Steve, I think that you’re right about this place. Which is why I love electronic interaction. But regardless of whether I think that the kind of talk we’re discussing is on the increase on the actual SDMB or not, jane was getting kicked around for even suggesting that such talk is undesirable. That’s what I, personally, wanted to address. In particular I objected to that tosser who kneejerked with his “So now you’re saying we shouldn’t even talk about sex!!!” bullshit when such a summary not only missed the target but embedded the arrow in an innocent goat two fields along.
Ludo, what was it I said about how I hated discussing this crap? You want to play semantic games with me now about whether judging someone based on appearance qualifies strictly as (big air quotes) racism or not? Well here’s a surprise: I don’t give a fuck what you call it. I’m not trying to stick little labels on people here. I’m just trying to get people to see that everything they do impacts themselves and others in some way and that we are all a prisoner to our own perspective. You can fill in the fine details yourself and call it macaroni for all I care.
To anyone who cares: All I call for is respect for other people’s humanity. Recognition that they have not been put on this earth for your pleasure, but for their own. Despite my embittered cynicism, it actually never ceases to amaze me that this proves such a contentious fucking proposition.
kabbes , firstly let me congradulate you for getting the discussion back on track. But this:
is a bit ridiculous. Can you really not think of things that males can get together and do that are more damaging to society than gawking at women? How about lynching? Planning invasions of unsuspecting countries? Drive-by shootings?
I feel that you can separate the physical attractiveness from the personality/intelligence/whatever else and comment on it without reducing the value and worth of the woman you’re commenting on. I fail to see the difference between thinking “Those are spectacular breasts” and thinking “She’s really funny”. Both thoughts qualtify my opinion about a portion of what makes up the woman, and I don’t think that you can tell me that thinking the first thought turns the woman into a sex object without equally saying that having the second thought turns the woman into an object of amusement (or some such).
Now, I think that if I were to think “Those are such spectacular breasts, I don’t care if she’s funny,” THEN we’d have a case of objectification, because I’d be focusing entirely on the physical attributes and ignoring the rest.
I’m not criticizing jane for not starting threads. I never start threads. I’m suggesting that if the subject matter of current threads bothers her, starting discussions on topics she finds interesting and/or intelligent might be a more constructive and effective way to change things than trying to encourage other people to modify their posting habits. Leading by example is much more effective than criticism.
Kabbes, if you didnt want to stick labels on people perhaps you should have stuck to:
instead of following it up with:
to be short: Words mean things. we NEED to play “semantic games”, because there is potential for real misunderstanding here.
To get back more on topic here, would you even THINK of using “he/him/his” in a case of uncertain gender? Yet, for a long time, it was considered acceptable to do so.
This flies in the face of common sense, because using “he” naturally causes readers/listeners to assume the referent is a male. Indeed, not only is this common sense, there have been studies that prove this.
So, if you call someone a “sexist”, meaning “tending toward prejudice”, since it ALSO can mean “thinks that males are superior”, it should come as no surprise if some people who hear you ASSUME you mean the latter. In short, we need a new term, or stick to the old meaning so as not to cheapen “true” racism/sexism.
Granted, this doesn’t really call for any statistical analysis but I always fall back on the crutch that any problem can be solved or better understood using numbers (except for why my sink is leaking, that is pure malevolent spite from the International Brotherhood of Plumbers Out To Get Mully).
Take a gander at the threads on the first page of each forum. Side note: Sticky threads are not counted. Numbers are based on thread title and my initial interpretation of the thread title’s meaning. A double entendre about sex that really deals with non-sex related topics does not count as a sex thread. If you are still reading the disclaimers, I award much love to you.
Wow, 17 threads out of approximately 350-370. How ever do we keep from devolving into drooling neanderthals? Seriously, do you think maybe these jump out at you because you are more sensitive to them? Perhaps it is because those threads tend to stay active longer due to their popularity for joking around? And, shockingly enough, the majority are found in the fora that even a casual poster would expect to find them.
Finally, plain_jane said
Granted, there is a ton of intelligent conversation on this board about any number of topics. Feel free to go back and re-read the first half of your sentence and accept that people will talk about things that you may wish to skip over.
Gawd, anyone else get a chubby when Mullinator rolls out the stats?
IMHO, people can read whatever they want into the list of threads. Hell, I think Cafe Society devolved into the “Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, and Why Simpsons Sucks” Message Board a few months ago. But thats just me…
Reminds me of a story. When Mirriam Webster brought out there dictionary, they received comments and criticism on words, phrases, and meanings. One such one was a ol biddy who lambasted them for including swear words and how it was inappropriate.
They wrote back “Ah but Madam, you were the one actually LOOKING for the swear words.”
Moral: If you are looking to be outraged by something here, you will find it.
I was thinking that myself, and it was beginning to depress the living crap out of me.
I just scrolled down the first fifty threads, though, and was pleased to see that there were only six LOTRs, two Simpsons, and one each on Star Trek and Buffy!
I’m going to go right over there now and start a thread debating Richard Diebenkorn’s usage of color and perspective! Who’s with me?
I wasn’t referring to “horseplay and flirting nonsense” when I mentioned feeling vulnerable. I was specifically referring to the thread about the guy wanting to grab a woman’s breasts at the mall.
