Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 08-13-2019, 09:11 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
I hereby formally request that this thread get moved to the Pit.
How about just start a new Pit thread or 10? It’s not like there is a practical limit on threads.
  #152  
Old 08-13-2019, 09:12 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
No he is not saying that. He's saying he can't watch a tv show or talk with his wife if an attractive woman is in his sightline. Even if the attractive woman is in the tv show he wants to watch.
That is odd. Definitely not 98% of males are that afflicted.
  #153  
Old 08-13-2019, 09:25 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
That is odd. Definitely not 98% of males are that afflicted.
Yeah, not being able to watch the tv show was the entirety of the first paragraph of the OP. Odd that you missed it, too.
  #154  
Old 08-13-2019, 09:31 PM
sitchensis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: revillagigedo
Posts: 2,756
I've a male approaching 40 and have always been hypersexual compared to just about anyone I've been close enough to talk about it with. When I first see a women I couldn't even tell you if she was beautiful because my mind basically says TITS!!!. But it happens so fast that there isn't a thought of sex or anything, or maybe all those thoughts are wrapped up into the one moment of lust.
But for me at least, it really is just a moment, just a flash, and anything after that is in my control. I don't see how it could distract you from something.
  #155  
Old 08-13-2019, 09:54 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,776
Because of this thread, I was consciously aware of my thoughts when I went to the grocery store on Sunday, where I encountered lots of different people.

To be sure, I apparently have a wandering eye, in that I looked at each person I walked past. And my mind apparently runs an ongoing commentary about those people - “That guy’s tall. He has such skinny arms...odd looking couple; they both have weird hair and lots of tattoos; they seem right for each other...aww, that lady has a baby in her cart...”

And, sure enough, it’s a judgmental inner monologue, and one that does get shallow and sometimes objectifying. “Nice legs; very tan; I’m glad she’s wearing those shorts...tall skinny guy’s picking out junk food, no wonder he has no muscle tone...”

From the perspective of other people, though, I was just a dude buying groceries. I smiled at the baby and the couple. I said “excuse me” when I reached for something next to the pretty girl with the toned legs. The skinny guy probably never noticed me (or, who knows, maybe I was a random in his thoughts).

You can have thoughts, you can notice people, and you can do those things without letting it interfere with your day. The brain can even multitask to such an extent that you can walk and talk and still be thinking. I suspect most people aren’t limited to only doing what their brain is thinking about at any given time.
  #156  
Old 08-13-2019, 10:01 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
I have that judgemental inner monologue too.
  #157  
Old 08-13-2019, 10:22 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Yeah, not being able to watch the tv show was the entirety of the first paragraph of the OP. Odd that you missed it, too.
Not really. For one my mind did not connect watching a documentary with watching TV. I do most of my watching on a tablet via apps such as YouTube. The word “tv” never entered my mind when reading that OP.

So generalizing viewing a documentary and walking down the street to basic activities that require a bit of focus is not at all odd or sinister.
  #158  
Old 08-13-2019, 10:32 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,937
nm

Last edited by CarnalK; 08-13-2019 at 10:32 PM.
  #159  
Old 08-13-2019, 10:44 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I have that judgemental inner monologue too.
psst--it's not inner
  #160  
Old 08-13-2019, 10:52 PM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainE View Post
I find it amusing that the op is taken to task for objectifying women by using the word “that” as if saying, “Damn, I’d like to fuck the hell out of her” would have been perfectly acceptable.
It probably is acceptable IMO because it's just saying "I would like to have vigorous sex with her" but using crude language. And since it was his inner monologue, the crude language is neither here nor there.

Granted, people don't like to hear about these thoughts, any more than I want to hear about what people masturbate to. But there's nothing inherently wrong there.
  #161  
Old 08-13-2019, 11:06 PM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,026
I mean of course if he had thought that it would have been OK IMO.


Sent from my Redmi 5A using Tapatalk
  #162  
Old 08-14-2019, 12:38 AM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
It probably is acceptable IMO because it's just saying "I would like to have vigorous sex with her" but using crude language. And since it was his inner monologue, the crude language is neither here nor there.

Granted, people don't like to hear about these thoughts, any more than I want to hear about what people masturbate to. But there's nothing inherently wrong there.
The semantic meaning of "that" would be "that person" or specifically "that person's body" so I don't see the difference. There are valid criticisms to be made (that have been made) about repeating impolite language verbatim from an inner monologue, and the inference is that such impolite language ought not to have been in his thoughts to begin with.

The important thing, however, is not his use of words but the fact that nate reduced a person to an object of sexual desire, and further, that this fantasizing is both harmful and normal to him.

ETA: I can only suggest therapy and possibly positive reinforcement, associate sex with the bedroom or designated sex-places and it might be easier to look at an attractive woman in other contexts without thinking of sex.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 08-14-2019 at 12:42 AM.
  #163  
Old 08-14-2019, 12:41 AM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
It probably is acceptable IMO because it's just saying "I would like to have vigorous sex with her" but using crude language. And since it was his inner monologue, the crude language is neither here nor there.
But if he voluntarily started a thread to make a "confession" about his thoughts and behavior, then he's relinquished the presumption of privacy about his "inner monologue", so the language is relevant. If you're going to offer up an unsolicited description of your inner monologue to a bunch of internet strangers, then either translate/paraphrase your thoughts so they don't make you sound shitty-misogynistic, or be prepared to have people telling you that you sound shitty-misogynistic.
  #164  
Old 08-14-2019, 01:02 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
The semantic meaning of "that" would be "that person" or specifically "that person's body" so I don't see the difference.
Some here were taking offence because using "that" is very clearly objectifying in a way that "her" is not.

