one is more offensive than the other, in context.
It's OK to state that. Your posting has demonstrated you have, in fact, read what we have to say and clearly you are struggling with this. So... you're honest (point to you) in saying that. I, for one, appreciate your honesty. Now is the time to say that even if you still don't understand you at least understand that it is important to us.

I don't have to know what getting whacked in the balls feels like to recognize that it's really painful when it happens to a guy. It's clear from their reaction that it's a problem. You don't have to understand the details of why a phrase or wording is offensive to women if a lot of women demonstrate by their reactions that to them it's a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I recognize that you and others see a difference, but I don't understand why.
Really, honestly, that's progress. That's actually what we women on the Dope want. You don't have to understand on a deep level, you just have to understand that the distinction is important to us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I don't understand why, in the context of the original post, "she" is less offensive than "that". I would think they are both offensive. So far the complaints about that verbiage go along the lines of, 'you basically dehumanized all women', but I think using "she" would also dehumanize women. He is still reducing women - strangers - to objects of sexual desire, what difference does it make if he says "she" when he means "that female's body"?
Because one is more dehumanizing and offensive than the other. It's not A is good and B is bad - they are both bad but A is less bad than B.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Finally, though I don't see why (in context) the word "she" is less offensive to some women than "that", I do not base this on whether it impacts myself. Even if I agreed that "she" is less offensive, I am still a male and I am not the random woman walking on the street. My understanding on the impact of language on other people, or the lack thereof, is based on my understanding of other people, which is flawed, but it is the closest thing to empathy I've got.
I think that emphasized sentence is true of all of us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I understand and agree with all that you wrote here. We're making progress!

What I don't understand is why a woman would be more offended if nate expressed sexual objectification with unambiguous and unarguable language versus potentially ambiguous and arguable language. Or perhaps I do understand, but just disagree.
Yes, I think we're getting somewhere. It's a bit messy, but progress often is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I think people would be rightfully offended at least somewhat either way. He is still objectifying women on the street and endangering himself, his wife, and everyone nearby. Perhaps if he had written "her" instead of "that", some readers would think there is a small chance that he respected the woman as a person while having sex fantasies. Maybe he was also thinking about caring for her when she's sick or raising kids or something. Maybe that small sliver of hope is enough to make you say, "you could have at least recognized that she is a person instead of a thing".
Naw... it's not about "maybe a relationship". It really is just acknowledging there is a person there.

I've mentioned about each side having some give. In the case of women, our "give" is that we understand that men really do think about sex all the time, and often that men can be so focused on a bodypart or act the whole woman isn't in their frame of view. That's not how I think, but that's not the point - I can't discuss these things with men without recognizing that they really do think about this stuff differently than I do.

Both sides need a safe space in order for these things to be discussed. Men need to feel like they can talk frankly about what's going on in their brains without women scolding them or telling them they are thinking incorrectly. Men need to be a more sensitive to how women feel about things. As I have said, sometimes it is as simple as prefacing a statement with "I understand that women want to be seen as whole people and individuals but this is what was going through my head" before going on about the unedited objectifying fantasy in their brain. We all have thoughts that raw and unedited would be offensive to others, but how we talk about them matters. We all shit, but when we talk about it we often use different words that are considered more polite and less crude.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Therefore I disagree that there is a small advantage in saying "her" over "that". For others, perhaps they really think if he had thought or written "her", that might indicate a small possibility that he respects women.

That's an explanation I would understand, though I might not agree with it.
That last bit is the important take-away from this discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Maybe I think about language differently than you do. I believe the meaning of the words in context take priority over their normal definitions or connotations. nate apparently thinks that way so I am a little hesitant to call him out in a thread about sharing his thoughts, not because he has a sexist mind or sexually objectifies women, but because he accurately relayed his thoughts.
The problem with the OP is not just his sexual objectification of women, it's that his sexual thoughts make him a driving hazard because of how intrusive and distracting they are. He came here seeking validation that he is normal. He is not. Thinking sexual thoughts about women is normal. Being so distracted by those thoughts they disrupt his relationship with his wife and/or make him less attentive to driving is NOT normal. As not only women but several men have pointed out to him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
As I understand it, this objectification is the offensive part of that sentence, so if it is still the same objectification with "her", why would it be less offensive than using "that"?
IF the words were equal yes, but they are NOT equal in regards to objectification and/or offensiveness from my side of the fense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Hmm. Could it be that some women are conditioned to be more offended by the word "that" then "her", despite the semantic identity in the original post?

