Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ngdawg
Threadjack: sorry, dude... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless
one of the explanations: an erroneous word that, etymologically, means the exact opposite of what it is used to express, attested in non-standard writing from 1912, probably a blend of irrespective and regardless. Perhaps inspired by the double negative used as an emphatic. |
According to my last english teacher (professor specializing in early 20th century literature who taught at a doctorate level), while the word is not standard, it is still allowable so long as one does use it as a double negative.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ngdawg
OK, back to ogling, hitting and sexism 
Why does how she sees men seem odd? Personally, I envision them all with their pants off, but that's probably seen as odd too. Bet lots of ladies here played the "boxers or briefs" guessing game. Would that be considered "objectifying"? |
No, ng, it's not odd that you imagine men with their pants off. As a matter of fact it's endearing.
And yes, it's objectification, but I think we've established that most men don't mind being objectified. MM does, but more than that she doesn't really seem to do it herself. When I say odd I'm not saying that she's lying or that there's something wrong with her, merely that I've never heard of that before.... but wait:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
but there have been times in my life when I have imagined sex with men I see around
|
Oh. You have objectified men. Well this is a pretty good idea of how men are, but add onto it that some of us will occasionally share it with another man as an attempt at commonality. "She's hot!" followed by "Yeah!" is about as close as most men come to emotional bonding.