I have no way to prove it to you but my dislike of the objectification of a group of people (or my perception thereof) has nothing to do with my emotional well-being as it relates to sexuality.
Giraffe said: I’m suggesting that if the subject matter of current threads bothers her, starting discussions on topics she finds interesting and/or intelligent might be more constructive…
It is a very good suggestion, and you’re right.
**Bryan Ekers wrote:I feel like starting an intelligent bondage thread just to annoy the OP. **
As I’ve stated previously, sex is natural and should be treated as such. I would read your bondage thread with interest.
Francesca: very well written! Brava!
Obsidian Flutterby said: I avoid any that seem they might be offensive, or get out if it gets too much. It happens, and sometimes we can have intelligent discussions on things like sex and sometimes it’s just for fun/interest. They’ll always be around, we just have to learn to live with them or ignore them or even blast them as our perogative takes us.
That’s basically what I’m trying to say except that I would prefer to see less of the “Teenage Girls Turn Me On!” and “BOOBS BOOBS BOOBS” type threads…
Wait, you’re not referring to the thread about the hypothetical legality of touching someone’s breast if they have a t-shirt asking you to… are you?
I’d like a cite for the other threads mentioned in your OP, by the way, since the only one I can remember seeing is the one about the best breasts in the world (or something along those lines.)
PS: BOOBS BOOBS BOOBS!
PPS: Wow, I think that’s one of the first times I’ve ever typed that word.
So is it our fault for posting them, or your fault for not posting alternatives? Where were you for my Tony MacAlpine thread? or the dozens of other threads i and others have started that die quick deaths? it is easy to complain, but i don’t see anyone stepping up to the plate.
That thread was quite a bit more complex than you’re making it sound. The girl in question was wearing a shirt with an invitation on it (something fairly blatant, “come touch my boobs” or similar. As soon as I find the flipping thread I’ll post it). The question more legal than anything else: did the t-shirt constitute an invitation? Could it be reasonably construed as an offer? The consensus was “no, it certainly could not!” and the thread died a lonely death. It raised some interesting questions, and with a less charged example it’d make great GD fodder.
**
I don’t read individual fora (except for GD once in a while). I only go to the front page. Just for fun, here are the first 25 threads on the straight dope, sorted by most recent reply, as of 12:12 AM, January 4, with the sexually charged ones bolded:
Where Do Birds Die?
No Room for Logic (foreign policy)
Enough with the Lord of the Rings, already
How often do you people use the library? Does anyone not? "Christina Aguilera should wear pants once in a while." I disagree.
1st Annual Virtual SDMB Covered Dish Supper !!!
Critique the great rhetorical one-liners
Quiz: What government type are you?
National Lampoon, Spy magazine; Is The Onion next?
The Second Amendment as a Defense Policy in the United States.
Jerking off for $500 a pop!
Repairing unglued book spine?
Editing gaffs in “Catch Me If You Can”
Gross!!!
What’s on the soundtrack to your life?
Bowling for Columbine: Anger or agreement?
How long is your Netflix queue?
Justhink unmasked
PLEEESE help me get IE to quit switching home pages!
Remember Bored Of The Rings?
Goodfellas… Tomato Sauce… Eat Mafia Style.
New Jersey, New Jersey, New Jersey
Mentor, OH area dopers
Mass idiocy descends on the Columbus, Ohio, media.
Ye Olde SDMB Society of Fancy-Pantses and Debutantes
So, out of 25 threads, we have 1 blatantly, mindlessly, sexual thread. We could do this a few more times, and get a larger sample, but honestly I’m tired of copy and pasting. People who think there’s too much sex talk on the SDMB, try this exercise. Look at every single thread title (or every single post within a thread, if that’s your thing), even the ones that you’d normally skip over because you don’t care. Decide how many actually are sexual. Feel free to make your standards quite broad. Because I think you’ll find what I’ve found: that’s it’s not a matter of what’s actually there, but of what you’re paying attention to.
And still - even after both Jane and I have explicitly said that this is not about sex - we have people focusing on sex threads.
mullinator - FWIW you are as likely to find the kind of talk being addressed here in a non-sex thread as in a sex thread. So that list is fairly meaningless.
See jane? As I said - discussion is fruitless. 99% completely fail to even remotely understand the nature of the debate.
kabbes, it’s comments like these that make it easy to dismiss everything else you say as the ramblings of an irritating, socially-maladjusted, delusions-of-grandeur-having dipshit. People disagree with parts of what you and/or jane said, and are saying so. That doesn’t make them too stupid to comprehend the brilliance that is your posts. It means that the situation is not as easily divided into the black and white, enlightened vs. neanderthal battle that you seem to think it is.
jane said she wasn’t just talking about sex threads, she was talking about threads where men objectify women. One of the two examples given was addressed by Tanaqui – you ignored his/her post. Taran points out that only one thread of the top 25 are of a sexual nature at all, in response to jane’s assertion that there were a multitude of T&A threads.
People are trying to respond to yours and jane’s specific complaints. If you and/or jane don’t give specific examples of what behavior on this message board bothers you, then it’s hard to take your criticism of the message board seriously. I suspect you’d rather roll your eyes and speak in vague and grand terms about general social ills, but that’s not what the thread is about. Start a GD thread if you want to discuss social bias – I’d be interested to participate.