Sort of like a racial epithet coming from a white man versus a person of the disparaged race.

I feel awfully stupid now, and that makes a lot of sense.
I think you've got, or at least you're getting there. It has more to do with emotional nuance and social/historical context than the grammatical structure. A building can have a sound foundation but still look fugly, and a different external treatment would not alter the foundation but make the whole structure more appealing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
There is a difference between 'I disrespect this person' and 'I'm not even acknowledging that there is a person there.'
^ This.

One is quite literally dehumanizing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
There is a difference, but I don't think changing the single pronoun in the original post moves it from "I'm not even acknowledging that there is a person there" to "I disrespect this person".
As long as you understand that that is YOUR side of the fence and the fence has another side we're making progress.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Is it pointless for me to try and understand why others are offended while I am not?
No. The attempt can be important whether or not it is successful.

And if, in the end, you still can't understand why someone finds it offensive you can still acknowledge the other side of the fence and try to refrain from offending others.
  #233  
Old 08-15-2019, 10:21 AM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
In my experience and what I have heard of others, the concept of profanity is instilled with negative reinforcement. This causes profanity to be reserved for especially abusive use, and when people are at the end of a profane statement it tends to be offensive and insulting semantically, which is positive reinforcement. Therefore the offensive nature of profanity is a result of conditioning.
My old psych teacher would kill me. Parents telling kids not to say bad words, and punishing them when they do so, constitutes positive punishment. A person on the receiving end of a profane statement which is semantically insulting will associate the profanity (a neutral stimulus) with the insult (unconditioned stimulus), and over time the conditioned response to profanity is to be offended. A person hurling profane insults, upon seeing that the recipient is offended, experiences positive reinforcement as offending the recipient was the desired effect of the profane insult.

~Max
  #234  
Old 08-15-2019, 10:31 AM
RaftPeople is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 7-Eleven
Posts: 6,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Is it pointless for me to try and understand why others are offended while I am not?

~Max
Not at all pointless.

I'm just pointing out you are excluding critical info in your analysis which will make it challenging to figure out. The critical info is what our brains do when processing communication. We aren't strictly logical, we perform immediate pattern matching and associations to all kinds of other info, we are influenced by feelings, experience, context etc.

You can't look at things like sentence structure and dictionary definitions alone to figure out how a person will feel when they hear something.
  #235  
Old 08-15-2019, 10:45 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Darn, I thought I had it.


My understanding of the offensive nature of profanity (eg: n-, c-, dy-) is that people are conditioned to be offended when they hear that particular word, more offended than if another less-profane word was used to the exact same semantic effect. The fact that not all profanity is offensive in all situations, especially with the N-word, reinforces my hypothesis. People are told from a very young age that profane words are more offensive than non-profane words even when they mean the same thing (a la "darn", "crap", or "frick"). In my experience and what I have heard of others, the concept of profanity is instilled with negative reinforcement. This causes profanity to be reserved for especially abusive use, and when people are at the end of a profane statement it tends to be offensive and insulting semantically, which is positive reinforcement. Therefore the offensive nature of profanity is a result of conditioning.

~Max
I believe the concept of profanity is a red herring in this context. The point is that words have accumulated meanings from the context in which they have been used in society, and choosing to use those words conveys a message in addition to the message contained in the entire text in which those words appear.

