Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Life (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-life/)
-   -   "I'd hit it" - a discussion (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-life/133389-id-hit-discussion.html)

Shauk 04-03-2008 02:58 PM
ORANGE TEXT IS ORANGE


Quote:
Originally Posted by vanblah
Really?

:)

The point I am making is not to infringe on anyone's desire to be sexually expressive. I whole-heartedly endorse our ability to be expressive in any way, shape or form. What I am talking about is when it's appropriate and when it's not.

Did you see the little back-and-forth that ngdawg and I had during the whole grammar nazi portion of the conversation? There is a time and place for it.

When a woman walks down the street and is the (unwanted) recipient of OVERT male sexual desire (ie, wolf whistles) then it becomes offensive.

It is certainly not a black-and-white issue (no reference to racism).
yeah, to reference the 1st post you quoted, I find it offensive to others, not so much myself. I really don't mind, I went pages and pages without replying but I just had my brain start to twitch that people were taking it SO SO seriously.

Really, who's being hurt by the phrase "i'd hit it" ?

it's not intended for the would be "hittee" to hear anyway.* If you say that to her face, you're being too forward, you're going to make her uncomfortable, you're going to come across like a jackass, it's fine to be sexually attracted to another person, its fine to convey that to them, but I think people should make no mistake here and truly realize that women, are going to choose what they want, despite what you do/try/say/think/feel. They will make exceptions and accept flaws if they think you have something they want, be it a quality or value or just flat out attraction.

So in truth, this thread is a giant "nice guys finish last" rant in disguise to me.

*Much like my journal isn't for people I write about to read, or much like something you tell your buddies in confidence isn't to be shared, and really, I think "I'd hit it" is pretty much just a way of seeking validation of your attraction amongst your peers, kinda like a very brief way of saying "Wow I think she's attractive, you guys notice her?" yes, it's more crude than the phase I just wrote, it's very base and it's like "hey this was my initial reaction before i've had time to go find out if she has a personality.

Attraction happens. deal.

Jinn 04-03-2008 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shauk
He's already got me pegged through and through as some sexist disrespecting uncompromising ignorant baby, why bother writing a real response to that level of douchebaggery?
I don't actually believe this about you, but your post read like a rant rather than an educated response. If you don't believe what you initially posted (perhaps it was hyperbole), perhaps you could clarify:

Quote:
1st off, you're insulting people who like being sexually expressive, seriously, fuck it.
Why do you believe that asking if there is a "better way" to express your sexual desire "insults" you? The way it is written seems to imply that you believe you are entitled to "express yourself sexually" no matter what. My "poor little baby" was a bit inflammatory, and I apologize. It just reads like a person who feels entitled to do something regardless of how it might make other people feel.

As for this:

Quote:
2nd off, lets just go ahead and ACKNOWLEDGE right now that girls being the subject of sexual desire is a role that they can participate in, no one HAS to be a model, a porn star, a stripper, or a prostitute, no one has to wear skimpy clothing, no one has to show any skin, in fact, fuck it, lets all move to israel.
I still maintain that this is an ignorant position. Not that you in particular are ignorant, but holding a position like this reveals an ignorance to the fact that women are subjected to unwanted sexual desire without themselves inviting it by their clothing or profession. There are plenty of women wearing business suits who still receive unwanted jeers or advances. To believe that they deserved it, therefore, would be a position ignorant of what really happens.

In response to this:

Quote:
honestly, what is the problem here? hot guy with lots of money and big dong comes up and says "i'd hit it" to you, "oh teehee" it's a joke, you'll let it slide.
I was probably too rude. I just don't see this as convincing evidence of anything, really. It reads like a verbal re-telling of a story, not like a reasoned argument.

And finally, my response to:

Quote:
secondly, the fight for equality is useless, be it genders, races, social class, religion. all it takes is ONE person to be an individual, to have a varying mindset from the masses, and there you go, you are now inequal. Maybe very similar, but thats it.
Follows the same reasoning. It doesn't appear that you've been conventionally educated on what the "pursuit of equality" is, or you wouldn't present a straw man such as this. Perhaps you could clarify what you think the "goal" of the fight for equality is?

[EDIT: Your latest post]
Quote:
Really, who's being hurt by the phrase "i'd hit it" ?
You, like willravel, make the mistake of assuming that because YOU aren't offended by something means that no one is.

As for the belief that this is a "nice guys rant" in disguise, you've got me in the wrong box. I'm anything but a nice guy. I just strongly believe in the idea that the words we use dramatically effects us, our surroundings, and eventually our world.

mixedmedia 04-03-2008 03:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shauk
I find this conversation to be insulting.

1st off, you're insulting people who like being sexually expressive, seriously, fuck it.

What do you want? to change the fucking saying to "I'd hit her" ? because "her" isn't "it"? Then we're going into the fun lil violent sounding territory.

2nd off, lets just go ahead and ACKNOWLEDGE right now that girls being the subject of sexual desire is a role that they can participate in, no one HAS to be a model, a porn star, a stripper, or a prostitute, no one has to wear skimpy clothing, no one has to show any skin, in fact, fuck it, lets all move to israel.

3rd, a lot of the view points expressed in this thread (this is no longer just about the "i'd hit it" statement, lets not kid ourselves) are rather insulting to the members of TFP who've participated in the exhibition forum.


honestly, what is the problem here? hot guy with lots of money and big dong comes up and says "i'd hit it" to you, "oh teehee" it's a joke, you'll let it slide.

bum with tiny wang and scary looking features says the same thing? "omg sexual harrassment, unwelcome advance, pig! sexist!"

get over your labels. seriously.

be completely honest with yourself and admit you've probably let something from the opposite sex "slide" under your fem-dar because you had your own interests vested in them at some point.

1st, you just have to shatter the illusion that we're all equal, we're not. I'm better than you at some things, you're better than me at some things, and some people like me more than others, there is no level playing field for any of us and it has nothing to do with me being, white, or a male, or whatever sociology inspired classification you can wall me in to.

secondly, the fight for equality is useless, be it genders, races, social class, religion. all it takes is ONE person to be an individual, to have a varying mindset from the masses, and there you go, you are now inequal. Maybe very similar, but thats it.


Women have strengths that men do not, access to an entire sub culture that men do not.
Men have strengths the Women do not, access to an entire sub culture that Women do not.

thats just the way it is, it's genetic, it's biological, it's social, it's supply and demand, thats life, you can participate or not.
Some girls want the attention, some girls dont, some guys like "i'd hit it" some guys don't.

really, thats it, thats the end of discussion, live and let live.
Uhhhh, let me get this straight. You are offended, personally, by the discussion of behavior that some of us here feel offended by? Ow, my head.

Ustwo 04-03-2008 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by abaya
Ustwo, what's the point? I was talking about swimming pool shower rooms (the part you conveniently left out of my quote), and how they view all kinds of bodies there, in a non-sexual context... and how this helps counteract the usual images on TV.

My point was that Icelanders generally don't give a shit about nudity, at least not the way that a lot of Americans do... and that I think that's a healthy thing. I'm quite sure that this commercial didn't even register a blip on the radar screen for people here.

(Where the hell did you find that commercial, btw?!) :lol:
You know, this may come as a shock but we don't lock the fat girls up in the US and keep them from going swimming. Women in the US see EVERY body type quite a bit, we are a 'large' nation. I'm pretty sure they shower naked too before going in the pool, at least thats the rule on the door.

Really comparing anywhere to iceland is a bit difficult. Iceland is for all intents one people, and my suburb has almost 2/3rds its population. If you include a neighboring one, we have a greater population, and a more diverse one.

Willravel 04-03-2008 03:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
You, like willravel, make the mistake of assuming that because YOU aren't offended by something means that no one is.
And YOU have made the mistake of ASSUMING that because something is sexual in nature it's inherently HORRIBLE and DEEPLY oFfEnSiVe. NG and Shani, people who are much more woman than you'll ever be, have said it doesn't bother them at all, and MM and Abaya have each said that it's not a big deal.