Quote:
the inference is that such impolite language ought not to have been in his thoughts to begin with.
I would disagree with that. I am an extremely polite person but if you could read my mind sure you'll hear curse words both in sexual or angry contexts.
Confessing to some of those thoughts in a forum is maybe a bad move, and I said that in my last post.
But I would disagree that even the thought itself is intrinsically wrong.

--------------------------------------

More generally, the rude behaviour of the OP is the main problem here and I have said that.
But having lustful thoughts is something pretty much everyone is guilty of ("pretty much" because there are some people who claim to have been asexual all their lives).
  #165  
Old 08-14-2019, 02:21 AM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
Some here were taking offence because using "that" is very clearly objectifying in a way that "her" is not.
In context, I see no difference between "that", "that person", "that person's body", "that female person", "her", "her body", or "that female person's body".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
I would disagree with that. I am an extremely polite person but if you could read my mind sure you'll hear curse words both in sexual or angry contexts.
Confessing to some of those thoughts in a forum is maybe a bad move, and I said that in my last post.
But I would disagree that even the thought itself is intrinsically wrong.
I will agree to disagree, but this might make for an interesting thread.

~Max
  #166  
Old 08-14-2019, 05:03 AM
Maastricht is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Dutch in the Netherlands
Posts: 9,267
We had a similar thread a while ago.

In that tread, I posted:
Quote:
I sometimes think I can empathize with men. I'm a woman, but how would I feel if I was surrounded all day by playful kittens and puppies?

So here I am, really trying to concentrate on the projections for next quarter, but here comes that Labrador puppy from accounting again ! Juuust look at that chubby round tummy and that cute little tail. Don't you just wanna pet that? Just pet that adorable little dog face and and flap those blond little ear flappity flaps and smile when you get a happy yip in return.. then rub that soft fluffy .... ahem.

Okay, so, the projections for next quarter.
  #167  
Old 08-14-2019, 05:20 AM
Maastricht is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Dutch in the Netherlands
Posts: 9,267
Here's a thought:

How often in a day does a women think about her attractiveness? That is really her thinking about sex.

Every time she changes her posture or facial expression to look better, every time she adjusts her clothing or thinks about how it fits, every time she thinks in a pleasant flirty way about how a guy might like her.. that is a way of thinking about sexuality that, in our culture, is open to women, right?

Or not?
  #168  
Old 08-14-2019, 05:26 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
In context, I see no difference between "that", "that person", "that person's body", "that female person", "her", "her body", or "that female
person's body".
OK. I get that. YOU don't see a problem.

What women in this thread (and at least two others that have cropped up during this conversation) are telling you, though, is that WE see a problem with it.

You then come here and imply that because YOU don't have a problem with it they shouldn't either. This is called "mansplaining". I hasten to add that I don't think you did this from a malicious place, but at best it's the verbal equivalent of patting someone on the head and saying "there, there, don't worry your pretty little head about that". I know that was not your intention, but that's how it comes across.

As a woman, let me repeat: saying "I want to have sex with that" is definitely more objectifying and de-humanizing than saying "I want to have sex with her". Even if you don't perceive a problem with that we do. Please acknowledge that women see this differently than men even if, as a man, you don't see this as a big deal.
  #169  
Old 08-14-2019, 05:28 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
IDK, Maastricht, that sounds kind of 1950s-ish.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
psst--it's not inner

It is when I’m at the supermarket.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 08-14-2019 at 05:29 AM.
  #170  
Old 08-14-2019, 05:36 AM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
IDK, Maastricht, that sounds kind of 1950s-ish.
Thank you, you've put your finger into what was bothering me about it. Maastricht is talking about a woman thinking of herself exclusively in the context of being an object of desire or, worse yet, of décor, because a lot of what goes into "smile" and "look pleasant" isn't necessarily about sexual attraction but is definitely and always about being decorative and, uh... un-bothersome to those who are more important than you are. A vase may be expensive but none has ever been important.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #171  
Old 08-14-2019, 05:46 AM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
5 or 6 short ones, sure. Our point was that we (a bunch of girls between 17 and 23 who according to the OP have no idea what it's like to have sexual thoughts) only had a single sexual thought each day, one which lasted from "when I woke up" until "when I fell asleep"; we couldn't even pinkyswear that our dreams were perfectly chaste (they probably weren't).
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
This is super interesting and a great example of why this thread is valuable. So do you call bullshit on the claim we so often hear that men are visual and women are more about a narrative?
What is interesting to me was that you jumped from "we thought about sex all day long" to "we thought about sex visually". There are people who are more visual and people who are more about narrative, and even people who are visually narrative (I expect it's a good mindset if you're a playwright or a movie writer, for example). We do know that there are differences in which thinking methods are more common that correlate with biological sex, but we also know that there are great variations between individuals within each group, that these differences are influenced by nurture and by social acceptability, and we don't really know how much is nature, how much is nurture.