To Broomstick's use of the example of the word "boy." The choice to use that word in reference to black men is itself a communicative message, on top of whatever sentence that word might appear in, which might or might not be deserving of criticism.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #236  
Old 08-15-2019, 10:57 AM
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
There is a difference, but I don't think changing the single pronoun in the original post moves it from "I'm not even acknowledging that there is a person there" to "I disrespect this person".
I think it does. Or at any rate using the pronoun for a thing makes it utterly clear that there's no acknowledgement of the person, while using a pronoun for a person makes it possible that there is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
, despite the semantic identity in the original post?
They're not semantically identical. "That" doesn't mean the same thing as "her" just because they have the same referent.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
On a certain level it's not important that you understand why but that you understand it does. [ . . . ] It's more important for a man to understand that the language used was offensive to multiple women (so it can't be dismissed as just one person's opinion) than exactly WHY it was offensive. It's even possible that different women find it offensive for different reasons, or there are multiple reasons. Analyzing why can be an entertaining exercise, but it's not as important as knowing it causes offense.
Quoted for emphasis. All of that is true.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
It's been explained to you multiple times by multiple people. This can be very frustrating to those of us on this side of the fence, especially since all of us have had to explain our position(s) over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again throughout our lives. It gets tiring.
Also this, and to further emphasize: it's not just one poster, or one thread, or one forum, or one message board. It's the total accumulation throughout our lives. Any individual person asking to have such things explained to them is being, as an individual, perfectly reasonable. But it's necessary to bear in mind that they may nevertheless be the three thousandth person to want that explanation from the people who they're asking -- and, for that matter, that two thousand of them might not have been asking in good faith.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
In the case of women, our "give" is that we understand that men really do think about sex all the time, and often that men can be so focused on a bodypart or act the whole woman isn't in their frame of view. That's not how I think, but that's not the point - I can't discuss these things with men without recognizing that they really do think about this stuff differently than I do.
Here I'm going to disagree with you. There may be overall averages that are different, just like there are overall differences in height -- but I don't think it's that all men think about sex differently than all women think about sex. Consider the number of men who've come into this thread to say that they don't react anything like the OP, as well as the fact that multiple women have come into the thread to say that we do think about sex in reaction to seeing body parts -- perhaps not in the fashion in which the OP describes it, but in the fashion in which some of the men in this thread are describing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
We all have thoughts that raw and unedited would be offensive to others, but how we talk about them matters.
To expand on this, which is true: I wonder whether part of the problem Max is having is that he may think that what people are objecting to in the original post is that the poster has a quick immediate reaction to seeing attractive women that focuses on parts of the women's bodies, instead of on the women as a whole including considering their personalities.

That's not where the problem is. That sort of immediate physical reaction is as normal as getting hungry when one's belly's empty and one sees food; and is no more something that's reasonable to criticize. And I don't think people in this thread have been criticizing it (with a couple of possible exceptions in post 51 by CarnalK and post 121 by Max S, but I'm not sure whether that's what's being done even in either of those posts.) What people are criticizing is what's done about that reaction -- as in allowing extended major distraction to affect driving, leering, and one's ability to listen to others; and also as in the specific language being used to describe the reaction.

So the problem isn't that the initial momentary gaze is objectifying. Probably it is; but that's not what people are complaining about. The objectification in the words chosen to describe the experience is not the same thing as the initial experience itself.
  #237  
Old 08-15-2019, 11:54 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,937
No, I wasn't criticizing the original thoughts in post 51 just the indulgence of them and pretending you're helpless to indulge them.
  #238  
Old 08-15-2019, 03:10 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I agree, so you and I are definitely miscommunicating. I accidentally used "she" in the post you quoted whereas I should have used "her". I don't think usage of "that" is OK, I think "her" is more just as offensive as "that" because even if we put "her" into the original post, the post still shows the exact same sexual objectification. As I understand it, this objectification is the offensive part of that sentence, so if it is still the same objectification with "her", why would it be less offensive than using "that"?

~Max
Sorry, I lost track of the thread a bit and thought you were supporting the usage of that. Maybe the OP should respond to my post.
"That" is an indicator of the problem, but removing it doesn't make things okay.
And everyone seems to be talking past each other in this thread. My head is spinning.