Just what will it take for you to understand that "I'd hit it" is AT WORST kinda rude and a reflection of bad character? At best it's a friggin compliment. You're acting like it's the N word for women. It's not. It's more like calling a black man "articulate", actually, in that some might find it sorta offensive but many don't really care.

snowy 04-03-2008 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
You know, this may come as a shock but we don't lock the fat girls up in the US and keep them from going swimming. Women in the US see EVERY body type quite a bit, we are a 'large' nation. I'm pretty sure they shower naked too before going in the pool, at least thats the rule on the door.

Really comparing anywhere to iceland is a bit difficult. Iceland is for all intents one people, and my suburb has almost 2/3rds its population. If you include a neighboring one, we have a greater population, and a more diverse one.
Have you been in a women's locker room lately?

I can honestly tell you that the majority of women do not shower out in the open in the locker room. The university gym's locker room here is half open, half closed off cubicles, and the open half rarely gets used. And the rinse-off shower required before getting in a pool does not require nudity. Nudity is actually quite hard to come by; Americans don't have the same sense of skinship that other cultures do. We see the body as something that needs to be covered. Even in the sauna, I've only ever seen one or two women besides myself naked. I joined another gym last year, and one of their selling points was the individual changing room/shower room/bathroom combinations instead of locker rooms.

/threadjack

Shauk 04-03-2008 03:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
I don't actually believe this about you, but your post read like a rant rather than an educated response. If you don't believe what you initially posted (perhaps it was hyperbole), perhaps you could clarify:




Why do you believe that asking if there is a "better way" to express your sexual desire "insults" you? The way it is written seems to imply that you believe you are entitled to "express yourself sexually" no matter what. My "poor little baby" was a bit inflammatory, and I apologize. It just reads like a person who feels entitled to do something regardless of how it might make other people feel.
It doesn't insult ME, i'm not that sexually expressive, sure, i like talking about it, participating in it, but it doesn't motivate me to do anything, I don't aspire to "get laid", I don't live for it, i've never been to a strip club. I think girls are entitled to participate in being sexual objects if they want, if they want to have sex on film, or wear skimpy clothes on music videos, good for them, thats what they choose to do. If this was a discussion on slavery, it'd be different, but this is a product of a team of individuals exercising their freedoms to CHOOSE, There are some beautiful women in the world and I APPRECIATE that they share that with the world, and yeah my base reaction to my exposure to some of these is admittedly "i'd hit it" and yeah I might even say it outloud to a guy friend or 2, but now we're supposed to read this thread and shuffle our feet and feel guilty for an admission of how we feel? Isn't that repression? We're supposed to be ashamed of this and keep it to ourselves? This is what we need to adopt as a social grace? so not only is the GBLT scene repressed we want to throw ourselves into that category with them? What next? white guilt?

Those people have to grow up having feelings for people that society tells them is wrong to do so and get all mentally damaged over it, because people keep putting rules and rules and rules in place when they really aren't even in a position to be making said rules. They don't speak for everyone.

if anything I just think we're supposed to be cool with going the other direction and being able to say "hey, this is where I stand sexually on this particular person" to a friend be it eloquent or crude, just at least be expressive and communicate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
I still maintain that this is an ignorant position. Not that you in particular are ignorant, but holding a position like this reveals an ignorance to the fact that women are subjected to unwanted sexual desire without themselves inviting it by their clothing or profession. There are plenty of women wearing business suits who still receive unwanted jeers or advances. To believe that they deserved it, therefore, would be a position ignorant of what really happens.
I never once stated it was "deserved" and I, am trying to stick with the "i'd hit it" topic as an idea of "expression" instead of "harrassment" Some people are attractive to me, i'm not going to worry about the potential that this girl has me in her "unwanted advances" category because society will grind to a halt the minute people adopt that line of thinking, we're already dealing with that crap in the workplace that so much as asking for a date is grounds for harassment when it shouldn't be. A simple question with a simple answer and leave it at that, if she says no, then great, leave it at that. If it continues, then yeah it's harassment. What she deserves is really up to the person who's in a position to offer her anything, a deserving person cannot receive anything without someone to give her that thing she deserves, be it attention, a compliment, or if I may say so at the risk of being labeled "crude" good ol sex.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
Follows the same reasoning. It doesn't appear that you've been conventionally educated on what the "pursuit of equality" is, or you wouldn't present a straw man such as this. Perhaps you could clarify what you think the "goal" of the fight for equality is?
I'm as equally able to be sexually objectified as any woman is, and if you think johnny depp isn't fantasized about by some woman, or brad pitt, or.. so on and so on, you've got to be joking.

I call that pretty equal. They "choose" to have pictures of themselves taken in the near nude, shirtless and watered down, touched up in photoshop, whatever, the same process a female model would go through.

I don't understand your dilemma

Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
Uhhhh, let me get this straight. You are offended, personally, by the discussion of behavior that some of us here feel offended by? Ow, my head.
yeah, I didn't express myself very clearly, hopefully my last post clears things up a little.

match000 04-03-2008 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onesnowyowl
Have you been in a women's locker room lately?

I can honestly tell you that the majority of women do not shower out in the open in the locker room. The university gym's locker room here is half open, half closed off cubicles, and the open half rarely gets used. And the rinse-off shower required before getting in a pool does not require nudity. Nudity is actually quite hard to come by; Americans don't have the same sense of skinship that other cultures do. We see the body as something that needs to be covered. Even in the sauna, I've only ever seen one or two women besides myself naked. I joined another gym last year, and one of their selling points was the individual changing room/shower room/bathroom combinations instead of locker rooms.

/threadjack
That's prolly cuz everyone's obese and is in some way ashamed of showing their body. It *is* the US, after all, the land of rampant obesity.

abaya 04-03-2008 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
I'm pretty sure they shower naked too before going in the pool, at least thats the rule on the door.
Nope. See Snowy's post. Sorry Ustwo, you can't pretend to be an expert on this one, unless you start dressing as a woman and hanging out in American women's locker rooms for 12 years of public education and an entire lifetime at the local swimming pool. What does your wife say?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Really comparing anywhere to iceland is a bit difficult. Iceland is for all intents one people, and my suburb has almost 2/3rds its population. If you include a neighboring one, we have a greater population, and a more diverse one.
Now this paragraph, I do agree with... Iceland is a pretty crazy little country, and it's tough to generalize that out to bigger nations. However, that doesn't mean the points I make about Iceland are invalid. There are some things about this place that I do appreciate (very few, believe me)... one of them is the openness about women's bodies and sex that they have here, in comparison with the US (and even more in comparison with other countries, once again usually non-Western ones).

Quote:
Originally Posted by match000
That's prolly cuz everyone's obese and is in some way ashamed of showing their body. It *is* the US, after all, the land of rampant obesity.
There's a shit-ton of obese people here in Iceland, too. And yet people walk around in bikinis and speedos like it's no thing, because there just isn't the same sense of "shame" about one's body ingrained in people here.

ngdawg 04-03-2008 03:51 PM
Wow...I haven't seen a conversation go this long and on such a topic since Tec's back deck many moons ago.....
Pass the chips....

Willravel 04-03-2008 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by abaya
Nope. See Snowy's post. Sorry Ustwo, you can't pretend to be an expert on this one, unless you start dressing as a woman and hanging out in American women's locker rooms for 12 years of public education and an entire lifetime at the local swimming pool.
So, you're saying he's an expert?

uncle phil 04-03-2008 04:02 PM
wow...

ng, neither have i...

Ustwo 04-03-2008 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by onesnowyowl
Have you been in a women's locker room lately?

I can honestly tell you that the majority of women do not shower out in the open in the locker room. The university gym's locker room here is half open, half closed off cubicles, and the open half rarely gets used. And the rinse-off shower required before getting in a pool does not require nudity. Nudity is actually quite hard to come by; Americans don't have the same sense of skinship that other cultures do. We see the body as something that needs to be covered. Even in the sauna, I've only ever seen one or two women besides myself naked. I joined another gym last year, and one of their selling points was the individual changing room/shower room/bathroom combinations instead of locker rooms.