I'm a visual thinker to such an extent that I kind of consider Spanish my second language: when I'm trying to solve a complicated problem I think in pictures. The problem, whatever it is, gets turned into symbols that I move around until I get them to fit together, at which point the problem is solved and I have a new problem: translating my solution into Spanish/English/whatever so I can communicate it to other people. My current main business contact is the same way, and like me she's female. My mother and one of my SiLs, as stereotypically "can't read maps" as anybody could ask for. 2.SiL, in between. I've known women who couldn't find an element of symmetry in a sphere (it only has infinite planes and infinite axis of symmetry, plus a symmetry center) and men who couldn't follow a two-steps process diagram without getting lost.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Last edited by Nava; 08-14-2019 at 05:48 AM.
  #172  
Old 08-14-2019, 06:02 AM
CaptainE is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
OK. I get that. YOU don't see a problem.

What women in this thread (and at least two others that have cropped up during this conversation) are telling you, though, is that WE see a problem with it.

You then come here and imply that because YOU don't have a problem with it they shouldn't either. This is called "mansplaining". I hasten to add that I don't think you did this from a malicious place, but at best it's the verbal equivalent of patting someone on the head and saying "there, there, don't worry your pretty little head about that". I know that was not your intention, but that's how it comes across.

As a woman, let me repeat: saying "I want to have sex with that" is definitely more objectifying and de-humanizing than saying "I want to have sex with her". Even if you don't perceive a problem with that we do. Please acknowledge that women see this differently than men even if, as a man, you don't see this as a big deal.
Since I started the semantic part I’ll add in that my point was, as Archer says, “phrasing”.

Compare your two examples but use the F word in one and “have sex” in the other to get my point.

I understand the objectification associated with “that”, but just wanting to fuck someone, or grab their you know what I thought might also be seen as objectifying.

Last edited by CaptainE; 08-14-2019 at 06:03 AM.
  #173  
Old 08-14-2019, 06:02 AM
Treppenwitz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
..........As a woman, let me repeat: saying "I want to have sex with that" is definitely more objectifying and de-humanizing than saying "I want to have sex with her". Even if you don't perceive a problem with that we do. Please acknowledge that women see this differently than men even if, as a man, you don't see this as a big deal.
I've been keeping out of this thread because I found the OP objectionable; but I like a lot of what I see in response.

Re Broomstick's comment, I was reminded of this video. Check it out from 1.05 for the next few seconds ("All you need to know about politics...."). For context, Loadsamoney was a monster created by Harry Enfield: boorish, sexist, totemic of Thatcher's Britain, celebrating greed, laughing at the poor. Of course, as a comic Enfield has a certain mastery of words, and what he has to say from 1.05 is a carefully calculated vileness.

Pertinent, I thought.

j

Lighter aside: I was thinking, tracking down that exact piece of video is going to be a chore. But the first video I looked at, the first point in the sketch I clicked on, I nailed it to the second. Ooooo- scary. Just sayin'.
  #174  
Old 08-14-2019, 07:19 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin
I would disagree with that. I am an extremely polite person but if you could read my mind sure you'll hear curse words both in sexual or angry contexts.
Confessing to some of those thoughts in a forum is maybe a bad move, and I said that in my last post.
But I would disagree that even the thought itself is intrinsically wrong.
I will agree to disagree, but this might make for an interesting thread.
I doubt it would be an interesting thread. You'd have to be arguing either that lustful thoughts are wrong, or that you can have lustful thoughts as long as you clean up the language in your own brain. Both of which are patently ridiculous positions to take.
  #175  
Old 08-14-2019, 08:18 AM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
OK. I get that. YOU don't see a problem.
I'm sorry you misunderstood me. I see objectification regardless of word choice, and do not understand why you or the "some" mentioned by Mijin think "her" is OK when "that" is not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
You then come here and imply that because YOU don't have a problem with it they shouldn't either.
I engage in conversation on these boards to further understand people's positions (even my own), especially when they make a claim that I disagree with. If we both understand each other's position and its implications, I will agree to drop the matter; learning that I am wrong or convincing someone else that they are wrong is not the primary goal of my conversations here. I'm not sure how you drew the implication that I do not value or respect women's opinions when I disagree with them, but I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt in the future.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 08-14-2019 at 08:20 AM. Reason: "some" mentioned by Mijin
  #176  
Old 08-14-2019, 08:48 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
I'm sorry you misunderstood me. I see objectification regardless of word choice, and do not understand why you or the "some" mentioned by Mijin think "her" is OK when "that" is not.
I don't think the issue is of whether one is okay and the other is not. "That" is both sexually objectifying and dehumanizing. Whereas, "her" might just be sexually objectifying, but not necessarily. Certainly what the other words are that surround "her" make a difference.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #177  
Old 08-14-2019, 08:48 AM
Enola Gay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: California
Posts: 2,533
I have a friend who had an uncontrollable obsession with chocolate. She would think about it, fantasize about eating it, then couldn't resist actually eating it, which she didn't like because she was always trying to lose weight. She addressed this obsession by putting a rubber band around her wrist and snapping it every time those unwanted thoughts crept into her mind. I suggest the OP give this a try and see if it helps.
  #178  
Old 08-14-2019, 09:07 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 the issue is of whether one is okay and the other is not. "That" is both sexually objectifying and dehumanizing. Whereas, "her" might just be sexually objectifying, but not necessarily. Certainly what the other words are that surround "her" make a difference.
I don't even understand why using "her" in context would be "less objectionable" than using "that". To me, the semantic meaning of "damn, I'd like to fuck the hell out of that" is identical to "damn, I'd like to fuck the hell out of her" is identical to "damn, I'd like to fuck the hell out of that body".

