My baseline position:
I can absolutely do without kneejerk “we’ll need pictures of your boobs” remarks.
I absolutely think Mean Old Lady was on-target in her recent Pit OPs.
But, in this case I think Happy Lendervedder’s post
(“Should I not have a boner after reading that?”) was an interesting comment on the general weirdness of human sexual arousal, and absolutely did not warrant a (non-warning) wrist slap.
April R’s comment:
“I beg to differ, I think that is exactly the way to get them to hang out with you…wink wink, nudge nudge” was trite and obvious, but the winks and nudges were self aware and self mocking enough to make it a mostly inoffensive. And April R is female which dilutes any hint of hooting in her remark.
Overall, I think Ellen Cherry was too zealous here.
Oh come on. You can’t be serious. The thread is about a wildly over the top rant by a sorority girl that appears to be the poster child for every negative stereotype ever associated with sorority girls. There is absolutely nothing jerkish about making a sexually themed joke about her. There is no hijack.
Making a comment about a ridiculous email that was linked to in MPSIMS is not going off-topic, hijacking, or whatever else you want to label it.
Making a comment (joking or otherwise) about finding something attractive about one’s preferred sex, is not perpetuating or targeting gender stereotypes.
Please, Marley or Ellen or any other mod, go back to my first post in this thread and fill me in on which of those variables is “acceptable” in tptb’s eyes these days. This is all getting too fucking silly and uptight.
As **Ascenray **ably explained, the quoted email was extremely coarse, vivid and full of sexual terms, and had a barely concealed theme of the need of sorority girls to please fraternity boys. A crude response is not out of line.
When you factor in the woman having (to many people across the web) a repulsive personality, then Happy’s remark, crude but confused as it was, was completely appropriate.
I was going to say the same thing, but here we are.
Why not? What’s the connection? The gist of the joke is ‘that rant turned me on,’ is it not?
I agree. I think we’re talking past each other here a bit, so let me try this again. Acsenray wrote that the email contained a lot of stereotyping of women; nobody said your post did. What your post did appear to do was use an email full of that kind of stereotyping as the basis for a joke about having an erection, and that’s maybe not so funny because it seems to me that that could come across as either ignoring the stereotypes or approving of them. I don’t mean to speak too much for Ellen Cherry, but I think she’s AFK right now and that’s how that appears to me.
I agee it was heavy handed moderating. The boner joke was not at all inappropriate for the topic given the forum.
Now if the topic was “Poor girl commits suicide after leaving profanity laden goodbye note” obviouslt the comment would have been taken much differently, but this was clearly a thread started to mock a funny non-incident.
I’ll let Ellen Cherry answer about how she would’ve handled it. But as someone who doesn’t watch that show and wouldn’t have gotten the reference, it would have looked like a stupid thing to say.
Oh, and while I’m thinking about it, could we do something about those Slug Signorino illustrations. Do they really present the desired image for this board? Some of them are just gratuitously crude.
So what are you saying, Marley? First you say there are no new rules, then you say this falls under “being a jerk/hijacking”. Is any sexual humor verbotten now? Can you cite any precedent for similar situations here?
A sorority girl posts a rant rich with words like “fuck,” “suck,” “cunt,” and “boner,” berating her sisters for failing to (metaphorically speaking) sufficiently fellate their partnered fraternity brothers. Rich with sexual language, gender stereotypes, and expectations of (sexual) submissiveness, delivered in a very aggressive, assertive, and potty-mouthed tirade. Response: “Should I not have a boner after reading that?” I definitely see the satire and the humor in that. If you don’t, then that’s fine. Humor is notoriously based on individual taste.
So how about just not worrying about jokes that can’t be taken as an attack on another poster?
And another thing. The reponses from Happy and April were not directed to SDMB females. I can understand female posters not wanting to deal with unsolicited lascivious comments, but I don’t like the idea that a poster can’t say that something on the web (or in a movie or a book or…) turns them on.
Yes. Are you trying to argue that those statements contradict each other? They don’t.
I’m not going to do a search through scores of mod notes to find one I believe you will find similar. If you can’t understand the general point, you will have to live with the uncertainty.
How about it just being an off-color commentary on every other weird sexual attraction people post “I’ll be in muh bunk” about, both at this board and every other board on the Internet.
Dirty-talking college co-ed goes ape-shit crazy and encourages her friends to be more sexual around guys? I’ll be in muh bunk.
Is this seriously verboten and worthy of a talking-to? A “reminder,” no less? I still don’t know what the heck I’m being reminded to do or not to do.
Which of those scenarios I posted earlier are acceptable and which are not?