/threadjack
Don't know about every locker room out there but I do know when my wife goes to the gym there are fully nude women in hers. I know this sadly not from hidden camera shots but the rather amusing commends my son was making at age 2 while in there with her.

'Look mommy boobies! Boobies! Boobies!'

Ah thats my boy.

But seriously don't give me this covered up non-sense. I could do without seeing another 14 year old girl 60lbs over weight showing her fat roll in a bare midriff shirt at the mall hanging around hot topic. I'll add spandex is NOT for everyone.

No we are not a puritanical society, not in the least. I deal with kids pretty much every day of those ages, and I know what they wear/don't ware. Nothing says 'prude' like a shorts that say juicy with a thong at 12.

We might be a degree short of Europeans but only a small degree, and the first nude beach I have been on was in the good old USA.

roachboy 04-03-2008 04:34 PM
here's a curious sidebar to all this.
i was considering pasting the entire oed definition of the verb "to hit" but before i copied it, i looked at the etymology and now am confused. so there are 28 definitions of the verb, almost all of which have to do with delivering a blow, striking or a derivation of striking. but they all come from this root:

Quote:
[Late OE. hyttan = ON. hitta to hit upon, light upon, meet with, Sw. hitta, Da. hitte to hit, find.
App. from Norse: cf. Branch II; but the senses under I seem to have been developed at an early date in Eng. from the notion ‘get at, reach’.]
all of which make me wonder if this curious little expression was launched by some drunken etymology-obsessed gentleman in a publick house somewhere.

it's a shame these slang bits don't travel with footnotes...

mixedmedia 04-03-2008 05:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
And YOU have made the mistake of ASSUMING that because something is sexual in nature it's inherently HORRIBLE and DEEPLY oFfEnSiVe. NG and Shani, people who are much more woman than you'll ever be, have said it doesn't bother them at all, and MM and Abaya have each said that it's not a big deal.

Just what will it take for you to understand that "I'd hit it" is AT WORST kinda rude and a reflection of bad character? At best it's a friggin compliment. You're acting like it's the N word for women. It's not. It's more like calling a black man "articulate", actually, in that some might find it sorta offensive but many don't really care.
I think a big problem with this discussion is that people are talking around each other. So let me clarify two things:

1. I have stated that these kinds of comments in a joking or ironic manner are completely acceptable to me, because using them in a joking or ironic manner is making a statement in a negative way about the use of them in a serious or habitual manner. In other words, if you are truly using these phrases in a joking or ironic manner you are acknowledging that the use of them is a joke - something to be made fun of. This is the context in which I consider the phrases to be casual. And this sort of use doesn't bother me, obviously, because I do think it is a joke...as in, deserving of mockery.

2. Now, I have also stated that I do support Jinn's assertion that the widespread usage of these terms could be symptomatic of the commonplace sexual objectification of women. And I think the guys here expressing their 100%, no-doubt-whatsoever convictions that the prevalence of sexualized images of women in the media have had no effect on their perspectives towards women and this issue (and women's perspectives about themselves and their role in society) are either in denial or afraid of losin' out on that good thing they got goin' on. Is being able to spout inane comments and see half-naked chicks rubbin' up on beer bottles during halftime on Sundays really worth dismissing outright the negative consequences that perhaps are being proliferated by these things? Wait, don't answer that. :lol:

I look over this discussion and I see an attempt at dialogue by some people and an attempt to squelch the dialogue by others. And I'm really puzzled as to why it has engendered so much possessive obstinacy in some people. What exactly is being threatened by this discussion? I've seen far less visceral reactions to issues like torture and the death penalty than is being exhibited on this thread. The more I think about it, the more I have to wonder exactly what is the nerve being hit here.

ngdawg 04-03-2008 05:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
I think a big problem with this discussion is that people are talking around each other. So let me clarify two things:

1. I have stated that these kinds of comments in a joking or ironic manner are completely acceptable to me, because using them in a joking or ironic manner is making a statement in a negative way about the use of them in a serious or habitual manner. In other words, if you are truly using these phrases in a joking or ironic manner you are acknowledging that the use of them is a joke - something to be made fun of. This is the context in which I consider the phrases to be casual. And this sort of use doesn't bother me, obviously, because I do think it is a joke...as in, deserving of mockery.

2. Now, I have also stated that I do support Jinn's assertion that the widespread usage of these terms could be symptomatic of the commonplace sexual objectification of women. And I think the guys here expressing their 100%, no-doubt-whatsoever convictions that the prevalence of sexualized images of women in the media have had no effect on their perspectives towards women and this issue (and women's perspectives about themselves and their role in society) are either in denial or afraid of losin' out on that good thing they got goin' on. Is being able to spout inane comments and see half-naked chicks rubbin' up on beer bottles during halftime on Sundays really worth dismissing outright the negative consequences that perhaps are being proliferated by these things? Wait, don't answer that. :lol:

I look over this discussion and I see an attempt at dialogue by some people and an attempt to squelch the dialogue by others. And I'm really puzzled as to why it has engendered so much possessive obstinacy in some people. What exactly is being threatened by this discussion? I've seen far less visceral reactions to issues like torture and the death penalty than is being exhibited on this thread. The more I think about it, the more I have to wonder exactly what is the nerve being hit here.
I might ask the same thing. You're taking this way too personally. Given what you've dealt with in the past, at least what you've shared, I think there's an issue of sensitivity that transcends a mere not liking the phrase.
This is not to say you should; if you think something is rude, then to you, it's rude. But your comments border on male bashing or at the very least, projection of an incident or incidents onto specific members of society.

Sexual objectivity is a fact of life, no matter how much we wish it'd go away. Everyone of us is guilty of it, whether in public of private. We don't wear sweats and dirty tshirts to turn on our men, we wear lingerie. We don't think dirty thoughts about the bald guy with the beer gut, we think them about the likes of a Brad Pitt(well, I don't, can't stand the guy, but as an analogy....).
If someone doesn't have the manners to keep his "I'd hit that" to a whisper, you don't have to acknowlege it. On the other hand, Ratbastid's legendary drunken "I could SO do you" got him quite the lovely arrangement....

mixedmedia 04-03-2008 05:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngdawg
I might ask the same thing. You're taking this way too personally. Given what you've dealt with in the past, at least what you've shared, I think there's an issue of sensitivity that transcends a mere not liking the phrase.
This is not to say you should; if you think something is rude, then to you, it's rude. But your comments border on male bashing or at the very least, projection of an incident or incidents onto specific members of society.
I think that's a little cheap, ng, and it presumes...a lot. Chiefly, it presumes that I would have felt differently before these things occurred 3 years ago. I won't get into the other things that I think it presumes. Maybe in another discussion.

Quote:
Sexual objectivity is a fact of life, no matter how much we wish it'd go away. Everyone of us is guilty of it, whether in public of private. We don't wear sweats and dirty tshirts to turn on our men, we wear lingerie. We don't think dirty thoughts about the bald guy with the beer gut, we think them about the likes of a Brad Pitt(well, I don't, can't stand the guy, but as an analogy....).
If someone doesn't have the manners to keep his "I'd hit that" to a whisper, you don't have to acknowlege it. On the other hand, Ratbastid's legendary drunken "I could SO do you" got him quite the lovely arrangement....
Again, I don't feel like this really addresses the questions and concerns I've expressed on this thread. I keep getting told that I just don't understand how people are. Well, yes I do. I am a person, too. I have my own thoughts and feelings about the subject, and just because I am in the minority on this thread doesn't mean I'm the only person thinking them.

Plan9 04-03-2008 05:58 PM
I'd hit ALL of you.

