snakewispera snr
The Devils Advocate
It might help if we all adopt the speaking to mom rule.
MIKE
MIKE
-
Hello!
Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.
Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....
Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.
Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.
Have you noticed the changes on the forum?
- Thread starter zwyatt
- Start date
- Status
Susan
Go Ahead, Make My Day!
Excellent idea! Unfortunately, I've seen a few brats (from toddler on up) speak to their mother in a way that would earn my own children a good smack. And my own mother can still put the fear of God in me with just a single look.
snakewispera snr
The Devils Advocate
Fortunately though, toddlers don't post that often, and the rest of us pretend that your mom might get to read it.
Simple.
As for the forum changing and you can't stop it. I read, someone pays for it and will get what he wants.
MIKE
tyflier
[Insert Witty Commentary]
To me, it seems fairly simple, really...Everyone enjoys good humour, and a little bit of well-concealed innuendo and double entendres seem to be at least moderately accepted. A picture of a lady standing next to a shelving unit full of snake bins, SHOULD, at least in my humble opinion, elicit at least one "Nice Rack" comment. But that is far from some of the comments and pictures I have seen recently...
I don't think Zach or anyone else expects everyone to walk on egg shells, wondering if their next post will get them banned. That isn't much fun for anyone, either.
I think all that is being asked for is a little bit of respect, a little bit of self-control, and some good old-fashioned manners. None of those lines need to be crossed to have a good time. Certainly not on a forum that is inherantly family-oriented.
I really don't understand why that seems such a difficult concept for a few people.
I'm not trying to single you out, Hawkin', but you seem the most vociferous of the "Freedom of Speech. If you don't like it, don't read it" crowd. Nobody wants to tell you what you are and are not allowed to think...but does it always have to be posted? And does it always have to be lewd? Unfortunately, some of the comments I have seen from you and a few others were not even innuendo, let alone well-concealed innuendo. It doesn't bother me personally, but I can certainly appreciate why it might bother the father of a 14 year old girl that just bought her first cornsnake, and only wants to see pictures of the people who have helped her. It's not a matter of limiting your freedoms of Speech and Choice...it's about respecting EVERY member of this community with EVERY word that is typed. Quite frankly, I really don't think that is too much to ask for on such a widely popular and public forum as this...:shrugs:
I don't think Zach or anyone else expects everyone to walk on egg shells, wondering if their next post will get them banned. That isn't much fun for anyone, either.
I think all that is being asked for is a little bit of respect, a little bit of self-control, and some good old-fashioned manners. None of those lines need to be crossed to have a good time. Certainly not on a forum that is inherantly family-oriented.
I really don't understand why that seems such a difficult concept for a few people.
I'm not trying to single you out, Hawkin', but you seem the most vociferous of the "Freedom of Speech. If you don't like it, don't read it" crowd. Nobody wants to tell you what you are and are not allowed to think...but does it always have to be posted? And does it always have to be lewd? Unfortunately, some of the comments I have seen from you and a few others were not even innuendo, let alone well-concealed innuendo. It doesn't bother me personally, but I can certainly appreciate why it might bother the father of a 14 year old girl that just bought her first cornsnake, and only wants to see pictures of the people who have helped her. It's not a matter of limiting your freedoms of Speech and Choice...it's about respecting EVERY member of this community with EVERY word that is typed. Quite frankly, I really don't think that is too much to ask for on such a widely popular and public forum as this...:shrugs:
Dave123
New member
Well that took a very long time to read...
I have been on this forum for over a year now and I can only think of maybe one or two times that I have been offended. I have never felt like someone has harassed me in any way, however, I have see some posts that could be offending to others and are not family-friendly.
Now we have moderators that we can turn to when we feel someone has said something inappropriate or when we feel someone is being rude. The mods do a great job at confronting the individual and taking care of the problem.
If I ever felt harassed I would go to the person harassing me before going to a mod. Most all users on this forums are mature enough to know when they have crossed the line.
I love this forum and all the people on it. This is a great place for people of all ages to talk about corn snakes and just have a great time. I thank all of you who help out so much with problems and make this place so much fun! You guys are great!
I have been on this forum for over a year now and I can only think of maybe one or two times that I have been offended. I have never felt like someone has harassed me in any way, however, I have see some posts that could be offending to others and are not family-friendly.
Now we have moderators that we can turn to when we feel someone has said something inappropriate or when we feel someone is being rude. The mods do a great job at confronting the individual and taking care of the problem.
If I ever felt harassed I would go to the person harassing me before going to a mod. Most all users on this forums are mature enough to know when they have crossed the line.
I love this forum and all the people on it. This is a great place for people of all ages to talk about corn snakes and just have a great time. I thank all of you who help out so much with problems and make this place so much fun! You guys are great!
gwb8568
\../ 80's Rock \../
This may come across critical to some.....a good point to others. It's a public forum so take it as you wish.
