itt a strange man asks if you saw the ass on that one

patently false

for example

hammering on the but it's just thoughts aspect is unproductive, if only because everyone gets so defensive! ppl that check ppl out don't want to be lumped in with the creeps, and ppl that are uncomfortable with that kind of behavior don't want to be lumped in with hysterical prudes (I am guessing). xps on ZING

― crazy farting throwback jersey (gbx), Wednesday, December 2, 2009 12:30 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

ppl that check ppl out

^^ This is pretty much every single person at least on some level and so I am sorry but I do think that, while not wrong, it is a little unhealthy to be uncomfortable with this idea.

yep

patently false

― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Wednesday, December 2, 2009 12:37 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

OK. I respect your right to think that and mine to believe otherwise.

ENBB OTM I kinda can't fathom any argument to the contrary (but feel free to go ahead and make one)

totally agree w/ENBB

Lock thread?

ENBB OTM I kinda can't fathom any argument to the contrary (but feel free to go ahead and make one)

― strange asses outside liquor stores (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, December 2, 2009 12:43 PM (2 minutes ago)

http://static.pyzam.com/img/funnypics/4/pyzamnothanks.jpg

i dunno, it's true but i feel like plain old ppl that check ppl out were never in question. maybe i'm wrong because this thread has too many words
oh, no? ok.

im not sure what happened to this thread and i still couldnt tell you what any of the arguments are

me neither. oh well.

mostly i think my saying that there's nothing wrong with lusting someone has been confused for finding illegitimate the negative reactions of those who do

― brutt fartve (k3vin k.), Wednesday, December 2, 2009 12:34 PM (16 minutes ago)

this is basically my position, i'm gonna let yall have at it now

no thanks

I used to say "I claim zis ass in ze name of france" to women I met, as a funny kind of hello

never again

I think we're all learning something here today

lonely guy just lusting bout things. xxp

Watching "Sex Rehab" made me think about how lucky everyone on this thread is; there was a dude there who didn't understand why telling a fellow patient "I would rape the shit out of you" wouldn't be seen as a harmless attempt at levity intended to (DIRECT QUOTE) "bring joy into her life" and who also had the gall to be worried and concerned because she told everyone that she would cut his balls off if he tried to rape her.

So, um, congrats everyone for not being that dude.

i feel lucky for not watching "sex rehab"

how can you be sure that wasn't k3vin k

or maybe max

just sayin

ENBB otm otm otm. that's what i was trying to say yesterday. brutt f too.

it's okay to have thoughts of whatever kind in your own head. this may be a horrible thing to say, so i'm sorry in advance, but -- if you're a reasonably attractive person and spend any amount of time out in public, it is VERY likely that a great many people will have passing, trivial sexual thoughts about you EVERY SINGLE DAY. coworkers, friends, strangers, housemates, bums, prospective employers, whatever.

people have sexual thoughts about other people sometimes. there is nothing wrong with this, ever, at any level. it is not "perving", it is not creepy, it is not attempted psychic ownership and it is most certainly not sexist.

it is perfectly okay, of course, for someone to be grossed out by this idea, or even to feel violated by it. but the sooner we accept and embrace - even enjoy this basic fact - the happier we'll all be.

that's thing one. thing two is that laurel is absolutely otm that people need, for the most part, to keep their wonderful, harmless sex-thoughs safely ensconced INSIDE THEIR HEADS. i agree that women are (or at least can be) oppressed by constant unwanted sexual attention. but "unwanted" is a sticky wicket. like i said yesterday, we have to be able to break the bubble sometime, and there aren't hard-and-fast rules for when/where/how to go about this. in order to flirt properly, we have to know how to step out of the comfort zone - while still respecting it. and that's where people get in trouble. especially the sort of freaks who make comments about to strangers about asses.

finally, the word "sexism" is troublesome to me in this discussion. i object to its casual use because, like racism, it's so loaded with condemnatory power. to be sexist is to be WRONG, perhaps irredeemably so. the word is often used like that, as a kind of rhetorical weapon. and that's okay, but given that it bears that kind of power, i think we're obliged to be somewhat careful in how we use it.

i say this because i think the word "racism" has become horribly distorted by careless use. as a result, it's all but impossible to speak sensibly about race in public/with strangers. the whole subject is a minefield. this is somewhat less true of gender issues. most of us are less hypersenstive to them (though hopefully still sensitive), and i think this is a good thing. it allows some measure of flexibility and accommodation in discussion. it allows us to carry this potentially contentious discussion out at some length without anyone freaking out and trashing the room.