*hip thrust*

ngdawg 04-03-2008 07:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
I think that's a little cheap, ng, and it presumes...a lot. Chiefly, it presumes that I would have felt differently before these things occurred 3 years ago. I won't get into the other things that I think it presumes. Maybe in another discussion.
Didn't mean it to be...but yea, it presumes because of what's been said, not that it may have been different in some time frame before. I mean, of all things to be so "insulted" or adamant about, this is what's so evil?? A crude comment or two?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
Again, I don't feel like this really addresses the questions and concerns I've expressed on this thread. I keep getting told that I just don't understand how people are. Well, yes I do. I am a person, too. I have my own thoughts and feelings about the subject, and just because I am in the minority on this thread doesn't mean I'm the only person thinking them.
I think the comments were made about not knowing how some guys' minds are, not about how people are.
Your concerns have been "addressed" just not in the manner you might have hoped for(more presumptions, but, hey...sue me :D)
Just seems that, with 6 pages of this, a lot more is being made of a simple phrase than is warranted. It is a joke and shouldn't be taken seriously.
And to say that men are the ones who claim not to be affected by the sexualized view of women and not recognize that women too are affected is just as much a denial as you claim has been shown here.
We do it to each other, we do it to ourselves. We show ourselves in a way to invite an "I'd hit that". It's when you* turn around and get indignant about the very thing you invited that you can expect not to have your views or comments taken seriously. This is not to say that anything more deviant than commentary should be expected, but let's not kid ourselves.

That's a few more words than I planned on on this subject......



*you is collective and not meant as a personal finger pointing.

mixedmedia 04-03-2008 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngdawg
Didn't mean it to be...but yea, it presumes because of what's been said, not that it may have been different in some time frame before. I mean, of all things to be so "insulted" or adamant about, this is what's so evil?? A crude comment or two?
Well, to presume that my opinions are being skewed by my experience you would have to, by necessity, assume that I was different before it happened. I have lots of strong opinions about a lot of things, doesn't mean they're all floating around out there on the vagaries of my own personal experience.

I think your perspective is just as skewed and overly defensive as several of the other people on this thread. There is hardly a consensus here against my point of view. And for the record, please show me examples of where I have stated how evil this is and how deeply insulted I am. What I see, especially after going back and looking at the responses to my initial posts, is a grossly over-defensive reaction to my point of view.

Quote:
I think the comments were made about not knowing how some guys' minds are, not about how people are.
Your concerns have been "addressed" just not in the manner you might have hoped for(more presumptions, but, hey...sue me :D)
Just seems that, with 6 pages of this, a lot more is being made of a simple phrase than is warranted. It is a joke and shouldn't be taken seriously.
And to say that men are the ones who claim not to be affected by the sexualized view of women and not recognize that women too are affected is just as much a denial as you claim has been shown here.
We do it to each other, we do it to ourselves. We show ourselves in a way to invite an "I'd hit that". It's when you* turn around and get indignant about the very thing you invited that you can expect not to have your views or comments taken seriously. This is not to say that anything more deviant than commentary should be expected, but let's not kid ourselves.

That's a few more words than I planned on on this subject......



*you is collective and not meant as a personal finger pointing.
Again, instead of actually addressing my comments (and no they haven't been addressed directly, frankly, respectfully and honestly) you want to make a case about how I just don't understand. I sense in this reply something a little more than simple disagreement and more like a beef, so I'm gonna leave it at that.

But, you know, you did answer one question for me. In that, if a woman acknowledges her own sexuality in a public way then she has forfeited the right to defend herself from exploitation. Good to know. Then all this high-handed talk around here about it being safe to explore one's sexuality and refraining from making cheap or insulting comments is just a load of bullshit to make women feel more comfortable about posting naked pictures of themselves. I can't believe I have found a use for the word 'hornswoggled' twice in one day. Guess it's just one of them days, lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ngdawg
This is not to say that anything more deviant than commentary should be expected, but let's not kid ourselves.
All I can say to this, is that it's too bad that your personal experiences have left you with this rather bleak outlook on men. :p

Ustwo 04-03-2008 07:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
But, you know, you did answer one question for me. In that, if a woman acknowledges her own sexuality in a public way then she has forfeited the right to defend herself from exploitation.
Huh?

The dots, I can not connect them.

aberkok 04-03-2008 07:47 PM
Seems clear to me, Ustwo. Below is an example of this line of thinking:
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
And every woman who's posted in this thread has posted nude pics of themselves here. All hail the rational irrationality of women.

mixedmedia 04-03-2008 07:59 PM
Click.

Ustwo 04-03-2008 08:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberkok
Seems clear to me, Ustwo. Below is an example of this line of thinking:
I was unaware that powerclown and ngdawg were the same person.

:sad:

This upsets and confuses me.

But still with this new information at my disposal, and powerclown I really wish you would have told me this sooner, it still answers nothing about said exploitation.

Where is the exploitation that apparently ngdawg/powerclown has said they have a forfeited their rights too?

I can only conclude that being objectified means you are exploited. Is this the intent or is there some other exploitation I'm missing.

mixedmedia 04-03-2008 08:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngdawg
It's when you* turn around and get indignant about the very thing you invited that you can expect not to have your views or comments taken seriously. This is not to say that anything more deviant than commentary should be expected, but let's not kid ourselves.
It's this statement. And I can't wait to see the acrobatics involved in pointing out just how misunderstood I am about this statement. It's pretty plain: because I posted pictures of myself here, I don't deserve to be taken seriously on this subject. (disclaimers not withstanding, for if it is not directed at me, then who is it being directed at?) But regardless of who it is directed at, the message is plain.

Not to mention that the crux of this issue is not with women posting pictures of themselves on the internet, but simply walking out of their door on any particular day where they will encounter people who have no idea what they're doing on the internet.

JumpinJesus 04-03-2008 08:46 PM
All I'm getting from this thread after the 4th page is:

Uh-huh
Nuh-uh
Uh-huh
Nuh-uh

Throw in the occasional one-liner and thinly-veiled baiting and I'm beginning to wonder why this thread remains open.

mixedmedia 04-03-2008 09:00 PM
Oh, and just to clarify, I've never had what I would consider to be sexually offensive comments made about me here at TFP. Because here, we've decided that there should be, uh, rules about appropriate responses to female members and their posting of personal information and photographs. But if that is only a courtesy being made to make women feel at ease, then it's really just a meaningless bit of protocol meant to give women a false sense of security when participating in these more vulnerable ways. Because I highly doubt most women who post here, would post without them. And maybe that's okay for some women, but it kind of deflates the concept of 'evolution' for me and turns it into a sort of internet variation on 'of course, I'll still respect you in the morning.'

I do expect more, goddamnit, and not because of some unattainable sense of propriety, but because I already know it exists.

Shauk 04-03-2008 09:00 PM
This thread.

We choose to participate in it.

We are judged by what we post in it.

the judgements may not be welcome, however, on the other hand, some are acceptable.

for example, some people may agree with me and consider my reasoning sound, some people my disagree with me, and consider me a fool.

Either way, it's MY choice to participate in this thread. I'm not being exploited because someone is going "whoo hoo! a fool!"

I LIKE participating in threads, I don't HAVE to. I'm well aware of the risks of doing so, but I don't feel exploited despite the couple fo recent judgements passed on the thread.


There is a market for this forum, hence, it has members, it has partipants, it has lurkers.



everything i said above applies to women and the sex industry.

Sex appeal is a tangible sellable product, just because some people have an issue with it and want this to go away, and call it exploitation, objectification, or whatever buzzword, it's part of society, it's an acceptable part of society, it's legal, it makes billions, and as long as there are hormones, there will be sex, and as long as there is sex, and more demand than there is supply, it will be marketed and sold and women will make money off the men who want it because THEY CAN, they're in an optimal position to do so.


I dont understand why women who use their bodies are looked down upon?
is the brain also not a part of the body? why does it matter which part you use? not everyone is the same, some people play the hand they were dealt, and some people were dealt a better hand of hearts than spades. *shrug*

powerclown 04-03-2008 09:02 PM
We're not the same person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
It's pretty plain: because I posted pictures of myself here, I don't deserve to be taken seriously on this subject.
I didn't mean it that way at all...I'm sorry you took it that way. My comment was in poor taste, and I apologize. I just thought it was a little strange for people to be getting all up in arms about "I'd hit it" - something that apparently carries more weight with some than I realized, but looking back I can see your point and its implication, and you are correct. I've always understood and appreciated this place as an outlet for free expression - in all forms - and do not wish to tarnish that reputation in any way. So again, I'm sorry mixedmedia.