First.......I repp'd Zach for starting this thread and voicing his opinions about 20 pages ago. Isn't that what a forum is for? I don't think he is here to "change" anything or make the forum turn 180* to become something totally different than what it is. Yes, he may be younger than some....but he is also older than others. All I see him doing is bringing something to light that many people here are aware of but really didn't want to discuss openly. He did.......and he did.
Secondly......I am a human that likes sarcasm, inside jokes, irony, innuendo, puns, double entendre, etc. just like the next guy/gal. But, I also feel that I know when to use it, when to laugh at it and when to realize that a line is being crossed. Lines get crossed everyday, everywhere, and different individuals handle the situations differently. Some people with no remorse or respect aren't effected by any of it...no matter how bad, rude, crude or senseless it is. Others have certain feelings that let them know they are either crossing that line, or getting pretty close to tripping over it. I would consider myself a close resemblance of the latter.
Lastly......I have a 16 year old daughter and a 12 year old son. If, by chance, I was not into snakes and they were....I would still have an obligation to know what they were involved in. The same as any other aspect in their life...albeit her cheerleading or his riding his skateboard/bicycle in the street. If they are on the phone, on the computer, outside with friends or just plain hanging out in the house.....I know what my kids are doing and if it is something that I want to ,or will, allow.
If I had come across this site, knowing one of my kids was a member, and seen some of the stuff that is being talked about right now........I can almost guarantee you that they would no longer be an active member. There would probably have even been an e-mail/private message sent to somebody alerting them of my feelings. Yeah, call it an overreaction or an "old-timer" if you want.........but as a parent, it is my obligation. Once you become a father/mother (or one that has reached a mature age and settled down) you will know exactly what I am talking about. Sure, I will watch all of the SAW movies and old Eddie Murphy/Richard Pryor stand-up routines.....but my 12 year old son ain't going to.
In my earlier years (before marriage and kids) I would have had the same feelings that a lot of the members here do...."who cares, it's all in fun". But once you "settle" in life, your life "settles" as well and feelings/beliefs change right along with it. I personally don't see this as being an R or X rated forum.....but there were and are a few photos/comments being made recently that would definitely upset me as an outsider looking in. It all comes down to how mature can you be, when you need to be mature. I think this thread will tone down things a bit....but give it 2-3 months and we will be right where we are now. It's the 2000's, not the 1960's. People watch Family Guy.....not Father Knows Best. Times change and people change right along with it. What was once considered evil and disgusting is now considered PG. You used to send a letter in the mail which could take up to a week, now you type on the keyboard and the person can see it instantly. Nothing will really be like it was in the past........but people can (and do) act like they used to, whether it's 2007 or 1967.
To me, it all boils down to people acting a bit more mature when the time calls. Just remember, in this day and age there will definitely be "virgin" eyes seeing what you say and do. Just think about 10 years down the road when it is brought back up.....will you feel comfortable with your current actions.
Sorry, what started out as a simple paragraph has taken on a life of it's own....I am stepping off of the soapbox now. I apologize for the length of this post.
**********************************************************
Mike, Dean and Susan seem to have done a wonderful job so far (I was in an 8 month hiatus) and I really don't think you could ask for a better moderating crew. Personally, I didn't care for the idea of having moderators as that would allow people to not speak their minds.......almost like being back in grade school. Well, it's obvious now that if their names weren't green and the evidence of a voting system to choose them wasn't available for anybody to view....you would have no idea of a Mod system anywhere on here. They actually deserve props for allowing a "freedom" that you don't see on other forums......whether you want to or not.
g
First.......I repp'd Zach for starting this thread and voicing his opinions about 20 pages ago. Isn't that what a forum is for? I don't think he is here to "change" anything or make the forum turn 180* to become something totally different than what it is. Yes, he may be younger than some....but he is also older than others. All I see him doing is bringing something to light that many people here are aware of but really didn't want to discuss openly. He did.......and he did.
Secondly......I am a human that likes sarcasm, inside jokes, irony, innuendo, puns, double entendre, etc. just like the next guy/gal. But, I also feel that I know when to use it, when to laugh at it and when to realize that a line is being crossed. Lines get crossed everyday, everywhere, and different individuals handle the situations differently. Some people with no remorse or respect aren't effected by any of it...no matter how bad, rude, crude or senseless it is. Others have certain feelings that let them know they are either crossing that line, or getting pretty close to tripping over it. I would consider myself a close resemblance of the latter.
Lastly......I have a 16 year old daughter and a 12 year old son. If, by chance, I was not into snakes and they were....I would still have an obligation to know what they were involved in. The same as any other aspect in their life...albeit her cheerleading or his riding his skateboard/bicycle in the street. If they are on the phone, on the computer, outside with friends or just plain hanging out in the house.....I know what my kids are doing and if it is something that I want to ,or will, allow.
