Aluminum foil-wrapped cucumbers sets off the TSA’s metal detectors. Soo embarrasing.
The aluminum foil goes on your head?
Well you want them to pay attention to you, right?
I’m reminded of a war song from a now-defunct webcomic:
I generally don’t think of myself as slow to notice misogyny or implausibility in anecdotes, but I gotta say I wasn’t particularly fazed by the reference to female coworkers’ sharing among themseves some “marveling” reactions about a male colleague’s noticeably above-average-sized package.
I think it would be misogynistic to suggest that women are automatically horndogging on men’s endowment, or are inappropriately making a big deal of it in the workplace. But I didn’t interpret the use of “marveling” in that way. My mind pictured instead a few discreet ”did you see…?” allusions and raised eyebrows at adjacent sinks in the ladies’ room, or similar. That doesn’t seem particularly far-fetched to me, nor misogynistic.
That word has positive connotations, so you absolutely should have. Also, poimting out it was only the women.
Anyway, my current candidates for stupid MF’ers in the news are notorious rightwing influencers Matt Walsh and Elon Musk, who are presently having highly online toddler tantrums about the alleged “wokeness” of director Chris Nolan casting Lupita Nyong’o to play Helen of Troy in his forthcoming film The Odyssey.
Because of course no director could possibly be sincere in thinking a Black actress is qualified to portray a character renowned as the most beautiful woman in the world. 
(Never mind that in 2014 People magazine literally named Nyong’o as their choice for “the world’s most beautiful person”.) I mean, have you seen that woman? She will make a stunning Helen.
? Dafuq, dude? It certainly need not have positive connotations, as for example when Jimmy Kimmel recently “marveled at Trump’s flipflopping on Iran”.
To “marvel at” something, in the conventional usage that I default to when I see the phrase, suggests merely expressing wonder at how remarkable, unusual, bizarre or out-of-the-ordinary something is. It does not automatically imply that the marveler is expressing admiration for the bizarre thing, or considering it in any way “marvelous” in the sense of praiseworthy.
Void of context, it does. It’s a synonym of “amazed”. It can be negative, but by default it is positive. It can mean “surprise or admiration”. There is absolutely a positive implication when ambiguous. The word choice was deliberate.
Your example shows where context makes it clear that the word was used negatively, but absent the context, it is usually considered positive. And you’ve sidestepped my other point about it only applying to the women.
Also, for fucks’ sake, you’re trying to insist that there’s no implication in “all the women marveled at his bulging groin”? You can’t be that stupid.
Well, what the poster said was that this anecdote came from an ex-girlfriend reporting on the reactions of female coworkers, which gave me the impression of a plausible account of some locker-room-type non-HR-approved informal viewsharing about a coworker. And it certainly didn’t seem to imply that the male colleagues couldn’t have had some locker-room-type viewsharing of their own about this large-packaged coworker. Just not any that the ex-gf happened to be privy to.
If true, it’s a really weird workplace.
“Amazed” doesn’t have automatically positive connotations either, if you ask me. I read both “marveling” and “amazed” as basically synonymous with “gobsmacked” and similar.
Maybe your interpretation is being colored by the frequent use of the adjectives “marvelous” and “amazing” as expressions of admiration. But I don’t think that carries over to the tone of the corresponding verbs.
Eh, I wouldn’t automatically assume that there’s anything I really can’t be stupid enough for, but I am not convinced that that’s the explanation for my disagreeing with you on this particular point of semantics. YMMV.
I’m going by its common usage and dictionary definitions.
Not sure why it was so important for you to bring up this dead topic to defend this, and why you have to stretch so far in the process. Kind of weird.
Going through life drunk and stupid: Sen. Rand Paul’s son William.
The younger Paul went up to Republican congressman Mike Lawler at a D.C. restaurant, blaming Lawler for being responsible if Thomas Massie loses his Kentucky congressional seat.
See, he apologized. 
Paul issued a a statement saying he’d had too much to drink and that his comments “don’t represent who I really am.”
? “Amazed” seems to be defined most commonly as “greatly surprised; astonished”, which is also how “marveling at” seems to be generally used. You can marvel at the beauty of a sunset, or you can marvel at Trump’s flipflopping on Iran. Both instances suggest being taken aback by something out of the ordinary: the term sounds equally normal and meaningful to me in both positive and negative contexts. It’s trying to make it default to connoting admiration that seems like a semantic “stretch” to me.
But of course, nobody is obligated to go on discussing this minor semantic issue if they’d rather not.
to show or experience great surprise or admiration:
Nobody was obligated to bring it up in the first place after it sat dormant and everyone else moved on, but defending this was clearly something really important to you.
In vino veritas.
Accuse him of being Jewish? That’s a weird way to phrase it.
Not for antisemites it’s not.
FWIW, it does for me; absent clear other context, I interpret those verbs in modern USA English as positive.
What’s that saying? In vino veritas? (Whoops, ninja’d.)
That shit’s not coming out of your mouth drunk if you’re not thinking it sober.