Last edited by Voyager; 08-15-2019 at 03:12 PM.
  #239  
Old 08-15-2019, 05:59 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
"Never" is a pretty comprehensive term. I think you're trying really hard to understand this and I truly appreciate that. What it comes down to is that context is very important with all this. What two lovers say between each other in private can be vastly different than what either would say to anyone else, and some people, in the context of sex play, get off on all sorts of role play. In that context anything could mean almost anything.
What about in music? Michael Jackson's "P.Y.T." calls women "things", but I don't think many women are offended by that song. It was hugely popular among the girls in high school, like other Michael Jackson songs. Is music another one of those contexts where it might be OK to call women "that"? (certainly not all music)

What if we reduce the song to a poem? What if we have the husband recite the poem to the wife?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
But, in the context of typical and public speech, referring to a woman as "that" can probably be stated as something you should not do if you want to be polite and respectful.
I don't think nate was trying to be polite or respectful, nor do I think his speech qualifies as "typical and public".

He said he was being honest and I believe him. It follows that he literally thought, or thinks it is likely that he would literally think, word for word, "damn, I'd like to fuck the hell out of that." If he changed the words, he wouldn't be totally honest - he could still get the point across, but he could not express his thoughts verbatim without using the word "that". Those internal thoughts are usually private, not public. When nate repeats his private thoughts in a public forum, I don't think that counts as typical and public speech.

He also apologized: "Sorry in advance. Sometimes I just feel like posting what is on my mind". I can only conclude that he is sorry for being impolite or disrespectful. If he realized that his post was impolite or disrespectful, but still posted it, either 1) he did not realize there was another way to phrase his post without being impolite or disrespectful, or 2) he thought there was no way to phrase his post without being impolite or disrespectful. Either way nate still thought he should post the thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Now, there are definitely occasions when one may not want to be "polite" or "respectful" to a particular person, but the proper way to do that (IMO) is to make it clear that your ire is directed to an individual rather than half the human race.
In my opinion, the disrespectful act occurred when nate sexually objectified the women on the television screen and on the scooter. I think all sexual objectification is disrespectful, and those acts of disrespect were towards individual people. I do not think nate made this thread to talk about objectification of individual people. In my opinion, the original topic of this thread is nate and other men's involuntary objectification of a whole class of people, "attractive women".

My read of the original post is that nate thinks neither he nor 98% of men have any control over their thoughts when they see an attractive and scantily-clad woman. He doubles down on that in post #119, where he wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
When I state I get distracted by an attractive woman, I'm not saying I'm acting on it. I do believe I have some sort of agency in my actions, but I don't have any decision in my next thought or emotion.

And so you might say, "ahh.. but you remaining distracted is an action that you could control", and maybe that's a good point. But...
I don't think voluntary disrespect is the same as involuntary disrespect, but I think both can (and do) happen. Much like conscious and unconscious bias.

If we assume that "what is on [nate's] mind" is his and other men's involuntary disrespect of "any attractive women", and that "any attractive women" is a class of people, then his and other men's involuntary disrespect of a class of people is on nate's mind.

Now let us assume that nate wants to discuss what is on his mind. He actually wrote "posting what is on my mind" but I'm stretching that into a discussion because that's what we do here: we discuss things. If nate wants to discuss what is on his mind, and his and other men's involuntary disrespect of a class of people is on his mind, nate wants to discuss his and other men's involuntary disrespect of a class of people. That is the intended topic of this thread, in my opinion.

I can be wrong. You might have a different opinion but I don't know for sure what you think the topic of the thread is or why. In an effort to avoid Socratic dialogue (which I would prefer, but have been told is extremely frustrating), I try to form my own opinion first and lay out my whole argument so you can point at the parts you disagree with, and I can learn how we differ.

