I can assure you that when young people today say a person or something is “gay”, they are referring to homosexuality and not “sillyness”. They’re suggesting you enjoy sex with people of your gender, and that that’s disgusting/horrible/wussy/etc. Seriously, there’s no chance a teenager today would say “you’re so gay” and mean “you’re a silly person”, unless they were really taking the piss.
Her opinion would be the only one that mattered if she were not representing a country at an international conference.
And I would have to say that because the people in the country that she represented became “massively offended,” the very undiplomatic blunder by the man representing the United States can not be considered “minor.” It was totally uncouth. It was a loud public fart.
I don’t think that she necessarily showed her “true” feelings about Bush, however. For many women, reacting to such an intimate touch in a strictly business situation would be reflexive. The neck is a very sensitive area, of course. Do we even know that she saw who approached her? Further, she is a woman in a powerful position. Shouldn’t we expect her to feel a little vulnerable to attempted attacks on a daily basis – even in such a closely guarded situation?
Bush’s impulsiveness and bad manners reminds me of some of the boorish behavior that LBJ had. Most of his was off camera.
Don’t take that particular accusation to heart. Excalibre has sort of a typing speech tick in which he accuses people of being liars. It means nothing.
Such intimate touching can be used to sexually harass women in business situations. Some of you guys may groan at the idea, but I’ve been there. After I had told my teaching colleague more than once to keep his hands to himself, he did it one more time and then said (in the presence of several other teachers) “Oh, I forgot. You don’t like to be touched.” Unfortunately for him, that is exactly what I had predicted he would do and say to someone who was a witness.
I told him in the presence of the witnesses that if he ever made that mistake again, I would tell Bishop N____ first (he was very active as a layman) and his wife second. (I had already gone to the trouble of finding out his bishop’s name.)
It was an interesting moment in the faculty lounge at the high school. 
I also filed a complaint. I did not have any more problems from him.
I’m a very cuddly person, but just with the man I live with and not on company time! Personal, intimate contact at work is inappropriate. That’s why it makes such interesting storylines on Boston Legal. It’s tacy, tacky, tacky!
I think you’re right. Just thought that might be interesting, and we’re not all young here.
Another interesting example:
About 20 years ago I bought this cheap wallet. It had a confederate flag on it. It was perfectly cool at the time. Like some of those cheap wallets this one was amazingly durable.
Later I got a series of expensive wallets that wore out seemingly instantaneously. In frustration I went back to the Confederate wallet, which (I though) the worst thing you could say about it was that it was tacky.
Well, one day I went to pay for something and the clerk was black. Suddenly, I realized that the context of my wallet had changed from tacky, Dukes of Hazard to total bigot.
Back to the bottom of the drawer it went. Back I went to a series of expensive but fragile wallets. In my frustration I actually tried to use sandpaper and shoe polish to abolish the confederate flag, but it always just barely shows through.
I have an H.S. Trask Wallet made of Buffalo or something that I have high hopes for.
Funny how what is acceptable or polite changes and funny how connotations change.
It is an interesting thought. Similarily, there’s a lot of words which would be considered horrible insults for older people yet seem pretty mild or even not insulting at all to younger people. It’s a good thing we don’t talk much, really. 
I see how your Confederate flag story applies here, but I don’t really think the analogy is all that applicable. The flag is associated with bigotry now, but it was associated with bigotry in the past, too; it’s just that bigotry of that kind wasn’t seen as a problem in the past. The usage of the word gay in the past, though, didn’t refer to homosexuality. It just meant joyful, silly, happy. Nowadays the word is not used to mean those things because the other use is much stronger and to confuse the two could be insulting.
The Confederate flag has many qualities associated with it, bigotry merely being one, and one which (as you say) thoughts towards have changed due to the context of today’s society. The word gay, on the other hand, has had two quite seperate meanings, one of which has totally replaced the other. It’s the difference between a definition and an association, which is a very large difference.
Well, I disagree here. It is her body, and her opinion is the only one that matters in this.
I don’t think you can use the public reaction as a gauge. That reaction is going to be influenced by their opinion of Bush. And, I don’t think a major reaction to a minor faux pas makes it major.
I concede this point.
Again, I concede the point. It really isn’t a measure of her feeling concerning Bush. It’s a measure of her instinctive reaction to an innapropriate gesture from out of the blue.
I’m not sweating it, just pointing out the hypocrisy, but thank you.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think in general men need to be careful to respect a womans’ space and not be familiar in an unwelcome way even and especially if their intent is totally innocent.
Too many men have learned to use false familiarity as a weapon.
I had a female coworker ask me about something on her computer. I stood behind her chair leaned over and started using the mouse to answer her question. About five seconds later, I realized that I was simultaneously intruding on her space, standing over her, and, pinning her into her desk so she couldn’t extricate herself. She was sitting there stiffly and uncomfortably but wasn’t saying anything. I felt like a shit, and apologized and she was gracious. It was unintentional but it was inconsiderate and thoughtless.
Mistakes happen.
Never used to think about it or notice it, and frankly I was probably one of those oblivious louts that women are all too familiar with.
Now I have two daughters and a wife, and I think about it and notice and wonder what it must be like or what it will be like for my girls, and maybe I’m less oblivious and loutish.
I agree.
Yeah, I bet that’s it . . . :rolleyes:
I only say it when it’s true. Incidentally, my, how your bitchery has progressed. You’ve moved up from passive-aggressive attempts at insulting my grammar to this. I suppose it’s something to take pride in . . . doesn’t appear you have much else.