~Max
  #179  
Old 08-14-2019, 09:15 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'm sorry you misunderstood me. I see objectification regardless of word choice, and do not understand why you or the "some" mentioned by Mijin think "her" is OK when "that" is not.
It's not black and white, it's black and grey.

NEITHER is OK. BOTH are objectifying. One is less offensive than the other, but BOTH are still offensive.

You bring up an interesting contrast between "have sex with that" vs. "have sex with her" and "fuck that" vs. "fuck her".

In both cases "that" is less personal, less focused on the individual, that the word "her". "Fuck that" can mean "fuck things in general" or "I'm done with this". "Fuck her", in contrast, is much more directed to a particular individual. Now, in context that may be better or worse but regardless "fuck her" acknowledges the other person as a distinct and separate indivdual.

Likewise "have sex with that" vs. "have sex with her". Again, the later is more distinctly emphasizing an individual, particular woman.

It's a subtle difference, but it matters. One long-standing complaint in the world is the question "What do women want?" which implies there is just one thing, or a list of things, ALL women want universally and if you just figure that out you've "solved" the "problem" of women. "What do women want, and how do we deal with that?" vs. "What does this person want, and how do we deal with her?" Again, it is subtle, but the latter much more recognizes a woman as an individual human being rather than something more interchangeable with other women.

Thus - "have sex with that" is less acceptable (which does NOT make the other "OK") because it de-emphasizes the individuality and uniqueness of the woman in question. That's what makes her more of an object and less an individual human being.

Now, this woman at least (because I'm an individual and don't speak for all women) doesn't go around analyzing conversations in detail in this manner, and in fact it took a couple of days of me thinking about the thread, sort of on the back burner bubbling away, to lay all that down in a manner that makes sense to me (and I hope makes sense to other people). But, being a woman in a society that still has many patriarchal features I have no choice but to be sensitive to such subtleties because, to put it bluntly, it's part of the rape-avoidance kit. Which is another thing men don't really put any thought into but we women think about avoiding rape pretty much on a daily basis, to the point we're hardly aware anymore about how much "avoid danger" impacts how we move in the world. Most men aren't rapists, but the "penalty" for being wrong on that is so steep that avoiding it informs a LOT of our choices and actions.

I can imagine my husband saying "My wife, I want to have sex with her" but I can't imagine him saying "My wife, I want to have sex with that". One type of phrase (have sex with her, fuck her) I can imagine, in certain context, being said with affection. The other (have sex with that, fuck that) I really, really have a hard time imagining said with any affection.

And, again, this is just one person's opinion - I do not speak for all women, to be honest I just speak for just one woman, myself. Other people (of any gender you care to name) can and likely will have a different opinion.

Quote:
I engage in conversation on these boards to further understand people's positions (even my own), especially when they make a claim that I disagree with. If we both understand each other's position and its implications, I will agree to drop the matter; learning that I am wrong or convincing someone else that they are wrong is not the primary goal of my conversations here. I'm not sure how you drew the implication that I do not value or respect women's opinions when I disagree with them, but I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt in the future.
I think you misunderstand me. I think you DO value my opinions, otherwise I would not engage with you and I don't think you'd have responded in such a thoughtful and reasoned manner. One of the two frustrating things about discussing such topics is that, first of all, people seem to want to make everything binary - good/bad, yes/no, black/white - when a lot of this involves spectrum. As I said, the two phrase are not "bad" and "OK", they're "bad" and "less bad" but neither is OK. Second, people tend to assume that if someone describes something they approve of it. That is not the case. Just because someone acknowledges the existence of something does not mean they either approve or disapprove of it (although how they describe it might give some indication). If we truly want to fight ignorance here we have to sometimes drag some icky stuff out into the light so it can be examined and dealt with.

So, when I say "this is how you're coming across" it is not to say "you are wrong". I am first asking you to clarify what you are saying in a different manner. Second, I am trying to tell you that even though you have zero intention of belittling my position I feel the manner in which are communicating has done so.

Mansplaining is unconscious sexism in the same way that unconscious racism crops up. It's done by people who have good intentions without realizing that what they are doing is devaluing the observations of someone with significantly different life experiences. I know that's not your intention - that's why I use the term "unconscious". The problem is that you're still devaluing my position based on "I don't experience the world that way". Of course you don't, you're a man and I'm a woman. We don't experience the world in exactly the same manner. But in order to discuss these issues you have to give as much weight to my experience of life as you do your own.

