…I honestly don’t know what on earth you are talking about here.
My point exactly.
…apparently you think that “the principle behind my position is fraught with danger”, but you are unable to articulate exactly what the position is, nor what that danger is.
And somehow this is related to a very polite instruction not to use certain terms in a particular forum.
I don’t know how to read her responding to Banquest_Bear’s calling it “the literal embodiment of objectification” with “Thank you” as anything but a statement of her view of it as objectification.
Referring to her posts isn’t speaking for her. Her post stands on its own, which is why I explicitly referenced her and even @mentioned her, specifically so she could correct me if I was wrong.
And she is of course free to say I have entirely misinterpreted what she meant in her response to Banquet_Bear. And when she does that, I’ll apologize for doing so, and we can move on from there.
You are confusing “unable to articulate” with “not willing to articulate again for someone showing no debating integrity”.
I mean for example you probably think your comment “…if this was a message board that promoted flat earth and sanctioned anyone who said different, I wouldn’t be posting here.” somehow meets the point I was making, right? Nope, not doing it.
…I have no idea what point you are making?
But we are pretty far from what this topic is all about. You still clearly don’t seem to know what principle is behind my position. In fact you don’t seem to know what my position actually is. Nor can you explain what the alleged danger of my position actually is.
My position is that the mod note isn’t ridiculous. It is in line with a series of changes in how these boards have been moderated over the last couple of years, and those changes have made actually made the boards a more welcoming place for many marginalized people than it used to be.
I still have issues, especially in terms of how indigenous people and issues are treated here. But I don’t think the principles behind anything I say here are fraught with danger. They don’t threaten your free speech.
Or not offended by. It works both ways.
@Banquet_Bear did say that “naming an industry after the body parts of the people that work in it is the literal embodiment of objectification” and @puzzlegal did reply saying “Thank you” and more. It wasn’t totally clear to me what puzzlegal was agreeing with but it doesn’t matter to me. To me, the real issue is not what anyone in particular opined, it is whether that opinion makes sense. People opine all sorts of things.
I can see the view that a restaurant that attracts custom using breasts is objectifying. I cannot see that someone who references such a restaurant using a portmanteau of “restaurant” and “breasts” is objectifying. The term is simply apt. A long winded euphemism isn’t going to alter the nature of the restaurant.
Without question, there are people who will accept the usage of a highly clinical word for genitalia (grudglingly) in certain circumstances who also will clutch their pearls if another perfectly descriptive word for exactly the same thing is used in the same context. Does our world have to be limited by that?
But you think I should go on trying to explain anyway?
…“apt” means “appropriate or suitable in the circumstances.”
It might be appropriate when you are hanging out with all those women you say who would be comfortable calling it that. Those might be suitable circumstances.
It might even be appropriate in another forum, such as the pit.
But the mods made a call that they don’t think its appropriate in FQ. In this case, the usage wasn’t apt.
I mean, it isn’t exactly a difficult question.
Apt also means accurately descriptive. Restaurants that attract people using breasts are breast restaurants. Just like ski resorts are resorts that attract people for skiing. I have wasted enough time on someone who doesn’t see why I would object to someone getting sanctioned over use of the term.
It’s not about the difficulty of the question. It’s about you asking me to tell you something I’ve already told you.
…nope.
These are apparently breast restaurants.
https://www.aliexpress.com/w/wholesale-breast-restaurants.html
(Completely safe for work)
…and with that presumably deliberate effort to undermine your own credibility, I will leave you in your bewilderment about my entirely incoherent utterances.
…if you want to talk credibility: I literally googled “breast restaurant” (with quotes) and that was the very first thing that came up. I scrolled a couple of pages and absolutely nobody else (except for you) is calling “Restaurants that attract people using breasts, breast restaurants”.
This isn’t what they are called. This is what you have decided they should be called. That distinction is important.
I agree that @Grrr was being deliberately crude to emphasize the crudeness of the establishment.
But I don’t think @Chronos missed the point of what the op was trying to do. I think @Grrr did. The op deliberately avoided crudeness, and just said that he was curious why the place only hired female servers as it wasn’t a themed restaurant.
If it was a thread about bras, no one would complain if i used the word “boob” to say, “i am looking for a bra that supports my boobs without crushing them to my chest. Many sports bras feel like binders to me, and i want something more comfortable that still prevents the boobs from bouncing to much.” (At least, i don’t think anyone would complain. I did once have a bra review rejected for using that word.)
In the other hand, if it was a thread about bras and a guy showed up and said, “pics or it didn’t happen” in response to a woman talking about the difficultly of finding a large-enough bra, that would be offensive, even though there are no naughty words in the post.
So this was a thread that had been carefully framed to avoid crudeness, and @Grrr popped in to make a crude post and use crude language to talk about male titillation. That was a completely unnecessary introduction of crudeness to a thread that didn’t need it.
And that’s why @Chronos replied with a gentle mod note. Because it would be nice if fewer threads had crude posts referring to men objectifying women.
I don’t think the post was egregious. I wasn’t going to fret about it over supper or lose any sleep over it. It certainly wasn’t worth a warning. But it was just another case of a man talking about objectifying women dropped into a thread for the amusement of men. And we’ve been trying to reduce the frequency of that happening.
I’ll clear some things up with regards to my OP.
The one that I went to in Tulsa (I’ve never been to the one in Dallas. I’m not typically interested in those types of places) had a normal restaurant name, and the decor inside was 50s retro. And the uniforms were rather tame. They wore long pants but the shirts all revealed cleavage.
That’s why my mother was oblivious. She doesn’t notice things like that.
As far as my choice of words, I have more women friends than I do men. And all of them are progressive. I tend to take my cues from them.
I can’t speak for “boob-diner” bc that’s just a word I made up for that post. But I have definitely heard them use the word breastaurant before and they’re never seen the least bit bothered by it.
But look, if those words are too crude for people, I’m happy not to use it.
It still seems ridiculous to me though.
All else aside, what the heck? Since when?
Note that your first two links both used different methods in their headlines (the TM and single quotes) to emphasis that they were not using this word, but reporting on it. And I think even something as simple as those quotes would have absolutely changed the tone of Grr’s post.
Mom is pretty oblivious, I don’t think she realizes it’s a ‘breastuarant.’
Of course we also have “boob-din[n]er” in there, which is not an industry term as best I can tell. Just an excuse to bring up boobs.
This seems to fall neatly into “shit I wouldn’t say at a dinner party in front of people I’d just meant.” Both words bring to mind nothing but dudes elbowing each other and giving not-so-sly winks. Breastaurant. Get it? 'Cause it’s a a restaurant with breasts?
And then some other guy chimes in with, “YEAH IT’S A BOOB-DINNER” and everyone gets uncomfortable because it’s not even clever. It’s just some guy who thinks he had an excuse to say BOOBS really loud. Probably the same guy who thinks it’s funny to ask women at bars whether they like great tits.
Honestly, it’s more that the concept is crude, but you did refer to it in a deliberately crude way, when the concept was mostly adjacent to the thread. “Maybe you didn’t notice that breasts are the point” to a guy who has carefully said that he’s considered that option, and it’s not that kind of place, is only marginally helpful.
If we’re talking about literature, sure, the author sets the tone. But when it comes to things like Emails or texts; the reader sets the tone. I’ve heard this from two separate councilors and a HR rep giving a class on sensitivity. And they are right.
Well my mother is no idiot and she didn’t realize. So in my mind, it only stands to reason that other intelligent people may not get it either.