This is a really weird thing to say, much less be preachy about. Objectification is sexualizing things inappropriately. You’re policing which synonyms are best.
Completely agree. But many people do use it that way. Of course, words can change meanings, but when they change really quickly in some people’s usage without universal or near universal agreement, the rest of us don’t just have to meekly go along with a new meaning—particularly when it is so at odds with the plain meaning of the word. (Another example is in the incel PIt thread where someone said that incels aren’t celibate anymore! :smack:)
Another thing I would like to push back on is the idea that this place is akin to a dinner party or barbecue. There are too many people who strongly dislike each other for that to make much sense. Maybe it’s more like a bar where people can get thrown out for wildly incivil behavior, but do not have to be invited, do not have to even be liked by most of the other patrons.
Or at least that’s the nature of the place I joined all those years ago. If it becomes something different from that (which I have previously expressed concern that it shows signs of becoming), then there are going to be several longtime posters (me, certainly; but also others for various reasons) who will be pointedly left off the invitation list.
No, I’m not; you are failing to understand the conversation. The language used was objectifying, which isn’t cool. The subject of the thread was sexualizing every encounter with an attractive woman, which is Kosher subject matter.
I’m reminded of the humorist Dave Barry, who I have long admired not just because he’s a funny writer, but because he’s also a thoughtful one whose humor reveals a lot of truths about ourselves. His latest book, for instance, as he turns 70 and looks back on his life, is “Lessons From Lucy: The Simple Joys of an Old, Happy Dog”. But among the notable observations he’s made in the past have been about that species of creature Barry refers to as “guys”.
In Barry’s lexicon, “guys” are distinct from “men” – men are the male of the species, with some chance of being responsible mature adults. “Guys” are basically testosterone-infested horndogs who for some reason also like blowing things up. It’s a fact that there are many guys in the world. Barry has written a number of essays on the subject, and later put it all together into the book “Dave Barry’s Guide to Guys”, which is basically a humorous account of horndoggery and the love of blowing things up, by a respectful writer who himself has a daughter that he cares about very deeply. The OP in question here appears to have been written by a guy, or at least, by a man temporarily under the control of a “guy” brain. The question is what the mods are supposed to do about it on a board that places great value on free speech along with accountability for it, and abhors censorship except when distinct lines are crossed, such as into hate speech.
I understand the sensitivity to the thread in question and the way the first post in it was phrased, but I think it was moderated with appropriate balance, and that it’s silly to suggest that the board is the kind of place that’s going to drive women away. It’s not as if this place was a den of misogyny or had a special attraction for low-life horndogs. I didn’t read every post in that thread because I thought the subject matter was basically pretty puerile, and in my mind, that’s about all the attention it deserved. It seems silly to suggest that the entire board is somehow misogynistic because the OP didn’t get the verbal equivalent of a public thrashing. Incidentally, back to Dave Barry, the fourth lesson from Lucy, somewhat paraphrased, is not to overreact to things that are basically trivial, because almost everything is. Misogyny is certainly a serious matter, but a guy essentially making pronouncements about his testosterone levels isn’t misogyny so much as puerile immaturity. To me, it’s just a good reason for moving on to another thread.
Sometimes it DOES feel like a haven for horndogs, and it used to be much, much worse, so a lot of us are pretty sensitive because if we don’t, it will be back to “yuk yuk I’ll hold’em for you” in every thread about bras.
I didn’t want him to get a verbal thrashing. I wanted him to get a fucking NOTE. A “Hey, dude, we don’t use terms like “hit that” to talk about women here. Feel free to talk about sexual topics, but keep the lurid descriptions of body parts and similar phrases out of the discussion”. That’s a “verbal thrashing”? And if he’d then persisted with his story of Scooter Girl, I’d have expected a warning for the same.
I agree with every word of wolfpup’s erudite post.
The OP is not a misogynist (well, he may be, but his post is not evidence of that). He is maturity challenged for sure, and needs to get a grip on how he behaves in society. But his post should not be censored or muzzled.
Reflexively igniting the torches and hoisting the pitchforks when you disagree with someone is not the behavior of a thoughtful and attentive mind.
mmm
Good thing no one is advocating for that.
Maybe this is a tangential question better suited for its own thread, but I do find interesting the tenor of some of the posts that say (paraphrasing) “this place used to be just overrun with bad stuff, and if we don’t police it very carefully, it will be like that again”. It just seems odd that they want to tell a large swath of the board not to let the place be anything like the way it was in its formative years. It goes beyond saying that the board culture has changed as older posters have left (or died or whatever) and newer people have come in. To say that it will go right back to the way it was if it’s not nipped in the bud is to say that you want the sensibilities of a minority of the board to police what is acceptable for the majority.
What I see here is the uncomfortable balance between being able to discuss an offensive subject and showing tolerance for it.