All that said - I am well aware that the average man thinks a lot more about sex than the average woman. I have no doubt that many men I have worked with, associated with, lived next door to, chatted on the bus with have had sexual thoughts about me. In some cases, they have actually told me that. I know that men look at and think about touching and fucking tits, ass, vaj, and every other conceivable part of my body. In some cases this is entirely impersonal - they don't know me as an individual, they just see a woman they find attractive on some level or in some attribute the gears in their brain grind away. In other cases, there is actual affection there. In between your ears it's your playground, as long as your sexual thoughts don't pose a hazard (and a number of people have mentioned sexual thoughts as so distracting they could pose a hazard) it's your business. What matters is how you conduct yourself in society and towards others. If a man can have lustful thoughts about a neighbor or co-worker but keeps his hands to himself (unless explicitly invited to do otherwise) and can interact with that person as an equal human being then great. If a man can sit across from a beautiful woman and listen fully to what she says to him, or treat her as a social or professional equal, that's the goal. If, however, a man says her beauty "distracts" him to the point he doesn't hear what she says, or he focuses on his lustful thoughts rather than doing the job at hand, then HE has a problem.... and she does, too, especially if he is in a position of power over her. And if a man is driving a car and lets his lustful thoughts be that distracting we ALL have a problem because he's not really paying full attention to driving and that poses a risk of accident, which can affect not only those in the car but those around it, which is my biggest objection to the OP of this thread, more so than the phrase "have sex with that", because while he's thinking so hard about fucking that he's not paying attention to what he's doing - driving a car - and risks fucking up himself, his wife, and anyone he might happen to hit while distracted.
  #180  
Old 08-14-2019, 09:19 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
I don't think the issue is of whether one is okay and the other is not. "That" is both sexually objectifying and dehumanizing. Whereas, "her" might just be sexually objectifying, but not necessarily. Certainly what the other words are that surround "her" make a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I don't even understand why using "her" in context would be "less objectionable" than using "that". To me, the semantic meaning of "damn, I'd like to fuck the hell out of that" is identical to "damn, I'd like to fuck the hell out of her" is identical to "damn, I'd like to fuck the hell out of that body".
I realize I just made a long post about the topic, but I'm going for the TL: DR version here. I understand that to you, Max S., there is no difference. There is a difference to me and (apparently) some other people. So here's a slice of my prior post that I think gets to the heart of the matter. See if it works for you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
I can imagine my husband saying "My wife, I want to have sex with her" but I can't imagine him saying "My wife, I want to have sex with that". One type of phrase (have sex with her, fuck her) I can imagine, in certain context, being said with affection. The other (have sex with that, fuck that) I really, really have a hard time imagining said with any affection.
  #181  
Old 08-14-2019, 10:32 AM
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I don't even understand why using "her" in context would be "less objectionable" than using "that". To me, the semantic meaning of "damn, I'd like to fuck the hell out of that" is identical to "damn, I'd like to fuck the hell out of her" is identical to "damn, I'd like to fuck the hell out of that body".

~Max
You don't have to understand it. What you have to do is to understand that other people understand it. And that such other people matter.

Language has an impact. You've been told over and over again in this thread the impact of that particular piece of language on multiple people. The fact that it has no such impact on you has nothing to do with it. The technical semantics of the construction of the sentence are equally irrelevant.

The fact that we keep having to deal with arguments along the lines of 'this doesn't impact me in that fashion so I don't see why it should impact anybody else in that fashion' is relevant. And annoying.
  #182  
Old 08-14-2019, 10:39 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,949
Just to put it simply, Max S., do you see that some people interpret "I'd hit that" as carrying an implication that the "that" is an object of less-than-personhood status? "I'd have sex with her," at least acknowledges the object of the desire as a human being.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #183  
Old 08-14-2019, 11:19 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick
I can imagine my husband saying "My wife, I want to have sex with her" but I can't imagine him saying "My wife, I want to have sex with that". One type of phrase (have sex with her, fuck her) I can imagine, in certain context, being said with affection. The other (have sex with that, fuck that) I really, really have a hard time imagining said with any affection.
I'm not your husband, but from my own experience, I say both (inside my head). At different times, and sometimes at the same time.

Men and women think about sex differently. Sometimes, I think objectifying thoughts about women. I am not thinking "what a lovely person that young lady with the big breasts must be, I would certainly like to have a committed relationship with her that includes mutually respective sexual interactions". I am thinking only about the big breasts. Yes, there is a person on the far side of the breasts. But I am not thinking about that at the moment.

I am not distracted as the OP says he is, I don't stare or make comments, I have never sexually assaulted or harassed anyone. But I still think the thoughts. We can certainly socialize or shame men into not acting on the thoughts, and we might even need to do a better job of it than we do. We can even, probably, socialize or shame them into not expressing the thoughts out loud, or to express them in a more roundabout way or using different terms. But I don't think you can socialize or shame the thoughts into not occurring.

I guess I agree with Max S. - "I'd like to fuck that" and "I'd like to fuck that woman" or "I'd like to see more of that ass" are all expressing the same thought. They are all IMO objectifying.