JumpinJesus 04-03-2008 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
Oh, and just to clarify, I've never had what I would consider to be sexually offensive comments made about me here at TFP. Because here, we've decided that there should be, uh, rules about appropriate responses to female members and their posting of personal information and photographs. But if that is only a courtesy being made to make women feel at ease, then it's really just a meaningless bit of protocol meant to give women a false sense of security when participating in these more vulnerable ways. Because I highly doubt most women who post here, would post without them. And maybe that's okay for some women, but it kind of deflates the concept of 'evolution' for me and turns it into a sort of internet variation on 'of course, I'll still respect you in the morning.'

I do expect more, goddamnit, and not because of some unattainable sense of propriety, but because I already know it exists.
Unfortunately, there is too much of the, "yeah, yeah, I won't ask for more photos or make lewd comments, now where are the naked chicks of tfp??"

Shauk 04-03-2008 09:09 PM
and another thing, maybe i'm just weird, or maybe girls are just too used to their whole "pick and fuck" ability/power over men. But if I post pictures, if any man posts pictures of himself, I don't think a single one of us would blink an eye in frustration if a girl says something like "i'd hit it" straight to our face or in a post. I consider it flattery, I take it as a compliment, I daresay, I think it's kinda COOL.

Does that make me fucked up?

blah at all of this.

Martian 04-03-2008 09:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shauk
and another thing, maybe i'm just weird, or maybe girls are just too used to their whole "pick and fuck" ability/power over men. But if I post pictures, if any man posts pictures of himself, I don't think a single one of us would blink an eye in frustration if a girl says something like "i'd hit it" straight to our face or in a post. I consider it flattery, I take it as a compliment, I daresay, I think it's kinda COOL.

Does that make me fucked up?
It makes me sad when nobody comments on pictures I post.

I want to feel pretty, dammit!

In other news, this whole topic makes me want to listen to the Offspring.
<embed src="http://www.seeqpod.net/cache/seeqpodSlimlineEmbed.swf" wmode="transparent" width="300" height="80" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="domain=http://www.seeqpod.com&playlistXMLPath=http://www.seeqpod.com/api/music/getPlaylist?playlist_id=841943d008"></embed>

mixedmedia 04-03-2008 10:59 PM
I think the only thing that would make me want to listen to The Offspring is, perhaps, Nickelback. And luckily, thanks to my highly successful five-step Nickelback avoidance system, this never has to happen.

Martian 04-03-2008 11:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
I think the only thing that would make me want to listen to The Offspring is, perhaps, Nickelback. And luckily, thanks to my highly successful five-step Nickelback avoidance system, this never has to happen.
Hey, I like the Offspring. And I say that if it helps you to avoid Nickleback then it's all good.

FUN FACT - Dexter Holland is, by all accounts, a very smart man. He has a master's in molecular biology, and the only reason it isn't a PhD is because the Offspring took off before he could finish his studies.

mixedmedia 04-04-2008 12:25 AM
Well, truthfully, I'm only familiar with a couple of their songs, but that genre really isn't my bag. :)

abaya 04-04-2008 12:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
here's a curious sidebar to all this.
i was considering pasting the entire oed definition of the verb "to hit" but before i copied it, i looked at the etymology and now am confused. so there are 28 definitions of the verb, almost all of which have to do with delivering a blow, striking or a derivation of striking. but they all come from this root:
Quote:
[Late OE. hyttan = ON. hitta to hit upon, light upon, meet with, Sw. hitta, Da. hitte to hit, find.
App. from Norse: cf. Branch II; but the senses under I seem to have been developed at an early date in Eng. from the notion ‘get at, reach’.]
all of which make me wonder if this curious little expression was launched by some drunken etymology-obsessed gentleman in a publick house somewhere.

it's a shame these slang bits don't travel with footnotes...
ON = Old Norse. It must have come with the Vikings to England. We still use this word daily in Icelandic, since we basically speak Old Norse that has evolved a tiny bit over 1,200 years.

Ađ hitta = to meet (meet up with someone), though as far as I know, it's not related to the word for fuck (which is ađ ríđa, or "to ride"). So in Iceland, presumably going back to the settlement of Norwegian Vikings here in 874, the usually pick-up line is "You want to ride?" (as in, ride a horse)--and yes, that is actually how people ask someone to come home with them from the bars. There is no such thing as dating in Iceland.

(Just woke up; thought I'd contribute some lighter fare.)

Ustwo 04-04-2008 06:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
We're not the same person.
Oh thank God, thats a relief.

All of my sexual fantasies are back in order now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ngdawg
It's when you* turn around and get indignant about the very thing you invited that you can expect not to have your views or comments taken seriously. This is not to say that anything more deviant than commentary should be expected, but let's not kid ourselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
But, you know, you did answer one question for me. In that, if a woman acknowledges her own sexuality in a public way then she has forfeited the right to defend herself from exploitation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
It's this statement. And I can't wait to see the acrobatics involved in pointing out just how misunderstood I am about this statement. It's pretty plain: because I posted pictures of myself here, I don't deserve to be taken seriously on this subject. (disclaimers not withstanding, for if it is not directed at me, then who is it being directed at?) But regardless of who it is directed at, the message is plain.

Not to mention that the crux of this issue is not with women posting pictures of themselves on the internet, but simply walking out of their door on any particular day where they will encounter people who have no idea what they're doing on the internet.
Yes you misunderstood. ngdawg's statement is if someone acts/dresses/projects themselves in a sexual manner they shouldn't be offended when people think of them in that context. You here is the imperial you so to speak.

You took it a step beyond though using the concept of exploitation, and I agree with ngdawg on this. IF you project your own sexuality you shouldn't be offended when thats picked up on. To use TFP for example even though it really doesn't matter what the example is, if you post pictures of your vagina spread eagle and then get upset if someone says 'I'd hit it' you are being unrealistic and naive.

You are not being exploited because someone thinks you are fuckable.

So I need to ask again, what is this exploitation that has you so upset? If its just that someone might say they would like to have sex with you when you are acting in a sexual way, I can't agree thats even wrong or close to exploitation. No one is defending someone just walking up to some random female and saying 'Oh I'd hit that, ya hey der mamma', but thats something completely different from the OP or even the concept of language such as this in the male vernacular.

Willravel 04-04-2008 07:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shauk
and another thing, maybe i'm just weird, or maybe girls are just too used to their whole "pick and fuck" ability/power over men.
SHAUK! TAKE BACK THE POWER!

Don't fuck on the third date. Wait until 4 or 5. :thumbsup:

mixedmedia 04-04-2008 07:51 AM
Quote:
Yes you misunderstood. ngdawg's statement is if someone acts/dresses/projects themselves in a sexual manner they shouldn't be offended when people think of them in that context. You here is the imperial you so to speak.

You took it a step beyond though using the concept of exploitation, and I agree with ngdawg on this. IF you project your own sexuality you shouldn't be offended when thats picked up on. To use TFP for example even though it really doesn't matter what the example is, if you post pictures of your vagina spread eagle and then get upset if someone says 'I'd hit it' you are being unrealistic and naive.
I'm not talking about women who are posting spread eagle pictures of their vaginas. I guess I interpreted ng's comment that way because I am the one making comments here not some fictional woman posting naked pictures of herself or wearing hot pants to the grocery store and then whining when some guy says she looks sexy. Who has said anything about that?

The real women being addressed in this thread and by the OP are women on the street.

Quote:
You are not being exploited because someone thinks you are fuckable.
The implication is that if you have ever presented yourself in a way that could be seen as desirable by men, then you forfeit the right to make this argument. Bullshit.