As for politeness, I think his decision to post about objectifying any attractive women is impolite, regardless of whether he actually does so or not. Objectifying any attractive women is disrespecting a class of women, and I would think a post about disrespecting women would make some women uncomfortable. Women are people and making people uncomfortable is impolite, in my opinion. Therefore nate was impolite when he decided to make his post.

As I said above, I think he was apologizing for his impoliteness. If true, he considered that women might be made uncomfortable but still decided to make the post. I can only guess that he couldn't find a way to present the topic without being impolite, and thought his making the post was more important than making women uncomfortable. That isn't terribly crazy given some of the taboo subjects Cecil has written about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Of course, when a man (or a woman, for that matter) says "I want to fuck her" (or him) there is also a subtext of "I want to fuck her (his) body" - that normally is how you engage in sexual intercourse, which is what is being referred to. When my doctor inquiries whether or not I have constipation I'll most likely say "I had a bowel movement after breakfast" rather than "I took my morning shit after breakfast" even though both convey the same information because one version is more polite than the other. Other alternates are "took a crap" or "defecated". Again, all convey the same data but they also all carry slightly different subtext or emotional content.
I am presently thinking these "subtexts" and "emotional content" are the results of behavioral conditioning. But then again I think all spoken language is influenced by behavioral conditioning. The reason I might not associate "that" as being more offensive than "her" might simply be because I don't have a lot of negative experience being called a "that". Similar to the operant conditioning for profanity I laid out in post #233, the word "that" might trigger a conditioned response in you but a neutral response in me. For some woman, perhaps reading the word "that" evokes the gazing, catcalling, the sexual discrimination, the sexual harassment, the rape, and the crying, lots of crying alone, sometimes in a dark corner trying to convince herself that she is a person with value and not a mere sexual plaything. Constant sexism in her history hotwires the very use of "that" to refer to a woman with a number of red flags in a way that "her" does not. This is an explanation I understand and agree with. What do you think?

Why didn't I get this before? In hindsight it looks like this is exactly what everyone has been saying.

I'm going to cut off my response here because if you actually agree, the rest is moot.

~Max
  #240  
Old 08-15-2019, 06:23 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,949
I don’t think that “conditioning” is as strong a hook as you think it is. It implies something systematic and intentional.

You don’t have to have been “conditioned” to respond to the word “that.”
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #241  
Old 08-15-2019, 06:33 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,896
Ascenray, why are you responding to that? There is no reason to think that that is going to listen this time any more than that did to the prior explanations.
  #242  
Old 08-15-2019, 06:33 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
The point is that words have accumulated meanings from the context in which they have been used in society, and choosing to use those words conveys a message in addition to the message contained in the entire text in which those words appear.
Perhaps you have it backwards. Maybe words do not carry intrinsic meaning, but people assign meaning to words. I've thought about it over last night, but now I think all semantics are subject to conditioning. I am thinking that everyone has their own take on language.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
To Broomstick's use of the example of the word "boy." The choice to use that word in reference to black men is itself a communicative message, on top of whatever sentence that word might appear in, which might or might not be deserving of criticism.
If two men infer two distinct meanings from the same sentence in the same context, do they truly speak the same language?

~Max
  #243  
Old 08-15-2019, 07:31 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Ascenray, why are you responding to that? There is no reason to think that that is going to listen this time any more than that did to the prior explanations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Perhaps you have it backwards. Maybe words do not carry intrinsic meaning, but people assign meaning to words. I've thought about it over last night, but now I think all semantics are subject to conditioning. I am thinking that everyone has their own take on language.


If two men infer two distinct meanings from the same sentence in the same context, do they truly speak the same language?

~Max
You know what? Begbert, you’re right. I’m being led around by the nose. I’m quitting this game.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.

Last edited by Acsenray; 08-15-2019 at 07:31 PM.
  #244  
Old 08-15-2019, 08:19 PM
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
What about in music? Michael Jackson's "P.Y.T." calls women "things", but I don't think many women are offended by that song. It was hugely popular among the girls in high school, like other Michael Jackson songs. Is music another one of those contexts where it might be OK to call women "that"? (certainly not all music)

What if we reduce the song to a poem? What if we have the husband recite the poem to the wife?
Max. I think it's possible you're arguing in good faith and may just be confused.