In circumstances where it leads to women being stared at or harassed or being treated outwardly in demeaning ways - sure, condemn them. Or if you don't want to know, you don't have to. If you'd rather not hear, I won't tell you. If for any reason you would an insight into the male mind, that's a big one, in my experience. Men and women think differently about sex.

Regards,
Shodan
  #184  
Old 08-14-2019, 11:32 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,725
I did say I couldn't imagine my husband saying those things - speaking is an action, as is writing things down.

I think there's a parallel with physical violence here. Pretty much everyone has thoughts of physical violence from time to time. Some people might have them pretty often. But we're taught that it's wrong to act on thoughts of physical violence, and that even speaking of them needs to be done with some care.

Likewise, people thinking about sex is pretty common. We are socialized as to the appropriate ways to act and speak about those thoughts.

People who can't control their violent or sexual impulses are a problem for society, whether they are acting out on those desires or merely so distracted by them they become a traffic hazard.

Part of acting in a civilized manner isn't just about what how we understand words and actions, it's also about how they're perceived by other people. Part of living in society is acknowledging that sometimes we have to yield a bit in our own speech and actions, and in turn others need to yield to us sometimes. Physical freedom is not unlimited - your right to swing your fist around ends where my nose begins. Likewise, other freedoms are not without limits as well.
  #185  
Old 08-14-2019, 11:56 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
I did say I couldn't imagine my husband saying those things - speaking is an action, as is writing things down.
You are correct, of course - I misinterpreted "saying" as "saying in my head". My apologies.
Quote:
I think there's a parallel with physical violence here. Pretty much everyone has thoughts of physical violence from time to time. Some people might have them pretty often. But we're taught that it's wrong to act on thoughts of physical violence, and that even speaking of them needs to be done with some care.

Likewise, people thinking about sex is pretty common. We are socialized as to the appropriate ways to act and speak about those thoughts.

People who can't control their violent or sexual impulses are a problem for society, whether they are acting out on those desires or merely so distracted by them they become a traffic hazard.

Part of acting in a civilized manner isn't just about what how we understand words and actions, it's also about how they're perceived by other people. Part of living in society is acknowledging that sometimes we have to yield a bit in our own speech and actions, and in turn others need to yield to us sometimes. Physical freedom is not unlimited - your right to swing your fist around ends where my nose begins. Likewise, other freedoms are not without limits as well.
The difference being, of course, that when I am sitting in the third hour of some interminable meeting with some twit droning on and on about issues that have already been addressed, I would never, ever think, even for a second, of the places in his throat where I could jab a pencil and shut him up forever.

Really, it would never occur to me.

Regards,
Shodan
  #186  
Old 08-14-2019, 12:33 PM
Manda JO is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I'm not your husband, but from my own experience, I say both (inside my head). At different times, and sometimes at the same time.

Men and women think about sex differently. Sometimes, I think objectifying thoughts about women. I am not thinking "what a lovely person that young lady with the big breasts must be, I would certainly like to have a committed relationship with her that includes mutually respective sexual interactions". I am thinking only about the big breasts. Yes, there is a person on the far side of the breasts. But I am not thinking about that at the moment.
I think there's a real difference between thinking thoughts that are focused on a woman's body, and expressing those thoughts in a way that reinforces the idea that a woman is a series of parts. I mean, just having a response to stimulus is fine. I don't even think of that as objectification, because you aren't reframing the woman from person into object. You haven't gotten that far. But when someone boasts of how they want to "hit that" and "get all up in that" and so on, it's like breaking conventions of usage to emphasize that you don't see the other as a person.

I also don't think it's a dichotomy between "think of her as an object" and "want to have a romantic relationship with someone" . It's just "think of her as a person" and "think of her as an object". I see nothing objectionable with 'there's this woman at work, and to be honest I don't even like her, but she's distractingly attractive. Something about her just checks all my boxes and I honestly have to like, prep before a meeting so I don't get distracted. I have to have STRATEGIES. But at the same time, wow, if I were stranded in an elevator with her I'd claw my way out. WAY too many stories about her cats".

See, that's an amusing anecdote. You don't have to like someone to see them as a person.

On the other hand, something like "There's this woman at work and she's got this ass and I can think about is how much I'd like to hit that. I catch myself staring at it all the time. I'd get all up in it if I could". That's objectifying.
  #187  
Old 08-14-2019, 01:11 PM
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Men and women think about sex differently. Sometimes, I think objectifying thoughts about women. I am not thinking "what a lovely person that young lady with the big breasts must be, I would certainly like to have a committed relationship with her that includes mutually respective sexual interactions". I am thinking only about the big breasts. Yes, there is a person on the far side of the breasts. But I am not thinking about that at the moment.
Why on earth do you think this sort of reaction is limited only to men?

And why are you talking as if people in the thread were objecting to thoughts inside one's own head? There are lots of things people think inside their own heads that they need to learn not to say in public; and/or that they need to learn how to say in public in such a fashion as not to upset other people.