Quote:
So I need to ask again, what is this exploitation that has you so upset? If its just that someone might say they would like to have sex with you when you are acting in a sexual way, I can't agree thats even wrong or close to exploitation. No one is defending someone just walking up to some random female and saying 'Oh I'd hit that, ya hey der mamma', but thats something completely different from the OP or even the concept of language such as this in the male vernacular.
What has made me, not upset, but adamant in my convictions and I've said it again and again is that it is not simply the phrase, but the implications of its widespread acceptance in our society. And let me tell you, it takes more than one viewpoint to create six pages of dialogue. I've found that the reaction to my viewpoint is far more emotional and over the top than I am being. You yourself have resorted to all sorts far-fetched statements and examples to make your case. The spread-eagle picture reference above being a perfect example of this. Rather, I maintain that it is I who have hit a nerve here, not vice versa and that hotspot has yet to be explained to me.

roachboy 04-04-2008 08:12 AM
to back what mm said:

just read through the responses to this thread from the shocked and outraged gentlemen who cannot imagine why this particular phrase or phrases like them could possibly be at the least strange and at most problematic--how these responses are constructed such that ANY question about either the existence and actions of some inward fuckwit fratboy persona that enables/justifies/directs sexual desire is a threat to ALL forms of personae and ALL forms of male sexuality---how questions about the "right to be immature and stupid" gets asserted as an enormous non-sequitor than then nags about over and over in the bizarre little tunnel that is this thread----it is among the most proactively defensive threads i remember having seen on tfp.

and it's done without the SLIGHTEST trace of self-consciousness.
in fact, much of this seems to be a long series of arguments AGAINST self-consciousness.
as if sexuality is a space of immediacy and introducing self-consciousness into it fucks everything up.
where does this come from?


anyway defensiveness on this scale is a pretty clear indication that some nerve has been struck, and it seems to have to do with some commonalities in this community over the construction of masculinity and sexuality that is inhabited/invested in/lived through.

but it's not obvious *what exactly* has tripped all this...but it is obvious that something strange is going on here.

read the thread--take a break from busily defending your inner frat boy or from collapsing the particular into the universal or whatever other logical mistake you find yourself indulging in order to swat away whatever it is about this that has your panties in a twist---and read the thread.

it is a peculiar collective psychological document.

Jinn 04-04-2008 08:14 AM
Quote:
Rather, I maintain that it is I who have hit a nerve here, not vice versa and that hotspot has yet to be explained to me.
They'd rather not lose their right to "sexually express" themselves by using this sort of language. It would impede on their ability to build comradarie with their 'boys', and after all - it's completely natural. Men in the past have objectified women, so certainly men of today should be allowed the same courtesy. It's clearly an inherent trait in men, one that cannot be impeded in the name of civility. Objectification happens, so you should just get over it.

Furthermore, your and my belief that its common acceptance as "OK" is systemic, and indicative of a much larger problem of harassment and abuse is ridiculous, and we should "get over it."

Oh, and finally - becuase they themselves would be FLATTERED by a woman saying "I'd hit that," you and other females should either (a) use that to your advantage, manipulating men with your sexual wiles or (b) be flattered by it, too.

It just sounds so silly when I say it..

Halx 04-04-2008 08:26 AM
I'm not being facetious here.

I have this thing I personally call "Real Communication" that happens between all the words that we say. So for instance, I could say, "I'd hit it," but what I really am saying is, "I don't usually like to use a dumb phrase to express my attraction, but in this case, I cant think of anything better (or it just came out...)." So what we have here is 3 words instead of a long neurotic monologue.

Knowing that my "Real Communication" is virtually silent to all around me, I reflect this understanding on others. That is why when I hear or read someone saying something idiotic, I usually don't care. Because I'm sure they have one of 50 different reasons for having said THAT instead of something interesting. The common ones are: fitting in, brevity, and impact.

So with all that said, I'd like to emanate my cool, calm chilled out demeanor to everyone in this thread and insist that none of this really means as much as you're reacting like it does.

filtherton 04-04-2008 10:13 AM
Every time I see an ad for taco bell, I make sure to point out to anyone in the vicinity how, if given the opportunity, I would eat that. Every time I see a nice car drive by I make sure to point out how, if given the opportunity, I would drive that. Every time my friends and I are watching Duck Tales together and we see Scrooge McDuck swimming in his vault full of golden coins I make sure to point out how, if given the opportunity, I would do that (have that much money).

In general, I like to point out how I would enjoy doing things that are generally considered enjoyable using phrases I learned from local fraternity members, because I know how to make interesting conversation. Also, with regards to "hitting it", I like deluding myself with unrealistic or fantastical notions of sexual conquest.

I have also found that when discussing pictures of attractive women on the internet it is important to make sure everyone else who happens to read the discussion knows that I would, in fact, have sexual relations with the attractive woman in question. Because you just never know. What if she happens to stumble on the discussion at a later date, starved for the cock? What if I hadn't made public my open stance on sexual relations with her? I'll tell you what: she wouldn't see me as a viable option for sexual activity. Consequently, we would never have sex. It's all very simple.

The same goes for random women I see when I'm out and about and also celebrities. Someone must know that I would fuck them-- that's not the kind of information that I, nor anyone else, should just leave bottled up.

Martian 04-04-2008 10:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
Every time I see an ad for taco bell, I make sure to point out to anyone in the vicinity how, if given the opportunity, I would eat that. Every time I see a nice car drive by I make sure to point out how, if given the opportunity, I would drive that. Every time my friends and I are watching Duck Tales together and we see Scrooge McDuck swimming in his vault full of golden coins I make sure to point out how, if given the opportunity, I would do that (have that much money).

In general, I like to point out how I would enjoy doing things that are generally considered enjoyable using phrases I learned from local fraternity members, because I know how to make interesting conversation. Also, with regards to "hitting it", I like deluding myself with unrealistic or fantastical notions of sexual conquest.

I have also found that when discussing pictures of attractive women on the internet it is important to make sure everyone else who happens to read the discussion knows that I would, in fact, have sexual relations with the attractive woman in question. Because you just never know. What if she happens to stumble on the discussion at a later date, starved for the cock? What if I hadn't made public my open stance on sexual relations with her? I'll tell you what: she wouldn't see me as a viable option for sexual activity. Consequently, we would never have sex. It's all very simple.

The same goes for random women I see when I'm out and about and also celebrities. Someone must know that I would fuck them-- that's not the kind of information that I, nor anyone else, should just leave bottled up.

Exactly!

Wait, hang on here...

Esoteric 04-04-2008 10:18 AM
What is the big issue here?

It's a compliment on someone's sexual attractiveness in the simplest form. Majority of the time the person it's directed towards doesn't even hear it. I really don't understand the big deal.

Ustwo 04-04-2008 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
I'm not talking about women who are posting spread eagle pictures of their vaginas. I guess I interpreted ng's comment that way because I am the one making comments here not some fictional woman posting naked pictures of herself or wearing hot pants to the grocery store and then whining when some guy says she looks sexy. Who has said anything about that?

The real women being addressed in this thread and by the OP are women on the street.

The implication is that if you have ever presented yourself in a way that could be seen as desirable by men, then you forfeit the right to make this argument. Bullshit.
I don't understand your reaction tothis seems awful personal to you when it seems pretty general to me.


Quote:
What has made me, not upset, but adamant in my convictions and I've said it again and again is that it is not simply the phrase, but the implications of its widespread acceptance in our society. And let me tell you, it takes more than one viewpoint to create six pages of dialogue.
It is accepted in society, the fact that about 5 people who type fast can make 6 pages on it in a day or so doesn't mean its a major controversy. I'm not sure what the implications of this is in your mind, but to me its a face value thing. People like to have sex with people and those people are willing to expess this desire using a catch phrase. Thats about it.

Quote:
I've found that the reaction to my viewpoint is far more emotional and over the top than I am being.
Thats a matter of opinion, I'm not complaining that society is wrong, you have the beef, I'm just baffled with your reaction to it.

Quote:
You yourself have resorted to all sorts far-fetched statements and examples to make your case. The spread-eagle picture reference above being a perfect example of this.
TFP exhibition has had a good number of such pictures, its not far fetched to bring them up as an example. In all fairness the women who HAVE done some risque pictures don't seem to have a problem with anything here either. If they did then my statement would apply. I'm not even sure who you are defending and you have yet to say what this 'explotation' is, so I'll assume it was just the wrong choise of words when you were being a tad melodramatic.