But you need to be aware, if you aren't already, that this technique of hunting around to find some example, in any context whatsoever, in which an objectionable word or phrase is being used without some of the people it's used against objecting is a technique very commonly used in bad faith. It comes across very much as a way of trying to claim 'if I can find any instance at all of someone in the disrespected group accepting the use of this word or phrase, then nobody should be objecting to it.' If this isn't what you're after, then please just accept that occasional such examples are not relevant: any more than your grammatical examples earlier in the spoiler boxes, which to be honest came across in the same sort of fashion, were relevant. And accept, also, that context matters. What two lovers say to each other has nothing to do with the subject at hand; it's between them entirely. Lovers say all sorts of things to each other that would be entirely improper in other contexts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I don't think nate was trying to be polite or respectful, nor do I think his speech qualifies as "typical and public".

He said he was being honest and I believe him. It follows that he literally thought, or thinks it is likely that he would literally think, word for word, "damn, I'd like to fuck the hell out of that." If he changed the words, he wouldn't be totally honest - he could still get the point across, but he could not express his thoughts verbatim without using the word "that". Those internal thoughts are usually private, not public. When nate repeats his private thoughts in a public forum, I don't think that counts as typical and public speech.

He also apologized: "Sorry in advance. Sometimes I just feel like posting what is on my mind". I can only conclude that he is sorry for being impolite or disrespectful. If he realized that his post was impolite or disrespectful, but still posted it, either 1) he did not realize there was another way to phrase his post without being impolite or disrespectful, or 2) he thought there was no way to phrase his post without being impolite or disrespectful. Either way nate still thought he should post the thread.
-- and a whole lot of additional paragraphs about what the OP may have been thinking.

I'm not in the least impressed by the "total honesty" argument. It's neither necessary nor sensible to blurt out absolutely every thought in one's head in order to get a point across. Not only won't it all fit on the page, but most of the time attempting to do so will get in the way of the point, not clarify it.

I think that nate was after validation: that he wanted to come onto the Straight Dope and get people to back his theory that almost all men not only have objectifying sexual thoughts, but are entirely unable to control them; and that it's utterly normal for men to be unable to concentrate on anything else if they happen to see a woman who they find sexually attractive.

When that wasn't what he got, he attempted to double down on it, and said that the men who were saying otherwise ought to just admit that they routinely behave in the same fashion. When that still wasn't what he got, and instead he got advice about how to get his thoughts under control ranging from 'look in the other direction' to 'better get treatment for a psychiatric condition', he disappeared.

I don't see anything in his posts to show that nate cared in the least how his post was perceived by women; the apology reads to me as just a formal nod to what he thought was the theory that although all men, he assumed, knew this, they weren't supposed to talk about it. And post 86 reads to me that he thought it would be better if men could just talk about it, in whatever terms they felt like.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Perhaps you have it backwards. Maybe words do not carry intrinsic meaning, but people assign meaning to words.
Of course words don't have intrinsic meaning, and I don't believe anybody in this thread has said that they do. That's a theory of magic, not one of linguistics. Words have the meaning humans assign to them.

But they don't have whatever meaning any individual human wants to assign to them at any given moment. The meaning they have is assigned to them by multiple people over periods of years, often of centuries: and this meaning also includes the connotations they've picked up along the way. If everybody declared their own individual meaning for each word, it would be impossible to communicate at all.