Saying/writing anything where others can hear/see it is an action that has an influence on other people. (Is this the sixth time this has been one way or another said in this thread, or the sixtieth, or the six hundredth? I'm losing track.)
  #188  
Old 08-14-2019, 02:18 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
I think there's a real difference between thinking thoughts that are focused on a woman's body, and expressing those thoughts in a way that reinforces the idea that a woman is a series of parts. I mean, just having a response to stimulus is fine. I don't even think of that as objectification, because you aren't reframing the woman from person into object. You haven't gotten that far. But when someone boasts of how they want to "hit that" and "get all up in that" and so on, it's like breaking conventions of usage to emphasize that you don't see the other as a person.
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.

It doesn't seem to me to be boasting, in either case. Because I am not re-framing the woman - she is being objectified in my thought in both cases, no matter how I express it. Maybe the re-framing comes when I decide whether or not to express it, either by my actions towards her, or even when I decide whether to say it in my out-loud voice.

I am not boasting, because it doesn't seem to me to be something to boast about, any more than something to be apologetic about. It just is, and as long as I don't get distracted or drool visibly or treat the woman differently, it's just a guy thing.

Regards,
Shodan
  #189  
Old 08-14-2019, 02:36 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,725
You could, just a suggestion, when you're talking about such a woman/body part, throw in "I know a woman is more than the sum of her parts, but this particular XYZ caught my attention and I started thinking about how I'd like to do this that and the other." That at least acknowledges there's another person in the picture even if your dick is all about the one thing.

It's a pretty subtle distinction we're making, but it shows the divide between male and female pretty well. When you are speaking/writing/otherwise acting to express your fantasy it would be appreciated if you made some token nod that the person attached to the bodypart you're fantasizing about exists. And that might be as simple as saying "her" or "she" instead of "that".

I don't think men appreciate it when when speak of them as if all they're good for is sperm donation and can't be trusted to be responsible for their children - it's objectifying all men, reducing them to stereotype, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it better if there some acknowledgment that not all men are deadbeats? "I know not all men are assholes, but this particular guy failed to do X or Y when he said he would." sort of phrasing.
  #190  
Old 08-14-2019, 02:40 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,949
There are words that have connotations, and those connotations arise from the context in which they are used--by whom, how, with what intent, etc.

For example, in my view, referring to someone as a "male" or a "female" is objectivizing and dehumanizing in a way that "man" and "woman" aren't.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #191  
Old 08-14-2019, 02:55 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
I don't think men appreciate it when when speak of them as if all they're good for is sperm donation and can't be trusted to be responsible for their children - it's objectifying all men, reducing them to stereotype, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it better if there some acknowledgment that not all men are deadbeats? "I know not all men are assholes, but this particular guy failed to do X or Y when he said he would." sort of phrasing.
"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".

YMMV.

Regards,
Shodan
  #192  
Old 08-14-2019, 03:27 PM
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
"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.
So you understand and agree that the OP post in this thread was offensive?

Do you also understand and agree that going into further detail describing the particular body parts being thought of, as was also done in the OP, was also offensive?

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".
Talking about the ass as if it's part of a thing rather than part of a person is a problem.

I'm getting the distinct impression, though, that no matter how many times, or in what words, we say this, some people are not going to hear it. Because, again, that's been said over and over and over again already.
  #193  
Old 08-14-2019, 03:38 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,614
I think you might be making the same mistake I made earlier in conflating "talking" with "thinking".

Regards,
Shodan
  #194  
Old 08-14-2019, 04:25 PM
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 984
If the OP's thoughts had stayed inside his own head this whole thread wouldn't exist.
  #195  
Old 08-14-2019, 05:32 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
In both cases "that" is less personal, less focused on the individual, that the word "her". "Fuck that" can mean "fuck things in general" or "I'm done with this". "Fuck her", in contrast, is much more directed to a particular individual. Now, in context that may be better or worse but regardless "fuck her" acknowledges the other person as a distinct and separate indivdual.
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"?

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 Broomstick View Post
I can imagine my husband saying "My wife, I want to have sex with her" but I can't imagine him saying "My wife, I want to have sex with that". One type of phrase (have sex with her, fuck her) I can imagine, in certain context, being said with affection. The other (have sex with that, fuck that) I really, really have a hard time imagining said with any affection.
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.
SPOILER:
Let us first analyze the syntax of the sentence, "My wife, I want to have sex with that".
Notice the left-dislocation of "my wife" and the demonstrative pronoun "that". In particular, demonstrative pronouns properly represent people only when the antecedent is identified in the same clause. This is because demonstrative pronouns are impersonal, and it can be confusing to describe a person with an impersonal pronoun without explicitly and immediately making clear that the pronoun refers to a person. The implication is that demonstrative pronouns cannot properly represent people in a dislocated noun phrase.

The following sentences are grammatically sound:
(1)"That is my friend John Doe who is sick."
(2)"That is my friend who is sick, John Doe."
(3)"John Doe, I have always wanted to punch that guy."
(4)"My wife, I like that woman."
(5)"My wife, I want to have sex with her.
In sentence 1-2, the word that is a demonstrative pronoun referring to my friend John Doe or my friend respectively. The antecedents are within the same clause and the sentences read naturally.

