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

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

but it reminds me of tucker max's defense that he "loves women, they're his biggest fans,"

right, that's like the classic "i can't be a misogynist, i love women!" defense

laurel, exactly -- thats what im saying. im agreeing w/ you and disagreeing w/ contenderizer

Well, sure, he's an asshole, but I'm not sure he's a racist.

my point was that in debates about racism, there's a subtext that someone is always trying to identify "a racist" -- even when its never stated -- while i think w/ debates about sexism it tends to get into debates about actions, whether particular actions are sexist. I think that in terms of discussion, on some level that makes debates about sexism more productive

yeah guys like that love women who adore them, but if women challenge them the misogynist comes out

xxxp

jaymc, i disagree, but i think that arguing about it is kind of useless & pointless -- its a question of semantics

"love" i should say

in my semantic definition of 'a racist,' kramer is probably 'a racist,' although really having determined what that means is ultimately not really engaging w/ any of the actual pressing problems at hand

my point was that in debates about racism, there's a subtext that someone is always trying to identify "a racist" -- even when its never stated -- while i think w/ debates about sexism it tends to get into debates about actions, whether particular actions are sexist. I think that in terms of discussion, on some level that makes debates about sexism more productive

I agree w/this.

see, whatever laurel's rhetorical equivalence of racism and sexism (and i think posters have adequately dealt with that, incl. laurel herself), this thread can be summed up as

laurel: my fellow human beings disgust and depress me
other ppl: smelltheglove.wav

so yeah, laurel otm

it's okay to have thoughts of whatever kind in your own head.

people have sexual thoughts about other people sometimes. there is nothing wrong with this, ever, at any level.

we should not be so ready to believe these things imo.

yah otm

yes

What? That's crazy.

I completely disagree.

so confused

Expecially when it comes to something as complex and natural as human sexuality.

We should all post every questionable thought we may have throughout the day and then y'all can tell us which we should be shamed for.

i think the opposition w/ laurel got set up cuz a bunch of ppl voted for the joke answer from the perspective of "despite being creepy & weird & awkward of that dude to say anything publicly, that chick is pretty hot tbh" & thinking that voting that way was kinda edgy/lol -- laurel pointed out it was a depressing result -- ppl got defensive cuz they felt she was conflating them w/ the creep ... or something idk

xp to granny dainger -- never understand why ppl come in to threads where folks are having reasonable mature discussion & act like its some crazy clusterfuck insanity thread ... this isnt exactly brits-buys-a-bottle-opener stuff here

x-post Yes agreed but I don't think that was ever in question. In fact, I thik that was the whole point of her original post!

it's okay to have thoughts of whatever kind in your own head.

people have sexual thoughts about other people sometimes. there is nothing wrong with this, ever, at any level.

we should not be so ready to believe these things imo.

― goole, Wednesday, December 2, 2009 4:25 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

To clarify this is what I was disagreeing with.

I wouldn't have gone that far (xxxxxxp), I think all you can reasonably ask of people is that they keep their inner monologues to themselves, but I am intrigued with the idea. Honestly although you can't prosecute or condemn someone for their thoughts, you can sure as hell think of less of them for it if they tell you something that indicates they are out of line, in your estimation.

i can think of a lot of thoughts its not ok to have in your head

if actions can be more or less good, then thoughts too. i mean, what's the difference? yeah yeah, whether it affects others, but the "don't affect anyone w/ yr bullshit" is more of a political issue than a moral one.

xp eh 'natural' -- as far as human sexuality even is such, so what?

i don't have any grand solutions, but i'm dissatisfied with a state of affairs where "don't [act like] a creep" is fine but "don't [think like] a creep" is like 10 steps too far. why?

1mx xps

i must not think bad thoughts

ENBB i think its perfectly legit to critique personal sexual ideas as much as anything else! just because it occurs to someone 'naturally' doesnt mean its above consideration -- a lot of 'natural' ideas of sexuality are actually the result of environmental stimuli anyway

*having thoughts furiously*

deej i never understand why some people think they need to be schoolmarms.

Ppl have been very open and I think the range in how much ppl feel free/threatened wrt sex talk/thoughts in public is perhaps the most significant thing. It would be harsh to ask ppl to take responsibility for how vulnerable they feel their identity is to the gaze of others. I guess I think it would be best if the strange man at the liquor store was disempowered, if that expression made him vulnerable rather than the woman whose ass it was, if him doing his "I have a boner" thing was more of a risky personal confession than a landgrab. But, def as long as we're young and hot enough to be desired and probably forever, the sexual threat is going to bear way more on women, and that can give any guy's thoughts/looks/behaviour an extra potency to women they're dealing with, regardless of intention. So I think that puts the onus on guys to be aware of potentially very different levels of comfort/openness w/expressing/receiving desire. I don't think the answer is to try and find a standard of behaviour you can justify, and say that beyond that, if anyone is uncomfortable it's their problem. Sometimes that is hard and there's probably an 18 year old woman in rural Afghanistan who would never be comfortable talking to me alone, not my fault, but what can you do?

sorry to interrupt your sexy time, granny danger, perhaps there are other whole entire internets out there for you

ilxor.com: your source for schoolmarms

dude sorry my negative reaction to people being all "yes let's start questioning people's baser thoughts, that will surely be really productive and something that always works well for the human race" rankled you so

Laurel's original post was fine.

Laurel's second post was idiotic lashing out at black people a la Michael Richards.

Only horseshoe and I called her on it and she never actually apologized for doing it.

I'm still fucking pissed off about it but, on balance, not really surprised, because this is pretty much exactly what I expect from all of you; it's still disheartening, though.