If I had come across this site, knowing one of my kids was a member, and seen some of the stuff that is being talked about right now........I can almost guarantee you that they would no longer be an active member. There would probably have even been an e-mail/private message sent to somebody alerting them of my feelings. Yeah, call it an overreaction or an "old-timer" if you want.........but as a parent, it is my obligation. Once you become a father/mother (or one that has reached a mature age and settled down) you will know exactly what I am talking about. Sure, I will watch all of the SAW movies and old Eddie Murphy/Richard Pryor stand-up routines.....but my 12 year old son ain't going to.
In my earlier years (before marriage and kids) I would have had the same feelings that a lot of the members here do...."who cares, it's all in fun". But once you "settle" in life, your life "settles" as well and feelings/beliefs change right along with it. I personally don't see this as being an R or X rated forum.....but there were and are a few photos/comments being made recently that would definitely upset me as an outsider looking in. It all comes down to how mature can you be, when you need to be mature. I think this thread will tone down things a bit....but give it 2-3 months and we will be right where we are now. It's the 2000's, not the 1960's. People watch Family Guy.....not Father Knows Best. Times change and people change right along with it. What was once considered evil and disgusting is now considered PG. You used to send a letter in the mail which could take up to a week, now you type on the keyboard and the person can see it instantly. Nothing will really be like it was in the past........but people can (and do) act like they used to, whether it's 2007 or 1967.
To me, it all boils down to people acting a bit more mature when the time calls. Just remember, in this day and age there will definitely be "virgin" eyes seeing what you say and do. Just think about 10 years down the road when it is brought back up.....will you feel comfortable with your current actions.
Sorry, what started out as a simple paragraph has taken on a life of it's own....I am stepping off of the soapbox now. I apologize for the length of this post.
**********************************************************
Mike, Dean and Susan seem to have done a wonderful job so far (I was in an 8 month hiatus) and I really don't think you could ask for a better moderating crew. Personally, I didn't care for the idea of having moderators as that would allow people to not speak their minds.......almost like being back in grade school. Well, it's obvious now that if their names weren't green and the evidence of a voting system to choose them wasn't available for anybody to view....you would have no idea of a Mod system anywhere on here. They actually deserve props for allowing a "freedom" that you don't see on other forums......whether you want to or not.
g
Susan
Go Ahead, Make My Day!
I checked my children's computer earlier and the parental controls we currently set on it (medium-type level) does block this site. It may simply be the corn porn content, but when my 7 year old son just tried to read this thread over my shoulder, I instinctively minimized my screen and shooed him away. I've never done that before. My son was even puzzled, saying he likes to look at the avatars of the members and the smilies used in the posts and asked why he couldn't see them this time. Sad...really sad. So guys...I guess it's just you two and Rich to keep control over this thread...at least during the hours my children are awake.
Last edited:
TandJ
Ole' Stoic Viper...
Of course due to my last post, I am going to watch over my shoulder from Jenn whacking me with the frying pan.. *lol* Quite frankly, if its adult content, it probably is not best viewed by the younger members, of course this might mean we take responsibility for our posting content by ourselves..
Granted I don't quite have faith in most people, but at least I can hope we take a personal proactive step to avoid the drama..
Regards.. Tim of T and J
Granted I don't quite have faith in most people, but at least I can hope we take a personal proactive step to avoid the drama..
Regards.. Tim of T and J
Last edited:
tyflier
[Insert Witty Commentary]
I just need to say...there is ALOT of reputation to spread around in this thread...
...and alot of "re-thinking" to be done, as well, IMO.
I think that if enough members can frown on the "objectionable material", than that material shall soon enough cease to be posted...And I certainly don't expect our moderators to be the only people objecting. Their job is hard enough without expecting them to become babysitters for our own actions.
...and alot of "re-thinking" to be done, as well, IMO.
I think that if enough members can frown on the "objectionable material", than that material shall soon enough cease to be posted...And I certainly don't expect our moderators to be the only people objecting. Their job is hard enough without expecting them to become babysitters for our own actions.
Quote a few of my "lewd" posts,I really don't think any were that bad.Take a look at Bluebird's response to my comments,She knows it's all in fun.Seeing how uptight a few people are,I'm really trying to be more sensitive in what I write.From what I've read,you have hit on just about every good looking girl on here and I find THAT very offensive.
so don't throw too many stones.Nice play by the way,writing that so you can come off as the "Nice sensitive guy" the girls always fall for that!:laugh01:I won't be on here much now anyway.I'm going to get a new bird for falconry season tomorrow,so all my spare time will be training and hunting.Thank god,I'll be scarce when Jazz comes back,because you know he has to be on about his 100th draft of all his responses to everyone!!!! When you get a comedian that mad,look out!!!:angry01:I know I'm trembling in fear ,just thinking about what he is going to say about me. Maybe he just bowed out 'cause of the writer's strike?I can't wait for the witty analysis and obscure references.LOL!!!Don't worry no hard feelings to anyone here and I'll send ya the feathers if you want them.:cheers:
Jrgh17
Are we there yet?
I'd just like to restate my belief that we should ALL be responsible for keeping the site where it should be. Ever heard the phrase that "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem"? If something is objectionable, report it. If you're not comfortable doing that, PM works too.