In sentence 3-4 the pronoun that is actually a demonstrative adjective because it modifies the noun guy or woman, respectively. Demonstrative adjectives need not have their antecedent in the same clause, and these sentences also read naturally. There might be some confusion as to whether the sentences constitute dislocation or the speaker is simply addressing John Doe/his wife, but this is easily resolved in context.

In sentence 5 a personal pronoun is used, not a demonstrative pronoun. Personal pronouns need not have the antecedent in the same clause, and unless the pronoun references the subject it is often awkward to do so. The dislocation with personal pronouns is allowed and this sentence reads naturally.

Now let's look at a couple sentences with faulty syntax.
(6)"That is sick, John Doe is my friend"
(7)"That is sick, my friend John Doe."
(8)"John Doe, I have always wanted to punch that."
(9)"My wife, I like that."
(10)"My wife, I want to have sex with that.
Each of these sentences is assumed to have been spoken with the same intent as the sentences 1-5, but poor syntax makes these more difficult to understand. Every one of these sentences 6-10 misuses the demonstrative pronoun, that, by placing the antecedent in a separate clause.
It is clear that something is wrong with the syntax of the second sentence you gave, and I understand why you have trouble envisioning its use in with affection. But let's look at the semantics and context.
Again, the sentence is "My wife, I want to have sex with that".

First it must be determined whether the leading clause is a dislocated element or an adjunct given to physically address the speaker's wife. Context would easily resolve this question if the wife was not in the room, or if she was the only other person in the room, or if the speaker turned or otherwise indicated that he was speaking to his wife.

The big question is what exactly that refers to. The poor syntax prevents us from knowing through words alone. If the speaker is not speaking to his wife, it is safe to assume that refers to his wife or at least her body. Such an exchange might go:
FRIEND: "I don't like girls with [X]."
HUSBAND: "I do."
FRIEND: "I don't believe it. A man can't want to have sex with [X]."
HUSBAND: "I can, and have."
FRIEND: "With who?"
HUSBAND: "My wife, I want to have sex with that."
In this case, that refers to whatever [X] is.

If the husband is talking to his wife, it might be easier to imagine similar sentences being uttered with affection:
"I want to fuck that", spoken during sex
"I want to have sex with that", spoken as silly hyperbole
"I would still have sex with that", spoken in a reassuring manner
It seems to me that a husband might say this sort of thing to his wife with affection and smiles, what do you think? If you agree, we have a syntax problem, not a semantic problem. Out of context, the sentence is only dehumanizing. When made in certain contexts, however, it can be both dehumanizing and show affection.

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". 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.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
One of the two frustrating things about discussing such topics is that, first of all, people seem to want to make everything binary - good/bad, yes/no, black/white - when a lot of this involves spectrum.
Apologies, I clearly misrepresented your position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Second, I am trying to tell you that even though you have zero intention of belittling my position I feel the manner in which are communicating has done so.

Mansplaining is unconscious sexism in the same way that unconscious racism crops up. It's done by people who have good intentions without realizing that what they are doing is devaluing the observations of someone with significantly different life experiences. I know that's not your intention - that's why I use the term "unconscious". The problem is that you're still devaluing my position based on "I don't experience the world that way". Of course you don't, you're a man and I'm a woman. We don't experience the world in exactly the same manner. But in order to discuss these issues you have to give as much weight to my experience of life as you do your own.
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.

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.

Maybe I ought to have explicitly asked Mijin to explain how "that" is more objectifying in a way that "her" is not. Maybe I ought to have gone back through the thread again, but this time responded individually to the "some" people Mijin said took offense (such as yourself). 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. 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.

Maybe I'm just a lost cause. But I agree with your entire last paragraph.

~Max
  #196  
Old 08-14-2019, 05:36 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
I realize I just made a long post about the topic, but I'm going for the TL: DR version here. I understand that to you, Max S., there is no difference. There is a difference to me and (apparently) some other people.
I recognize that you and others see a difference, but I don't understand why. That's my angle.

~Max
  #197  
Old 08-14-2019, 06:02 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,997
Broomstick, that post (179) was a good read and gave me a lot to think about. Thanks.

(Really good point in 189 too.)

There’s no question IMO that “that” is more objectifying than “her”. However, I also think that if it’s valuable to get insight into the way people think (YMMV, but I do think it is valuable), then accurately representing that objectification in one’s “confession” is vital.
  #198  
Old 08-14-2019, 06:04 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
You don't have to understand it. What you have to do is to understand that other people understand it. And that such other people matter.

Language has an impact. You've been told over and over again in this thread the impact of that particular piece of language on multiple people. The fact that it has no such impact on you has nothing to do with it. The technical semantics of the construction of the sentence are equally irrelevant.

The fact that we keep having to deal with arguments along the lines of 'this doesn't impact me in that fashion so I don't see why it should impact anybody else in that fashion' is relevant. And annoying.
I recognize that other people have opinions, even strong opinions. I have opinions myself.

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". 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"?

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
  #199  
Old 08-14-2019, 06:04 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 12,896
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
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.
  #200  
Old 08-14-2019, 06:12 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Just to put it simply, Max S., do you see that some people interpret "I'd hit that" as carrying an implication that the "that" is an object of less-than-personhood status? "I'd have sex with her," at least acknowledges the object of the desire as a human being.
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
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 02:26 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