Y’know. I don’t think I’ve ever been on the same side of an argument as ZOE, and I know I’ve been less than polite on occasion (no, really,) but she’s always been nice to me.
You must have a serious problem to earn the emnity of someone like her.
Given the people who have earned her enmity in the past, I’m not quite sure why you’d think that. Or haven’t you seen her batshit pittings of Philosphr and vetbridge?
Being on Zoe’s enemies list is something I’m rather proud of . . .
Funny. I feel pretty good about guessing that I’m not on it.
Different strokes, though.
You Americans need to lighten up. Bush has nothing on our now departed and much revered Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau who publicly performed a pirouette behind Queen Elizabeth’s back and slid down a bannister at Buckingham Palace. He also “mouthed” either “fuddle duddle” or “fuck off” (depending who you talk to) when Parliament was in session. Oh and he gave the middle finger to demonstraters and took a swing at a reporter.
Forgive me for think Ya’ll are over reacting.
Doesn’t count. Canada isn’t even a real country.
I wonder if she is reeling in stunned disbelief and sadness, like I was to find out that you’ve written me off…
Well, of course it does! It may not seem reasonable, or entirely proportional but monkeys are very big on social standing and dignity. Trivial issues of propriety can get out of hand in a big ass hurry. Witness the War of Jenkins Ear. When Bush I blew chunks on the PM of Japan, they had to explain very carerfully to the Japanese public why they couldn’t demand that he commit seppuku. When Dim Son called Vlad the Impaler “Pooty Poot”, relying on the warm good humor one would naturally expect in a KGB agent…
Its not so much disastrous consequences as the little dog tugging away the curtain so we can see the buffoon levering the Oz machine, it reminds us that GeeDubya is a product, sold to us like Borax or Gleem. When he jaws at Tony Poodle with his mouth open and reducing a desperately complex situation into badaboom badabing, it gives us another glimpse at the Emperors ethereal wardrobe. Vaporwear.
The POTUS is something of a lout, and not terribly bright. This is not disturbing news to me only in that it is not news.
Well, being gay, I tend not to give many second chances on the whole homophobia thing . . .
:rolleyes:
(I’ve never used a smilie alone to respond to a post, but there’s really nothing else that can be said to that.)
Now that’s the kinda guy I would vote for.
It’s no particular shock to see you roll your (metaphorical) eyes at the idea that one might decide not to use bigoted insults the way you’ve been doing.
Hopefully you’ll outgrow such behavior some day.
I hope that you’ve never used any insult that reflects bigotry against another group, like “moron” for example, which would reveal your deep-seated hatred of the mentally retarded.
But let’s short circuit this argument about the motivations behind using insults such as “moronic” or “cocksucker.” I agree that if you regard the use of the term cocksucker as a reliable marker for homophobia, there’s little I can do to influence your opinion. And truth be told, I’m comfortable with leaving you with a low opinion of me, since I don’t particularly care about your opinion.
There are folks here whose opinions do matter to me, on the other hand, so I feel compelled to admit this: I cried at the end of Brokeback Mountain. I hope this establishes, as Bricker might say, my bona fides vis a vis homosexuals.
Oddly, I have only heard the expression “That’s so gay” from gay friends and one straight female friend whose closest friend is a gay guy. My understanding was that it referred to something that was over-the-top flaming or just a perfect exemplar of customs that many or most of the gay community seem to follow, such as actually dressing well or being able to tell you 30 seconds after leaving it what color the dining room was (the context made it obvious which). It may in some cases have been a put-down, but not a homophobic put-down, if you will - it was a comment on being over-the-top. Usually it wasn’t that - it was simply an observation of how someone’s behavior in a particular instance fit so perfectly into a well-known stereotype - like “that’s so anal” would be. Granted, anything like that said in a nasty, sneering tone of voice would be insulting , but then so would “You are looking terrific today!”
I never knew “That’s so gay” was considered a put-down of gays in general. Ya learn something new every day, I guess. Maybe it’s just that I’m 50 and out of touch… I haven’t quite accustomed myself to geezer-hood (or whatever the female equivalent is, if geezers can only be men).
You have said that you don’t have time to respond to the serious rebuttals. However, you do respond to the spurious responses, which clearly says you have the time to do so. QED.
Well, here’s what you said. End of story.
When I offered you that invitation, I was referring to:
I apologize for the misunderstanding.
The other, I agree, is just an assertion. I’m not trying to prove it’s true or false; I just put it out there as a possible explanation of why Bush is acting this way, that may or may not be backed up by subsequent events.
There was a subsequent event yesterday:
We’ll see what else pops up.
You are apparently afraid of confronting their words, and so you have (at least, up to the time I posted that) ignored their words on the subject.
And ISTM that you’re still saying you can ignore the weight of that evidence.
I don’t know; I can’t read your mind, and I don’t have enough evidence to make inferences. But you might be aware that women are smaller and lighter than men, and we’re the sex that can rape them, but not the other way around; all this might, just might, give them a bone-deep different perspective on unwanted male-female physical encounters than we do.
Unless you have evidence that Bush in advance knew that his touch would be welcome - which goes against your entire argument, btw - it would seem that the opinions of women in general would be Bush’s best guide concerning whether or not to initiate such a contact, completely aside from protocol matters.