SnakesRule1234
New member
Nanci
Alien Lover
Pictures of the bird!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(And I didn't think any of your posts were offensive. Predictable- but not offensive.)
Nanci
tyflier
[Insert Witty Commentary]
Hawkin'-
As I said earlier, there is a HUGE difference between, "How YOU doin'?" and "I'd hit that!". If you don't see a difference between those 2 phrases...I really am sorry. One is a flirty, fun way to say, "I think you're attractive." The other is best left in the bar or locker room. My way of "hitting on" the girls of this forum is a "wink, wink, nudge" where others seem to be "Wanna come home with me?". There is a tremendous difference between the two. I'm not saying I am better than you, or smarter, or wittier, or anything of the sort. In fact...re-read my first post, and you will see where I openly admit that I may be part of the problem.
But what you will also see is my voluntary admission of such, and my voluntary acceptance that I need to be responsible for my own postings, and re-read before I submit. If that means no more flirting with the finer of the species...so be it. It is NOT a violation of my Freedom of Speech...it is merely an acceptance of my responsiblity that goes hand in hand WITH that freedom. Certainly, I can say whatever I want to whomever I want, whenever I want, and anyone that doesn't like it, doesn't have to read it. But there are always repurcussions for doing so. I am merely acknowledging my participation in such activities, and admitting that I, personally, can exert some self-control and restraint by way of showing respect to the other members of the forum. "Sensitive, nice guy" left my persona many years ago. He was replaced by "caring father and responsible adult". Honestly...I would raise hell if my daughter was spoken to in the manner of several posts I have seen...including some of my own. Accepting my responsiblity of those actions is nothing more or less than "the right thing to do". As I said...personally, it doesn't bother me. I am VERY difficult to offend after many years as a bartender and bouncer. But that doesn't mean I can't understand why or how others would find such things offensive. Really...it is only a matter of respect...to everyone, not just the few who wish to continue with such mannerisms.
Of course...I would also raise hell if my daughter posted pictures in the manner of several I have seen recently, as well. As I said...I am NOT singeling you out...merely addressing the most vociferous proponent of the "If you don't like it, don't read it" crowd...which in itself is fairly ludicrous, considering I would have to read it before I could know if I would like to or not. And on a forum such as this...it is only reasonable to assume that such *should not* be an issue. Susan should NOT have to minimize her browser if her children are present. This forum should NOT be blocked by "moderate" parental controls. That is not fair to the potential members seeking information, the administrator as a businessman, nor the community as a whole. It is simply unfair, by and large, to everyone involved, except for the very few that wish to continue such behavior.
As has been said MANY times...the line is exceptionally thin, and a very difficult one to walk. As has been displayed by George earlier in the post...some people DO have a VERY difficult time discerning the difference between playful banter and disrespect. The thread which primarily sparked this topic has MANY posts by several different members that do, in fact "cross the line"...even to my "far from delicate sensibilities". Some things simply do not belong here, and are best left to PM, the bar scene, or a locker room.
You would most definitely not see a post by me anywhere saying a phrase like "nice rack" unless there was a definite visual double entendre(such as the pool table with the rack of balls in the background, or a lady standing next to a snake rack). You will definitely NOT see a post from me saying "I'd hit that" unless it was a picture of a lady standing at home plate with a bat on her shoulder and a wide pitch...visibly a double entendre...and quite funny, IMO.
As far as your posts, specifically...there aren't any that I would classify as "lewd" in and of themselves. But there are a few that are not innuendo, just straight to the point, "hubba, hubba" style referances. I can certainly appreciate why some people may find that offensive. Again, not me, personally...but certainly some people. Of course...I don't think any of my own were "lewd", either...but that doesn't stop me from recognizing I *could* be a part of the problem, and altering my behavior to prevent such a problem in the future.
I will certainly grant you....your posts are among the lesser offenders, IMO. Again...nothing I would classify as "lewd", per se...but walking that line, right along with some of mine. The only difference is I am acknowledging it and altering my behavior to prevent it in the future rather than defending my "right" to be abrasive or moderately "sexist". You are a proponent for keeping it the way it is. To me, it is only responsible to recognize the potential for problems and alter the behavior...
I think you are a good guy, with good information, and an overall pleasant attitude, from what I have read of your posts. I enjoy your "company" on the forum, and enjoy reading your replies. But that isn't what this topic is about. It isn't about what you and I have done, or even what we think. It is about an observation, and the state of the community. As a member oif this community, I want to do what I can to ensure it's success both in terms of numbers, information AND friendly, fun activities to while away the midnight hours.
