"I'd hit it" - this phrase, along with "I'd tap that", is so commonplace in youth and adult male conversation nowadays that it almost deserves no explanation. In the event that you've really never heard it, here's a few definitions from urbandictionary.com:
Quote:
* Vernacular, commonly used by males, meaning, "I would like to have sexual relations with that female."
"Wow, she's stacked! I'd hit it!"
* Announcing you would straight up stuff a bitch.
Guy 1:"Shit man, look at that bitch over there."
Guy 2:"Dude, she could stand to lose a few."
Guy 1:"Fuck dude...I'd hit it."
* Vernacular commonly used by males, meaning, «I would NOT MIND having sexual relations with that woman.»
There's a big difference between «I'd hit it..." and "I'd definitely hit it!"; same as between «I'd do her.» and «I'd definitely do her!»
The first sentence indicates that the person who is speaking is moderately interested in the woman in question. The second sentence indicates that the person is considerably interested in the woman, and might swoop down for the kill, if given the opportunity.
|
EDITED TO ADD THE VIDEO:
You think Dexter has a sister?
Yea, I bet she smokin like chesnuts on an open fire..
I'd hit that, I'd hit that, I'd hit that.. I'd hit that.
*chanting* I'd hit that..
My first question to the TFPers: Is this this sudden development? I'm not old enough to know if this type of slang existed in the past, perhaps with different words. I'd like to discount it as an artifact of YOUTH culture, but I simply can't, based on how many adults - on TFP and elsewhere, I've seen or heard using it.
There's a few things I find interesting about these two phrases. The most obvious observation is the physical (and violent) nature of it. It's peculiar that "hit" and "tap" are used when talking about sex, because sex itself isn't inherently violent.
I'm not sure if we can make the a logical leap and say that it actually promotes physical harm, simply because of similar slang phrases: "hit it (the gas pedal), "hit it (the bong)", "hit the hay", "hit the road", "hit it up," "hit me back." It's still an interesting observation, especially considering the epidemic level of domestic abuse and rape in the US.
Do you think using phrases like this societally and subconsciously excuse violence, or violent sex? I personally think it does, and the proof is simple enough; "I'd do her" conveys the same meaning, but it has fallen OUT of usage as of late. It's interesting too that the phrase isn't "I'd hit her", or "I'd tap her", but "it" and "that." Is this perhaps an indication that you're objectifying her, rather than addressing her as a female
person?
My final question, and the one I'm more acutely interested in, follows.
WHY is this an aspect of socialization for men?
I'd like to keep this civil, so please avoid telling me it's because men are pigs or because all we do is think about sex.
In my own novice sociological opinion, it has developed as a way for men to boost their self-esteem by implying that the woman in question would actually ALLOW him to have sex with them, or that they could MAKE the woman have sex with them. Both are foregone conclusions in the usage of the phrase, cleverly ignoring the fact that she'd have to
accept your advances in order to "hit it." As my girlfrend eloquently replied to someone's usage of the phrase, "Would SHE "hit" that? Probably not, asshole!"
I think it also serves a purpose for men in bonding, allowing them to feel closer to one another by acknowledging that they'd both like to "hit that", and thereby share a common interest and perception of beauty.
If you agree with my interpretation, how can we encourage these two things (increased self esteem and male bonding) without simultaneously objectifying women and excusing sexual violence?
If you don't agree with my interpretation, tell me why.