And I am also beginning to doubt that it's possible to communicate anything more in this thread than has been said already; plus which, I have to do a market harvest and a couple of markets.
  #245  
Old 08-16-2019, 03:16 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
What about in music?
I am not pursing this any longer. It's getting ridiculous. There is no need to delineate every conceivable situation in life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
He said he was being honest and I believe him. It follows that he literally thought, or thinks it is likely that he would literally think, word for word, "damn, I'd like to fuck the hell out of that."
As noted, Nate was seeking validation for his position and did not receive it. I think most of us believe him when he said that was what went through his brain. That's not under debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
He also apologized: "Sorry in advance. Sometimes I just feel like posting what is on my mind". I can only conclude that he is sorry for being impolite or disrespectful.
No, that's "sorry not sorry". It's a common lead-in to a question or statement that demonstrates bias. Related to "some of my best friends are X" before spewing something offensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I am presently thinking these "subtexts" and "emotional content" are the results of behavioral conditioning.
If by "behavioral conditioning" you mean "thousands of years of mistreatment, victimization, and social/legal disadvantage" then yes.

Last edited by Broomstick; 08-16-2019 at 03:16 AM.
  #246  
Old 08-16-2019, 03:29 AM
nate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 922
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelEmouse View Post
Consulting a professional might be embarrassing, I presume that's why nate went online. Not that it's a bad idea.

But yes, if it affects your driving and causes you to ignore someone talking to you, especially when it's your wife telling you to stop that, it's a problem. Not an insolvable problem, not an identity-defining problem but a problem that should be worked on.

Nate, right now, try looking at pictures of women you find attractive for 10 seconds then look away and don't come back to them for an hour. If you can't do that, don't think 98% of men are like you. It's the other way around. The more you indulge that trait, the stronger and more difficult to dig yourself out of it's going to get.
I could do that in my sleep. I'm talking about actual, real, attractive women, not pictures of them.
  #247  
Old 08-16-2019, 04:59 AM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
If two men infer two distinct meanings from the same sentence in the same context, do they truly speak the same language?

~Max
Yes, you don't need 100% equivalence in understanding to be speaking the same language. It's a philosophical question to be sure but it has an everyday experimental proof. We both think we speak the same language but we probably have different definitions of a "wealthy batchelor".

Last edited by Isamu; 08-16-2019 at 04:59 AM.
  #248  
Old 08-16-2019, 10:52 AM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaftPeople View Post
I'm just pointing out you are excluding critical info in your analysis which will make it challenging to figure out. The critical info is what our brains do when processing communication. We aren't strictly logical, we perform immediate pattern matching and associations to all kinds of other info, we are influenced by feelings, experience, context etc.

You can't look at things like sentence structure and dictionary definitions alone to figure out how a person will feel when they hear something.
What do you think of my conditioning argument? I laid it out at the end of post #239:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
The reason I might not associate "that" as being more offensive than "her" might simply be because I don't have a lot of negative experience being called a "that". Similar to the [classical*] conditioning for profanity I laid out in post #233, the word "that" might trigger a conditioned response in you but a neutral response in me. For some woman, perhaps reading the word "that" evokes the gazing, catcalling, the sexual discrimination, the sexual harassment, the rape, and the crying, lots of crying alone, sometimes in a dark corner trying to convince herself that she is a person with value and not a mere sexual plaything. Constant sexism in her history hotwires the very use of "that" to refer to a woman with a number of red flags in a way that "her" does not. This is an explanation I understand and agree with. What do you think?
*in that post, I mistakenly wrote "operant conditioning"

I would think that covers all of the "other info", because in my opinion feelings are the classical response subject to conditioning (either unconditioned, neutral, or conditioned) and experience is a recollection of the conditioned response to neutral + unconditioned stimulus combo. I think context is an all-encompassing word that includes the "other info", that is, feelings and experience.

I also think history is also a factor, in that history either determines or influences one's experience. Therefore history has either a direct or indirect effect on all stimuli, and by extension has an indirect effect on one's response to word usage. For example, reading a hundred year old letter referring to a woman as a "that" would mean the conditioned stimulus ("that") is history.