I can't help but admit that MY posts may have, in a small way, contributed to other people thinking that lewd behavior was acceptable. I can't help but think that if I hadn't posted so many "How YOU doin'?" phrases, perhaps fewer females would have posted provocative and suggestive photos. I can't help but think that I am, at least in part, responsible for the things that other people may be finding offensive on this site. I don't want that. Not for myself, and not for the forum. Certainly I am not responsible for what other people post, or interpret as acceptable or funny. But I AM responsible for the self-image that I wish people to see from me on this forum, and I AM responsible to ensure that I am putting forth a responsible, respectable, and respectful image to every member of this community, old and new alike, and let those that can't tell the difference between sexism and flirting that their behavior is unacceptable to me AS a respected member of this community.
Again...it's not you. It's not personal. I seriously hope you haven't taken me that way, and I seriously hope we can still be e-friends. And yea...I still want the feathers....
As I said earlier, there is a HUGE difference between, "How YOU doin'?" and "I'd hit that!". If you don't see a difference between those 2 phrases...I really am sorry. One is a flirty, fun way to say, "I think you're attractive." The other is best left in the bar or locker room. My way of "hitting on" the girls of this forum is a "wink, wink, nudge" where others seem to be "Wanna come home with me?". There is a tremendous difference between the two. I'm not saying I am better than you, or smarter, or wittier, or anything of the sort. In fact...re-read my first post, and you will see where I openly admit that I may be part of the problem.
But what you will also see is my voluntary admission of such, and my voluntary acceptance that I need to be responsible for my own postings, and re-read before I submit. If that means no more flirting with the finer of the species...so be it. It is NOT a violation of my Freedom of Speech...it is merely an acceptance of my responsiblity that goes hand in hand WITH that freedom. Certainly, I can say whatever I want to whomever I want, whenever I want, and anyone that doesn't like it, doesn't have to read it. But there are always repurcussions for doing so. I am merely acknowledging my participation in such activities, and admitting that I, personally, can exert some self-control and restraint by way of showing respect to the other members of the forum. "Sensitive, nice guy" left my persona many years ago. He was replaced by "caring father and responsible adult". Honestly...I would raise hell if my daughter was spoken to in the manner of several posts I have seen...including some of my own. Accepting my responsiblity of those actions is nothing more or less than "the right thing to do". As I said...personally, it doesn't bother me. I am VERY difficult to offend after many years as a bartender and bouncer. But that doesn't mean I can't understand why or how others would find such things offensive. Really...it is only a matter of respect...to everyone, not just the few who wish to continue with such mannerisms.
Of course...I would also raise hell if my daughter posted pictures in the manner of several I have seen recently, as well. As I said...I am NOT singeling you out...merely addressing the most vociferous proponent of the "If you don't like it, don't read it" crowd...which in itself is fairly ludicrous, considering I would have to read it before I could know if I would like to or not.
And on a forum such as this...it is only reasonable to assume that such *should not* be an issue. Susan should NOT have to minimize her browser if her children are present. This forum should NOT be blocked by "moderate" parental controls. That is not fair to the potential members seeking information, the administrator as a businessman, nor the community as a whole. It is simply unfair, by and large, to everyone involved, except for the very few that wish to continue such behavior.As has been said MANY times...the line is exceptionally thin, and a very difficult one to walk. As has been displayed by George earlier in the post...some people DO have a VERY difficult time discerning the difference between playful banter and disrespect. The thread which primarily sparked this topic has MANY posts by several different members that do, in fact "cross the line"...even to my "far from delicate sensibilities". Some things simply do not belong here, and are best left to PM, the bar scene, or a locker room.
You would most definitely not see a post by me anywhere saying a phrase like "nice rack" unless there was a definite visual double entendre(such as the pool table with the rack of balls in the background, or a lady standing next to a snake rack). You will definitely NOT see a post from me saying "I'd hit that" unless it was a picture of a lady standing at home plate with a bat on her shoulder and a wide pitch...visibly a double entendre...and quite funny, IMO.
As far as your posts, specifically...there aren't any that I would classify as "lewd" in and of themselves. But there are a few that are not innuendo, just straight to the point, "hubba, hubba" style referances. I can certainly appreciate why some people may find that offensive. Again, not me, personally...but certainly some people. Of course...I don't think any of my own were "lewd", either...but that doesn't stop me from recognizing I *could* be a part of the problem, and altering my behavior to prevent such a problem in the future.
I will certainly grant you....your posts are among the lesser offenders, IMO. Again...nothing I would classify as "lewd", per se...but walking that line, right along with some of mine. The only difference is I am acknowledging it and altering my behavior to prevent it in the future rather than defending my "right" to be abrasive or moderately "sexist". You are a proponent for keeping it the way it is. To me, it is only responsible to recognize the potential for problems and alter the behavior...
I think you are a good guy, with good information, and an overall pleasant attitude, from what I have read of your posts. I enjoy your "company" on the forum, and enjoy reading your replies. But that isn't what this topic is about. It isn't about what you and I have done, or even what we think. It is about an observation, and the state of the community. As a member oif this community, I want to do what I can to ensure it's success both in terms of numbers, information AND friendly, fun activities to while away the midnight hours.
