MandaJo
August 12, 2019, 2:46am
205
One more thing:
wolfpup:
One example I could give is the editorial policy of the New Yorker , acclaimed for the quality of its writing, which permits words and phrases that would send most mainstream editors straight to the fainting couch. The condition under which they are permitted is simply that they must be relevant, and not simply gratuitous – whether the relevance is serious social commentary or just satire and sarcasm. And this is the sense, I believe, in which the OP of the thread you object to is using such phrases. I’m not sure if he ever actually says “I’d hit that” or if that was inferred, but he certainly says equivalent things like “damn, I’d like to f**k the hell out of that”. But note: he is trying to accurately express his mental state in a particular circumstance. He is not using the term gratuitously, as would, say, someone who just randomly blurts it out. If he were to write, instead, “I found that woman extremely attractive”, he is not only failing to express the pertinent emotion, such a banal description isn’t even expressing the same idea!
Here’s the original post:
[quote]
I’d bet my life it’s like this for 98% of males. 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 that”. Especially if they are dressed in some sort of risque, butt-cheeks hanging out, skinny tanned legs outfit.
How is that not gratuitous? He can say “I find my overpowering physical response embarrassingly overwhelming. It’s biological, it’s like I can’t help it.” If I can’t “get it” from that, then the description of ass-cheeks and “fuck the hell out of that” is not going to clarify it for me.
He’s getting off on this description. He’s wallowing in it. And people who start threads like that should be told to knock it off by the moderation.