Quote:
Rather, I maintain that it is I who have hit a nerve here, not vice versa and that hotspot has yet to be explained to me.
You can maintain this opinion, I have another. My inital reaction was to Jins rant about sexism in society etc which just seemed a bit off the hook. On the other hand I'm not even sure what you are arguing anymore. Is is that 'I'd hit it' is somehow a metaphor for voilence against women? Is it an assault against human nature in turning women into sex objects in the eyes of men? That women should be free from sexual judgement? Just what is the core of your argument? I have lost it somewhere.

Jinn 04-04-2008 10:59 AM
Quote:
I really don't understand the big deal.
And that, quite precisely, is why it is a big deal.

Willravel 04-04-2008 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
And that, quite precisely, is why it is a big deal.
And this is exactly why it's not a big deal.

Hektore 04-04-2008 11:07 AM
Lets suppose I were to grant the point that 'i'd tap that' and other associated phrases sexually objectify women to precisely the same extent as advertising,music videos, etc. I don't see the huge revelation here. It's a necessity of language. In order to express sexual desire about something you have to objectify the something which is the object of your desires.

Perhaps another example is in order, take the sentence: "I would run a mile." In it, you dimensionally objectify the distance you are going to run. You have to in order to make sense, or at least to give the sentence some meaning. - "I would run." is (arguably) meaningless.

I think many people skip these steps and intuit straight to the conclusion, that in order to stop sexually objectifying women (or anything else), we have to stop commenting about anything sexual, in any meaningful way. If you take the proverbial group of frat boys and one of them says 'I'm horny' it isn't a real conversation starter, they're all horny. Not that this in any ways is an attempt to claim the ends justify the means, just one problem that presents itself.

This would present another, much bigger problem in that, how then does one make a sexual advance toward a woman, if you cannot objectify her? Even if you wanted to make the argument that welcomed objectification is acceptable while unwelcome objectification is not, how then is one to determine if an advance is welcome or unwelcome before it is made? It would seem that the argument some of you are trying to make, when carried out to it's full extent, makes the pursuit of a mate impossible.

Esoteric 04-04-2008 11:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
And this is exactly why it's not a big deal.
Seriously. I guess I just don't understand. :rolleyes:

Willravel 04-04-2008 11:13 AM
It's only a big deal to Jinn. So far no one else has said it was a big deal, including every woman who has posted in this thread. Jinn is defending himself if he were a woman, only because he's not a woman he really doesn't seem to understand what deeply offends women. He assumes because this is disrespectful and maybe a little sexist that it's a big deal. I mean clearly it's not, based on the ladies of TFP, but that doesn't seem to matter to him.

Lasereth 04-04-2008 11:22 AM
News flash: every man on the planet scopes out a female and decides whether he would "hit it" whether he says it outloud or not. It's not meant to be rude, it's simply a man declaring whether he thinks a woman is attractive or not outloud.

I don't think it's appropriate to say it to a woman's face or loud enough for anyone but the person you're talking to. Not sure if women do the same thing but I wouldn't be offended or surprised if they do.

It's just the nature of men.

abaya 04-04-2008 11:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
I mean clearly it's not, based on the ladies of TFP, but that doesn't seem to matter to him.
Clearly? How many ladies have been posting in response to this thread? I can only think of a handful... and between the 5 or so of us who have responded, we're definitely not in agreement even among ourselves. Obviously that's not the vast majority of women on this board, Will. Take a poll before you make this kind of statement... and then maybe this discussion might have a point again.

Consider why not many women are even bothering to post on these threads, or TFP in general, anymore... what's the point, really?

Jinn 04-04-2008 11:28 AM
As I man, I'm fucking tired of hearing "It's just the nature of men." Or "All men do it." or "Men have always done it."

Here's your news flash: not all men are alike. By implying all men do it, you likewise imply that I am NOT a man for failing to do so.

I'm capable of separating my carnal thoughts from the words I utter, the products I make, and the marketing I use for them. Yes, I ENJOY HAVING SEX WITH FEMALES. Doesn't mean I have to make offensive assertions, regardless of whether or not another man thinks it is offensive. For me, it's called self control, and it's called social conscience. Even if it only offends 1 out of every 10 women, I'm making a positive contribution to society with little to no effort on my part, rather than justifying to myself that it's either not offensive, or so minor an issue that I shouldn't be concerned about it.

Willravel 04-04-2008 11:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
As I man, I'm fucking tired of hearing "It's just the nature of men." Or "All men do it." or "Men have always done it."

Here's your news flash: not all men are alike. By implying all men do it, you likewise imply that I am NOT a man for failing to do so.

I'm capable of separating my carnal thoughts from the words I utter, the products I make, and the marketing I use for them. Yes, I ENJOY HAVING SEX WITH FEMALES. Doesn't mean I have to make offensive assertions, regardless of whether or not another man thinks it is offensive. For me, it's called self control, and it's called social conscience.
You do objectify women to some degree. All humans objectify some people. It's normal.

I'm not saying every man makes offensive statements, as a matter of fact, I've repeatedly said I don't know anyone who does it seriously and only a few who do it jokingly. But that's hard to hear through your self-righteous crusade.

Jinn 04-04-2008 11:35 AM
It's not hard to hear, I agree with everything said in post 255 save your characterization of my "crusade". What you've omitted, however, is the difference between words and thoughts.

mixedmedia 04-04-2008 11:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
I don't understand your reaction tothis seems awful personal to you when it seems pretty general to me.


It is accepted in society, the fact that about 5 people who type fast can make 6 pages on it in a day or so doesn't mean its a major controversy. I'm not sure what the implications of this is in your mind, but to me its a face value thing. People like to have sex with people and those people are willing to expess this desire using a catch phrase. Thats about it.



Thats a matter of opinion, I'm not complaining that society is wrong, you have the beef, I'm just baffled with your reaction to it.



TFP exhibition has had a good number of such pictures, its not far fetched to bring them up as an example. In all fairness the women who HAVE done some risque pictures don't seem to have a problem with anything here either. If they did then my statement would apply. I'm not even sure who you are defending and you have yet to say what this 'explotation' is, so I'll assume it was just the wrong choise of words when you were being a tad melodramatic.



You can maintain this opinion, I have another. My inital reaction was to Jins rant about sexism in society etc which just seemed a bit off the hook. On the other hand I'm not even sure what you are arguing anymore. Is is that 'I'd hit it' is somehow a metaphor for voilence against women? Is it an assault against human nature in turning women into sex objects in the eyes of men? That women should be free from sexual judgement? Just what is the core of your argument? I have lost it somewhere.
No. Pretty much the jist of my argument at this point is that some people take even the suggestion that they might reflect on the implications of cultural jargon that they are so sure is harmless and meaningless as a very, very personal affront. I am not the one turning this into a 'major controversy.' We could have had a civil conversation about whether the use of a couple of phrases that essentially mean 'i'd fuck that' (which is a definitive example of the sexual objectification of a human being) is in anyway correlative to the mass sexual objectification of female bodies in our media and it's increasing acceptance. But instead it turned into a group exercise in pointing just how 'wrong' I am for even questioning these things in the first place. I haven't even been able to really consider possible answers to my own questions because I have been so thoroughly lambasted for even asking them. The reaction has me quite baffled, to tell you the truth. If it's not that big of a deal to you guys, you would have just read what I had to say on the first page and moved onto another thread.

So I've got an idea. You think this is a waste of time and not important enough to discuss? Then stop responding.

aberkok 04-04-2008 11:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
You can maintain this opinion, I have another. My inital reaction was to Jins rant about sexism in society etc which just seemed a bit off the hook. On the other hand I'm not even sure what you are arguing anymore. Is is that 'I'd hit it' is somehow a metaphor for voilence against women? Is it an assault against human nature in turning women into sex objects in the eyes of men? That women should be free from sexual judgement? Just what is the core of your argument? I have lost it somewhere.
As roachboy already said - read the thread. Enough with the selective amnesia. The positions have been explained clearly. Saying you don't understand doesn't change that.