I can't help but admit that MY posts may have, in a small way, contributed to other people thinking that lewd behavior was acceptable. I can't help but think that if I hadn't posted so many "How YOU doin'?" phrases, perhaps fewer females would have posted provocative and suggestive photos. I can't help but think that I am, at least in part, responsible for the things that other people may be finding offensive on this site. I don't want that. Not for myself, and not for the forum. Certainly I am not responsible for what other people post, or interpret as acceptable or funny. But I AM responsible for the self-image that I wish people to see from me on this forum, and I AM responsible to ensure that I am putting forth a responsible, respectable, and respectful image to every member of this community, old and new alike, and let those that can't tell the difference between sexism and flirting that their behavior is unacceptable to me AS a respected member of this community.
Again...it's not you. It's not personal. I seriously hope you haven't taken me that way, and I seriously hope we can still be e-friends. And yea...I still want the feathers...
.
desertanimal
2003 UB313
Hmm. Pretty good posts overall, and I agree with most of what you've said. But I'd have to argue that "I'd hit that" should never be said at all, since it objectifies women. And so I will.
From my perspective, one man saying to another, "I would sleep with her," at a bar is not wrong, and if I were a straight woman, I wouldn't mind if my SO said that in a locker room, either about me or about another woman. That's kind of like, "No duh. Of course you would. She's hot. (I would too if I were single.)" But I wish we didn't live in a society where men thought it ok to say, "I'd hit that" as long as women aren't around to hear it. That means you only have to think of us as people in front of us, when we're around to hear, and when it directly affects your chances of sleeping with us. If I were a straight woman and I found out that my SO said that in a locker room, I would be horrified. Because the woman in question is not a "that," she's a "her." And hitting, or even referring to sex as hitting, is something you do TO someone, not WITH someone.
To frame this using your example, are you going to want your daughter dating a guy who says that about her, but limits himself to saying it about her in the bar or in the locker room? We're all someone's daughter, or someone's sister, and some of us are someone's mom. Sure, you can appreciate that we're sexy and desirable, and you can admit that you would love to hop in bed with us and you can say that in a variety of ways. But we all--your daughters, your mothers, your sisters, your dates--deserve to be referred to as people, and we all deserve to sleep with people who conceptualize of us as active and willing participants in that act, not as uninvolved objects of an action performed by them on us.
tyflier
[Insert Witty Commentary]
Actually, "I'd hit that" is a phrase I am not fond of, myself. I don't like it nor do I like the "F" word in referance to sexual activity(though otherwise it is one of my favorite words...go figure). I am also not a fan of slang terms used to describe sexual organs. But all of these are examples of words and phrases that are used by men AND women in certain situations. Whether I agree with the phrase or not, and whether I use the phrase myself or not, it is a phrase that is often heard when in a bar "with the boys" or in a men's locker room. Believe me...I have heard plenty of straight women use the phrase "I'd hit that" and similar such phrases in referance to "hot guys". That's not to say it is acceptable, only that it is common...but then again...there are ALOT of things that are common that I am not particularly fond of.
I used the phrase "best left in the bar or locker room" to denote that the phrase, IF deemed acceptable, would ONLY be so in like company, and, therefor, should not be used in this forum. As I said...I don't use the phrase. Possibly because I AM a father to a daughter, but I don't think I've used the phrase outside of attempted humorous referance even prior to parenthood...but don't quote me on that.
While I wholeheartedly agree with your post in it's entire idealism...I don't think "objectification" is the intended practice. I think it is a poorly construed effort at flattery that gets overly abused. In my mind, it is akin to a person that curses because they cannot find a better way to word their thoughts, versus a person that curses to emphasize their thoughts.
What I mean is...if I hear a friend say "I'd hit that", it doesn't objectify the woman in my mind nor my perspective. It is a result of poor communication, and a failure to find a "nicer" way to put...or simply a lack of manners. But I don't think the intent is literaly to refer to the woman as an object...a "that"...nor do I believe the intent is to degrade her. I just think it is a common phrase that has found it's way into common language, much like "She's Hot!" has replaced "She's a Babe" or "she's smoking" or "she's fine"...or "Schwingg!!".
Unfortunately, among many men AND women today, such a phrase is so commonplace that I hardly believe anyone puts enough thought into the actual words they are using above the intended idea of "I'd like to have sexual intercourse with her". In other words...I don't believe there is enough thought put into the use of such a phrase to ALLOW it to objectify women any more than the phrase "she's hot" implies that she has a fever or "she's smoking" implies she is holding a cigarrette or on fire. It is used because of it's commonality, and very little thought is put into what the words actually mean over what the idea intended with the words is...which is "I want to have sex with her"...which is technically not "sleeping" with her.
I just don't think that phrase, or many like it, deserve to be treated with more thought than their use gets. They are lazy and improper metaphores and nothing more. I compare it to "knockin' boots", which is another phrase that is regularly used with very little thought to the actual content of the words over the idea they have grown to imply. They are merely cliche. In poor taste, to be certain...but not intended to objectify nor degrade.