guys i think everyone knows its ok to have sexy thoughts

coming from a guy who hasnt read the thread

sorry. probably should have edited that down, or broken it up over several posts or something...

i do think at the beginning of the thread i was right to point out that racism vs. sexism fight is not parallel bcuz of the different discursive functions of 'race' vs. 'sex' in society

plus the actual function of sex/gender/reproduction vs. the fact that race is a cultural construct

thats what i meant bro

So you would like to point out that you have been OTM in this thread?

wouldnt be the first time

i would like to point out that all of the asses on this thread are otm

but looking and wanting and even objectifying aren't necessarily sexist, nor is expressing desire in an uncivil manner

i disagree with this last bit btw, it's not difficult to just be civil *and* flirtatious to a woman you also happen to desire. if we are talking about how to deal with women as opposed to how you talk with your bros behind closed doors. and even on the latter, you can maintain some civility.

unrelated but: there was this weird neighbor my fiancee used to have whom she never actually met but i guess was a little "strange guy" to her, and then one day he said, "hello audrey." (audrey was the name of her wireless connection, not her actual name)

okay that is grade-A creepy

stalker

did you see the ass on NETGEAR?

I hope none of my neighbors think my (or my wife's) name is "furburger"

x-post

if someone calls me "carlos' salty balls" i'll have to point them to the guy across the street

c over tcp/ip

i disagree with this last bit btw, it's not difficult to just be civil *and* flirtatious to a woman you also happen to desire. if we are talking about how to deal with women as opposed to how you talk with your bros behind closed doors. and even on the latter, you can maintain some civility.

― jØrdån (omar little), Wednesday, December 2, 2009 12:19 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark

totally agree. my objection was limited to the use of the world "sexist" to describe the type of wrongness in question. i mean, incivility (or perceived incivility) might be a product of actual sexism, and can certainly function in a sexist way, but the word rankles when used in such an offhand manner. it bothers me because it threatens to substitute this big condemnatory blot ("SEXISME!") for a nuanced consideration of the issues involved.

it IS gross and potentially threatening to leer and catcall and pressure. but shy of something that dramatic, civility can be very hard to pin down. good flirting is all about knowing where the lines are and edging up to them without crossing over. not everyone gets it right everytime. and there may be things at work in the dynamic that are more subtle than the word sexism will admit.

Don't understand the objection to the word "sexism" at all -- it's just a thing that things can be. Sometimes more definitely so, other times there are margins and boundaries and stuff but...??? Arguing that something that is aimed at a subset of people to make them afraid or change their behavior based on personal characteristics shouldn't be characterizes as such, is like Repubs arguing against hate crimes legislation because they secretly DO think that gays and etc really are inferior/wrong...? It's neither crazy nor confusing.

ctdr, I am not calling you sexist or your ideas sexist or w/e, but I don't get why you can't call a simple thing what it is because the word might...scare people?

in this case i think a comparison w/ racism is totally legit -- i disagree, much like w/ race, regardless of the 'intent' -- as if that can be measured -- simply ignorance/lack of awareness is not an excuse for being inappropriate xp

Sorry, I actually went home from work and slept a couple of hours. I don't know what's wrong with me but everything is too close to the surface today.

this is like when ppl were arguing whether or not kramer's racist ... its like, if hes not, then who is?? yes its more discursively useful to regard actions as sexist & not worry about trying to divide ppl up into "sexist" & "not sexist" camps, because otherwise ppl w/ sexist ideas are constantly saying 'i'm not a sexist' & think that gives them a pass to say sexist shit. But at the same time, just as we casually call dudes 'creeps' i think casually calling dudes 'sexist' is pretty reasonable.

for the purposes of this abstract discussion, i mean

i think thats one of the things that the sexism debate has over the racism debate -- that debates about race often come down to "i'm not a racist," while i'm not sure the same is true for sexism, that ppl are more likely to identify sexist *actions* and less likely to worry about 'being a sexist'

it's on another level entirely and i'm not saying that about anyone here, but it reminds me of tucker max's defense that he "loves women, they're his biggest fans," etc

XPOST MINDMELD This is beginning to remind me of the Michael Richards thread and the argument over whether the dude was incontrovertibly a RACIST versus a guy who behaved in a racist fashion (or even, to take the R-word out of the equation entirely, a guy who acted thoughtlessly and tastelessly).

its like, if hes not, then who is??

Someone who exhibits a long history of prejudice and discrimination against those of another race?

No one has accused anyone here in this giant clusterfuck thread of Being An Sexist. I used the word like twice to refer to actions.

right but what does that guy have to do w/ michael richards? its like, brownie points for not being hitler but you're still an asshole xp