The term has changed meaning quite a bit in the last couple of decades. I would certainly ask him to clarify what he meant by ‘fondling”. Today the most common meaning in this context is certainly the sexual one. But hey, if the subordinate was a older dude, he may be using an older meaning. Asking him to clarify is the right thing, rather than jumping to conclusions.
The subordinate was 28 at the time and reported being “shocked” and “distraught.” Me, myself – I’m not in need of much clarification and not worried about jumping to conclusions about what might be going on (scratches head) in a late night deserted man-boy shower with “slapping sounds, sounded like sex” scenario in which “fondling” was reported.
In that context, I agree that the meaning is obvious. HOWEVER, I’d like to point out to our non-native English speakers that one can also clumsily fondle a remote control or nervously fondle their necklace. So there are other uses of the word, but between two people, it’s obviously molestation.
So if your American friend ever says something like “Your wife and I were in the basement when the power went out. We were fondling around for at least a half hour before we found the door,” you might want to ask for clarification before punching him.
Would any native speakers use “fondle” for that? I think “fumble” is more what you’re going for in the dark basement.
Sometimes, I still hear the innocent version of fondle with situations like “the mother fondled her newborn infant” and it’s still possible to fondle puppies and kittens. Little girls can fondle their dolls. In all of these, it’s very limited to a parent/baby situation. Even when kids are just a bit older than babies, it would be unusual to use “fondle” instead of “hug,” “snuggle,” or other words that do not have a sexualized connotation.
None of those fit for me. I would say “handling or touching lovingly, affectionately, or tenderly” in a sexual context, but not necessarily limited to contact with the genitals (though that could certainly be part of it). So somewhere between #3 (minus the “NOT sexual” part) and #5 with elements of both.
In the context given, and without any other information, I would see it as implying sexual behavior. The word “fondle” CAN mean nonsexual touching (e.g. shaking hands, hugging, stroking hair, or stuff like that), but the context here clearly implies naughtiness. The fact that both are naked contributes quite a bit to this.
A helpful rule that makes sense for me is that if you would be willing to touch the child in a specific manner if the child’s mother and your mother were both there and watching, it’s probably ok even outside of their presence unless you were told specifically not to do it. If you would be unwilling to do it in the presence of the child’s mom and your mom, that’s probably a sign that it’s not something you ought to be doing. This rule might not actually work for pedophiles.
*None *of this was a given in your OP.
What is so damn fucking hard with asking “What do you mean by fondling?”
It means, “or something sexual”.
In the context unquestionably indicates “being touched in a sexual way.” The only qualification I would make would be that it would not necessarily include touching the genitals (though that would be strongly implied).
I agree with those who caveated that it doesn’t necessarily mean direct genital contact, but 99% of people use it to mean some sort of sexualized contact of some sort.
While I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it must mean “directly touching/manipulating kid’s private parts” (it might, but it doesn’t have to) there is no doubt that the intent in the listed sentence is to describe inappropriately sexual touching.
In fact, if someone said that someone was “fondling” something other than a human being, I would conclude they were touching it in a creepily intense and sexualized way.
"is it just me or is that guy fondling the cucumbers? Wierd, right? "
None of us know from the Sandusky Grand Jury report whether the word “fondling” (as part of the GJ’s synopsis, not direct quotation, of Paterno’s testimony) was introduced by McQueary, paraphrased by Paterno, or paraphrased by the prosecution.
Much more cogently, as the huge majority here concurs, there’s a point at which you stop asking "what do you mean by . . . " (which could go on forever) when everyone knows exactly what “fondling” of a naked boy by a naked man means. What do you mean by means, depends on what is is, etc.
In other words, you are not posting a real poll about the hypothetical posed in your OP at all, then? This is about a specific incident in order to prove some sort of point. :rolleyes:
If you honestly contend that as an abstract matter, you would be in meaningful doubt about what “fondling” meant based on only the facts in the OP, you have a point, albeit clearly an outlier one.
But that seems vanishingly unlikely, so you’re just arguing to argue when you say follow-up questioning on “what do you mean by fondle?” was necessary or called for on the facts of the OP, alone.
ETA if it were your kid you would not be parsing the meaning of “fondle” beyond the obvious denotation, I strongly suspect.
Nope, I have not been following that case at all. I took your poll to be a honest one, asking a hypothetical, I answered solely based upon the info given in the OP . But your poll is not honest is it?
See, once you take it out of hypotheticals and into real persons, then how much you know someone COMPLETELY changes how even the most clear phase it taken. Let us take the phrase “He shot him down in cold blood”. Now, taken out of context, one can only assume we are talking about a murder.
But if you came up to me and said. “Bob just shot someone down in cold blood” and since I have know Bob for a decade, know he wouldn’t hurt a fly, the only gun he has ever picked up is plastic and attached to a video game, and that Bob is a avid player of war/on-line/role/video games, I’d assume from THAT context that Bob just scored some fantasy kill in a game.
Thus your poll is completely worthless. It’s not a poll at all, and whatever results you may have received are even more worthless.
Wrong and wrong. People with, or without, knowledge of the PSU thread/circumstances could, would, and did understand and answer the question with no problem.
The fact that I may cite to those answers as (of course anecdotal) factual refutation of a bizarre factual contention (viz., that someone would reasonably hear fondling to mean affectionate but totally non-sexual touching) is neither here nor there. Political campaigns poll. That doesn’t mean the poll results are misleading or the pollers badly motivated. I’m not sure anyone other than you and the one voter for no. 3 (hint: it’s almost certainly the delusional person in the Pit thread) feels used or mistreated by my asking for your view and then using the aggregate results as part of an argument elsewhere. I think within that thread I even puffed the posters here by saying something like “this poll may be interesting as a reflection of what a reasonably cross section of American English speakers think.” See – I just called everyone here reasonably intelligent!
The poll should have been public, so we could all see who answered what.
Well, it ain’t like there’s a whole scattering of opinion.
I saw that option (my first poll) and have never seen anyone employ it. I’d think it might discourage participation.