I guess what I am trying to say is that it has been my experience that the people who so commonly use such phrases are rarely smart enough to realize the actual meaning of the words. They typically don't know what it means to objectify an individual, and certainly cannot be credited with being smart enough to do so on purpose. I also doubt they are "good enough" to "hit" anything...
Of course...this is just one man's opinion...
I used the phrase "best left in the bar or locker room" to denote that the phrase, IF deemed acceptable, would ONLY be so in like company, and, therefor, should not be used in this forum. As I said...I don't use the phrase. Possibly because I AM a father to a daughter, but I don't think I've used the phrase outside of attempted humorous referance even prior to parenthood...but don't quote me on that.
While I wholeheartedly agree with your post in it's entire idealism...I don't think "objectification" is the intended practice. I think it is a poorly construed effort at flattery that gets overly abused. In my mind, it is akin to a person that curses because they cannot find a better way to word their thoughts, versus a person that curses to emphasize their thoughts.
What I mean is...if I hear a friend say "I'd hit that", it doesn't objectify the woman in my mind nor my perspective. It is a result of poor communication, and a failure to find a "nicer" way to put...or simply a lack of manners. But I don't think the intent is literaly to refer to the woman as an object...a "that"...nor do I believe the intent is to degrade her. I just think it is a common phrase that has found it's way into common language, much like "She's Hot!" has replaced "She's a Babe" or "she's smoking" or "she's fine"...or "Schwingg!!".
Unfortunately, among many men AND women today, such a phrase is so commonplace that I hardly believe anyone puts enough thought into the actual words they are using above the intended idea of "I'd like to have sexual intercourse with her". In other words...I don't believe there is enough thought put into the use of such a phrase to ALLOW it to objectify women any more than the phrase "she's hot" implies that she has a fever or "she's smoking" implies she is holding a cigarrette or on fire. It is used because of it's commonality, and very little thought is put into what the words actually mean over what the idea intended with the words is...which is "I want to have sex with her"...which is technically not "sleeping" with her
.I just don't think that phrase, or many like it, deserve to be treated with more thought than their use gets. They are lazy and improper metaphores and nothing more. I compare it to "knockin' boots", which is another phrase that is regularly used with very little thought to the actual content of the words over the idea they have grown to imply. They are merely cliche. In poor taste, to be certain...but not intended to objectify nor degrade.
I guess what I am trying to say is that it has been my experience that the people who so commonly use such phrases are rarely smart enough to realize the actual meaning of the words. They typically don't know what it means to objectify an individual, and certainly cannot be credited with being smart enough to do so on purpose. I also doubt they are "good enough" to "hit" anything...
Of course...this is just one man's opinion...
Jrgh17
Are we there yet?
For the record - I decked some guy in a bar last weekend for saying "I'd hit that" and grabbing my butt. In all honesty, if he had just grabbed my butt, I probably would've taken his hand off me, verbally squashed his self-esteem, and then showered repeatedly at home. It was the tone and the general assumption of "I have a right to do this" that made me lose control.
tyflier
[Insert Witty Commentary]
You should have broken his nose and knocked him unconscious. Then he could have felt like a "real man"...
I do have a question, though...
Which is worse, "I'd hit that" or "I'd like to F her"? I ask because the first one does, indeed, insinuate that the woman involved is an object, rather than a willing participant, but the second one is, IMO, SOOOOO much more rude, self-centered, and sexist...but does NOT objectify the female, and is, really, just another way of saying "I'd like to have sex with her". I would MUCH rather hear someone say the first over the second. The second phrase offends even MY sensibilities...and that is tough to do.
Either way, they are both quite "cromagnon", IMO. There are far better ways to express an interest in an attractive human...
desertanimal
2003 UB313
Edited to add: I should have quoted your post two posts up, but it was long so I didn't, and now there's stuff in between.
Well, that's what people say when they use the phrase, "That's gay," when what they mean is that it's stupid or in some other way undesirable. They say that they didn't mean any offense to gay people. Well, uhhh, if you just used the word "gay" in place of "stupid" or "irritating" or whatever other negative thing you were feeling, I don't really see how you WEREN'T saying something negative about gay people.
In reference to "I'd hit that," it can ONLY be interpreted as treating the subject of conversation as an object. Maybe it slides by as not-meaning-to-be-offensive in the mind of the speaker. But no matter how you slice it, it's objectifying. It's objectifying when men say it, it's objectifying when women say it. It's scarier when men objectify women simply because of the history of the relationship between men and women in our society and others and how horrible things can and do happen to women when men stop thinking of them as people.
I think things like this are insidious. You can think that you didn't mean to not treat a person like an object when you called him or her an "it," but everyone who can form a sentence in English knows the difference between "him," "her," and "it." And when you refer to a person as an "it," a little of of his or her humanity slips away in your mind.