You previously mentioned usage and culture. I think usage is already accounted for under syntax - which word was used and where? Under the conditioning model, usage amounts to the present stimulus, which may be conditioned (eg: for some women) or neutral (eg: for me). I do think culture influences word usage, but not directly. In my opinion culture is a nebulous concept, a pattern derived from the individual actions of a group of people. There can be a strong culture, a weak culture, and multiple cultures going on at once. To any extent that culture influences a person's response to a certain word, I fit this into my model as one or more patterns in history or that person's experience, derived from the individual actions (stimuli) of groups of people.

***

To put this all into an example, let's say a father is calling his young daughter out for doing something wrong. The girl starts crying because she is ashamed, and it breaks Dad's heart to see her crying. Dad has conflicting feelings because he wants his daughter to be ashamed for doing wrong, but seeing his beloved daughter crying makes him sad. He tries to stop the crying with hugs and "it's OK to be wrong sometimes, but in the future do better". The daughter doesn't understand and can't communicate because she is young and distressed. Dad loses his patience and eventually says with a stern voice, "If you can't stop your crying, get that out of my face". When Dad says "that", he waves his hand and eyes her whole figure so as to indicate "that crying person in front of me". She runs out of the room, and her distress over doing wrong is pushed aside because now she thinks her stupid face made her beloved Daddy angry. "What's wrong with me? Why do I have to have this face?"

This happens many times over the years. Now an adolescent, she is ashamed to cry in front of men and tries to avoid situations that make her cry. She might even start to wonder whether her face is more important than her self. In this example, the unconditioned stimulus is herself being unable to stop crying in front of her father. The unconditioned response is to continue crying and think negatively of herself. The neutral stimulus is her father referring to her as "that".

One day at school she works up the courage to introduce herself to her crush, a boy who is standing in a group of other boys. As she walks up to the group, one boy whistles a catcall which makes her uncomfortable. The whole group turns towards her and some of them conspicuously eye her body. Her crush's eyes dart down to her legs or shoes for a split second but then he looks her in the eyes. She likes that her crush is looking at her (his eyes are sexy) but she is creeped out by the other boys. One of them says out loud, "Look at that". She sees perverted smiles and licking of lips, but her eyes are on the crush who calmly says, "Hey [name], what's up?" She starts to speak, "I-", but just then one of the other boys comes out and puts his arm around her shoulder, and his stinky boy-armpit is inches away from her face. This random boy says "How's it goin', babe?" and the girl internally freaks out and is on the verge of crying. She can't cry in front of men (see above), especially not men she likes such as her crush. Arms and voice trembling, she pushes the boy off her and says, "I- I'm sorry. Please excuse me." She then puts her hands on her face, turns her back, and runs away to the ladies room two hallways down, far out of earshot of the boys. There she loses composure and struggles to muffle her bawling. This doesn't agree with her stomach and she becomes nauseous. She rushes over to a toilet bowl and manages to keep most of the vomit off her clothes.

In this example, the unconditioned stimulus is plain sexual objectification. The neutral stimulus is again, the word "that". The unconditioned response is a host of undesirable things: shame, crying, nausea, vomit. Part of the unconditional response is compounded by her experiences with her father. A number of similar events happen where she is objectified with the word "that".

Now she is an adult, on a message board, and she reads nate's post. The word "that" when referring to women triggers a conditioned response, it won't make her start crying or nauseous but it will make her uncomfortable, more uncomfortable than sexual objectification without explicitly calling a woman "that". To her, "fuck the hell out of that" is semantically more offensive than "fuck the hell out of her", even if they are both clearly referring to the same person's body, even though the post describes sexual objectification either way. She has been conditioned to see "that" as a more offensive term.

What do you think?

~Max
  #249  
Old 08-16-2019, 11:19 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,949
(1) Your story of conditioning is unnecessarily long and speculative.

And no woman needs to be conditioned to have a negative reaction to "that." All it takes is the knowledge that "that" customarily refers to non-animate objects. You can hear a turn of phrase for the first time in your life and understand it as dehumanizing or objectifying without "conditioning."

(2) You are using a lot of words to convey simple ideas repeatedly.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #250  
Old 08-16-2019, 11:28 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,614
Nice quitting.

Regards,
Shodan
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017