Let’s say the subject was something more extreme, like pedophelia. A person expresses that little girls and boys just do it for him and he has trouble not being distracted. Maybe he has never actually molested a child, and swears he never will, but he always feels sexual looking at them.
Most people would find that offensive. Horribly offensive. I would, certainly. Can an interesting discussion be held about it? Maybe. But the topic is so unpalatable to most people that it’s difficult. And the question comes up about whether allowing those kinds of comments is showing a tolerance for them, or whether it’s necessary to allow them so they can be talked about.
I honestly don’t know where you draw the line. It’s complicated. How much do you put up with in the name of fighting ignorance and to allow the freedom of discussion?
It’s not the topic that offensive. The topic is fine.
It’s the way the topic was spelled out in objectifying detail, which was unnecessary for the discussion of the topic.
The OP of the thread in question didn’t say that he has trouble concentrating on anything other than sex when in the presence of women, ask whether other men have this problem, and ask how to deal with it so that he can manage to get a day’s work done in a society that doesn’t lock women up out of the way someplace but instead considers us to be a normal part of the workplace, the marketplace, the traffic on the streets, and overall life in general. That’s a question that could have been discussed in a reasonable fashion.
In order to ask that question it would be in no way necessary to discuss specific parts of women’s bodies, and it would certainly not be in any way necessary to refer to women as “this” or “that”. Nor would it make sense, if it were a genuine question, to respond to those men who’ve disagreed with him by saying (in post 86 in that thread) that they can’t really disagree and ought to just admit that he’s right.
It would also certainly not be necessary to insist that almost all other men are controlled entirely by their sexuality, to the point of being unable to stop themselves from ogling women on the street while the men are driving and also to the point of being unable to hold a sensible conversation even when it’s important to do so.
The OP does not appear to be asking a question, or to be asking for help. The OP is, whether or not intentionally, insulting both women (by calling us things, and by saying that our bodies automatically overwhelm anything we might be saying and anything else we might be doing) and other men (by insisting that men in general are unable to control their sexual desires sufficiently to keep their attention on anything else.)
– wolfpup, I am myself very far from being driven away. But when there are women telling you that women are being driven away by this sort of thing, calling that idea “silly” is most certainly not going to help.
-
Pedophilia is much rarer.
-
If a horndog fantasy about an adult woman becomes consensual reality, there is no crime in that, no moral abomination. Not true about a fantasy of having sex with a child. Not even if the child is “into it” (puke).
Well I would think a place called “the straight dope” would draw the line further into uncomfortable territory than say the table at a dinner party. I’m not sure being uncomfortable is a problem. There is a huge difference between saying something offensive generally vs saying something to a specific person about them.
This is really a board philosophy thing end of day. I’m too new to really have an opinion but I would push for being “allowed” to discuss uncomfortable topics.
What counts as “censored or muzzled”? You can’t say “When I see attractive women, all I can think about is how much I’d like to hit that, especially if she’s in the shorts that show ass cheeks” in ALL SORTS of circumstances without being reprimanded. Why is saying it shouldn’t be acceptable HERE “muzzling and censoring”?
How important do you think it is to be allowed to use phrases like “I’d like to hit that ass” when discussing these topics?
The opening post in question was that thing very common in most societies on the planet: an assertion of being a member of the dominant group. I get to do what I want with the bodies of my inferiors, and we’re all able to do what we want with those bodies, and isn’t it great, my brothers! Let’s relax and talk some tits and ass!
And some of the defenses of the OP amount to ‘why should there be any challenges to my right to do as I please? Can’t I just feel comfortable with my peers, talking up the bodies of those below us? Can’t we just do as we please without any nagging? Why does there has to be this demand that we think about such things? What is wrong with women that they are always pestering us about this stuff? Why are they so silly?’
Why can’t they just relax and chill?
Etc.
Apples and oranges. Do you want me to cite the legion of posts in IMHO from, say, the past week that would not be appropriate in most real life mixed settings, but which did not get warned or noted or even complained about in ATMB?
Googling for “I’d hit that” on this site comes up with a fair number of image results. I don’t know the context of all of them, but I like to imagine that they are all things that someone, sometime expressed sexual attraction to. (Yes, I mean “things”–I’m looking at you, Mr. Turkey.)
I would never use that phrase, but not everyone is that eloquent.
The board is slowly and inevitably losing population. From earlier threads/polls it seems true that it’s losing women population faster. There has always been a majority male population and the early days were not nearly as “woke” a time and there were much fewer internet forum options. At the same time, the “Men’s rights movement” has become thing.
So I don’t know who is saying it will go back to the way it was but they’re wrong. We will have less women, and men, willing to put up with “locker room talk” than there was then. We will have more trolling incels than there was before. There’s no going back even if the majority wants everyone to chillax on the misogyny concerns.