Would you really be so blase about it if you heard your daughter's boyfriend say that about her? You already know he wants to have sex with her. Would you REALLY think he was thinking of your daughter in exactly the same way if he said, "I'd hit that," as if he said "I'll have sex with her the first chance I get!" I wouldn't. But if you really would, if you really would think that that guy was thinking of your daughter in the exact same way if he said either one, I hope you don't let her date him anyway, because that would make him a really dumb guy
And to further counter your argument that it's just laziness of thought, do people who want to have sex with other people tell those other people, "I'd hit that," as a pick-up line? Or do they say, "You're hot!" Similarly, I know people who say, "That's so gay," but they DON'T say it around me. Why? Why not say it around me if equating something negative with gay isn't negative about gay people? It is, and that's why they don't say it when I'm within earshot. They ARE able to see that it's negative about gays, but they say it anyway when I'm not around because it's acceptable to be negative about gays as long as gays aren't around.
Kinda similar to how it's ok to talk about how blacks just can't achieve as much in school as whites when you know you're in a room full of racists. Not similar in degree, maybe, but similar in kind.
In response to your question to Jenni, I think it depends. If the man conceives of f-ing as something where the woman is not an active and willing participant, they are equally bad. If the man conceives of f-ing as a cooperative activity (which I, personally, think it CAN be), then it's not degrading at all. We use that phrase at our house. To us, it reflects a particular character and mood, and could not happen without the other person being a willing and active participant in that same character and mood.
p.s. I think the phrase, "Knockin' boots" is kind of cute. I'm sure that if you leave your boots on, that really does happen, and so I like that euphamism. Kind of like how they shoot movie shots of only feet but you know what's happening. It's a phrase that describes only feet, but you know what's happening.
Well, that's what people say when they use the phrase, "That's gay," when what they mean is that it's stupid or in some other way undesirable. They say that they didn't mean any offense to gay people. Well, uhhh, if you just used the word "gay" in place of "stupid" or "irritating" or whatever other negative thing you were feeling, I don't really see how you WEREN'T saying something negative about gay people.
In reference to "I'd hit that," it can ONLY be interpreted as treating the subject of conversation as an object. Maybe it slides by as not-meaning-to-be-offensive in the mind of the speaker. But no matter how you slice it, it's objectifying. It's objectifying when men say it, it's objectifying when women say it. It's scarier when men objectify women simply because of the history of the relationship between men and women in our society and others and how horrible things can and do happen to women when men stop thinking of them as people.
I think things like this are insidious. You can think that you didn't mean to not treat a person like an object when you called him or her an "it," but everyone who can form a sentence in English knows the difference between "him," "her," and "it." And when you refer to a person as an "it," a little of of his or her humanity slips away in your mind.
Would you really be so blase about it if you heard your daughter's boyfriend say that about her? You already know he wants to have sex with her. Would you REALLY think he was thinking of your daughter in exactly the same way if he said, "I'd hit that," as if he said "I'll have sex with her the first chance I get!" I wouldn't. But if you really would, if you really would think that that guy was thinking of your daughter in the exact same way if he said either one, I hope you don't let her date him anyway, because that would make him a really dumb guy
And to further counter your argument that it's just laziness of thought, do people who want to have sex with other people tell those other people, "I'd hit that," as a pick-up line? Or do they say, "You're hot!" Similarly, I know people who say, "That's so gay," but they DON'T say it around me. Why? Why not say it around me if equating something negative with gay isn't negative about gay people? It is, and that's why they don't say it when I'm within earshot. They ARE able to see that it's negative about gays, but they say it anyway when I'm not around because it's acceptable to be negative about gays as long as gays aren't around.
Kinda similar to how it's ok to talk about how blacks just can't achieve as much in school as whites when you know you're in a room full of racists. Not similar in degree, maybe, but similar in kind.
In response to your question to Jenni, I think it depends. If the man conceives of f-ing as something where the woman is not an active and willing participant, they are equally bad. If the man conceives of f-ing as a cooperative activity (which I, personally, think it CAN be), then it's not degrading at all. We use that phrase at our house. To us, it reflects a particular character and mood, and could not happen without the other person being a willing and active participant in that same character and mood.
p.s. I think the phrase, "Knockin' boots" is kind of cute. I'm sure that if you leave your boots on, that really does happen, and so I like that euphamism. Kind of like how they shoot movie shots of only feet but you know what's happening. It's a phrase that describes only feet, but you know what's happening.
Jrgh17
Are we there yet?
I find using the f-word for describe an intimate experience with another human being to be disgusting. Some people, however, feel that "f***" and "have sex with" are interchangeable. With what desertanimal said above, not only does "that" objectify the woman, but the verb "hit" implies even further that the woman is an object to be used to satisfy a need. Yes, the f-word does do this as well, but it is much more two-sided than using "hit." The f-word implies that each party is using the other to satisfy some need. "Hit" is implying that the satisfaction of the person (being referred to) is not a concern.
When it comes down to it, it's an individual take. I would be :angry01::angry01::angry01: in both situations, but "I'd hit it" would make me much angrier. That's just part of my personal background. I think the answer will be different for everyone.
- Status