Willravel 04-04-2008 11:39 AM
Jinn, you don't compliment your SO physically? That's active objectification via words. And why is it okay? Because your SO thinks it's okay.

Likewise, "I'd hit it" is okay with ngdawg and shani. If I were to say it to them, it'd be a compliment hidden in a tease, and I suspect they'd take it as such. So you see it's not as simple as "it's offensive". It can be offensive, but that's way more complex and has a lot to do with the intent in saying it and the perception upon receiving it.

jewels 04-04-2008 11:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
Yes, I ENJOY HAVING SEX WITH FEMALES. Doesn't mean I have to make offensive assertions, regardless of whether or not another man thinks it is offensive. For me, it's called self control, and it's called social conscience.
Respect is what it boils down to.

Personally, my body is for me and the man in my life. But I don't mind attention from men, as long as it's done tactfully and respectfully. I think that, in general, women do enjoy being recognized as feminine, attractive and sexy, but we all have different degrees of tolerance, which may fluctuate based on other influences in our lives.

I remember loving when construction workers would make a lot of noise when I passed. I also remember, at some point, hating it when they did it. Now when it does happen, I don't mind at all, unless they're yelling obscene suggestions. A glance at my breasts or my ass, fine. But if you're glaring and staring and telling me how you want to (insert verb, adjective and noun here), I will think you're a disgusting classless pig.

EDIT: And as for the OP, I think that there is a cultural men's club that perpetuates the idea that a real man has to act like an uncivil animal at certain times. All I've got to say about that is that I hope you don't say that in the vicinity of any woman you care about.

Jinn 04-04-2008 11:51 AM
Quote:
Likewise, "I'd hit it" is okay with ngdawg and shani. If I were to say it to them, it'd be a compliment hidden in a tease, and I suspect they'd take it as such. So you see it's not as simple as "it's offensive". It can be offensive, but that's way more complex and has a lot to do with the intent in saying it and the perception upon receiving it.
Yea, but in an forum available to the public, whether written or verbal, you have no idea who is going hear or see it. You don't know everyone. My father can say "Women are such bitches.. " to my mother, and they've been married 30 years and she knows what he means by it. It doesn't mean he can go on the Internet or out in public and "jokingly" say it in earshot of another woman.

Willravel 04-04-2008 12:00 PM
I agree with abaya, this should have a poll. Is it too late?

What Jinn and I seem to come down to: he believes that the average woman will be very offended by it and I don't. It's really that simple. Having y chromosomes, we can only guess.

Esoteric 04-04-2008 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by abaya
Consider why not many women are even bothering to post on these threads, or TFP in general, anymore... what's the point, really?
You know you don't have to read or respond to these types of threads if it really bothers you.


Anyway, it's a fucking 3 word saying. I really don't see it as attempting to be offensive. I'm also sure women don't objectify men ever, ever, ever.

Ever. :rolleyes:

ShaniFaye 04-04-2008 12:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
I agree with abaya, this should have a poll. Is it too late?

What Jinn and I seem to come down to: he believes that the average woman will be very offended by it and I don't. It's really that simple. Having y chromosomes, we can only guess.
define "average woman" lol somehow I think I dont fit into that category

Willravel 04-04-2008 12:12 PM
Okay, Shani gets her own category.

Ustwo 04-04-2008 12:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaniFaye
define "average woman" lol somehow I think I dont fit into that category
I think few women fit 'average', or more average is far different than the projected average.

I think of you as an average woman myself, but in a good way :thumbsup:

ShaniFaye 04-04-2008 12:19 PM
Well thats not exactly what I meant, but I dont really think its any surprise I dont think or react to things like the category of "normal women" or rather a lot of women HERE. Maybe its cause Im older...maybe its because my mother swears I was born with a mans brain, who knows....

Willravel 04-04-2008 12:22 PM
For the record, the average woman I mentioned above would be people picked at random from a group of people with vaginas. So you very well could be an average woman in that sense.

Lasereth 04-04-2008 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JinnKai
Yea, but in an forum available to the public, whether written or verbal, you have no idea who is going hear or see it. You don't know everyone. My father can say "Women are such bitches.. " to my mother, and they've been married 30 years and she knows what he means by it. It doesn't mean he can go on the Internet or out in public and "jokingly" say it in earshot of another woman.
Well I certainly think it's rude if you say it loud enough for anyone but your buddy to hear it. Saying it loud enough that a stranger or especially another woman or THE woman that is being declared hittable is very rude and I don't condone it. But what's the difference between thinking you'd hit it and saying you'd hit it if it's just a passing comment to a friend? Is it morally wrong to say you think a woman is attractive? Is it morally wrong to say you'd like to have sex with a woman?

abaya 04-04-2008 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaniFaye
define "average woman" lol somehow I think I dont fit into that category
Well, that would be the benefit of having a poll (posted by someone who's not biased towards one side or the other--maybe one of the mods?)... to see if there's a normal curve on this subject, as there are on most social science studies, or if some other kind of pattern is going on.

We need to get at least 30 women and 30 men to respond for it to mean anything, and also include age as a variable (e.g. divide up the response categories by gender and age, possibly marital status; income level would be a stretch to ask about here, but would make it even more valid as a poll). Perhaps we could scale it using 5 answer categories measuring degrees of comfort when hearing the term (extremely-very-somewhat-little-none), or 5 answers for whether people agree/disagree with the term being offensive (very much agree-somewhat agree-neither agree nor disagree-somewhat disagree-very much disagree), etc.

I'd be sincerely interested in seeing the results, just to know what the lurking audience is thinking... lurkers tend to respond to polls more than actually contribute to a thread, unfortunately. Of course, the main bias here is self-selection... only people whose interest is piqued by this topic are going to participate in the poll, which will skew the results. But it still might be interesting.

Shauk 04-04-2008 12:54 PM
my opinion is this, objectification is a myth.

Everyone is an object, a container, your personality is inside of that container. people don't have xray vision to see some personality so there is no way in the world, ever, ever for a human (noun, object) to look at another human (noun, object) and go, gee, he/she has a nice personality!

Sex is a physical act between 2 bodies. (noun, object)

this isn't star trek, there are no vulcan mind fucking clubs running rampant in society. (unless you count people "thinking" about what they'd do to a person in a given situation)

NOUN = PERSON (that'd be the men, and the ladies), PLACE, OR THING

you're nothing but a noun, your personality means little when you're reduced to grunting and sweating and making the beast with 2 backs.

Unless, you know, you're in the habit of discussing whatever it is you pretend to define yourself with, no one is rutting eachother trying to show off their personality and individuality going "I LIKE GREEN! I LIKE GREEN, I LIKE GREEN, OH BABY, I WENT TO SCHOOL FOR PSYCHOLOGY! FUCK! YES!"



I'd veeeerb your noun!

Ustwo 04-04-2008 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberkok
As roachboy already said - read the thread. Enough with the selective amnesia. The positions have been explained clearly. Saying you don't understand doesn't change that.
I tend not to read roachboys posts, he generally gets insulting to me in them, and I'd rather not be told my opinions are shit for having them. I do on occasion when they are quoted, but thats not very often.

There is no selective amnesia here, MM has not been clear, and STILL has yet to explain what the exploitation is while throwing it back on us for responding to her, after all if it didn't matter we would not respond, which is no argument at all.

roachboy 04-04-2008 01:48 PM
ustwo--whaddya mean?
i'm a sweetheart.
a teddy bear.
ask anyone.


let's put the routine political differences/impatience aside for this one..
just read through the whole thread sometime.
do you see how it could be understood as an exercise in collective defensiveness?

it's very strange, this one.

Nimetic 04-04-2008 02:24 PM
When I was a kid (and later worked with youngsters) the term "I'd do her" or "yeah, but I'd do her" was used occasionally.

The second was more common. Basically it was used after one person say negative stuff about a woman (given our age then, probably a teacher).

It meant something along the lines of 'she's not all bad'. It probably also meant, in part,
(slightly wistfully) "I'm not getting any at all and I'd not be so fussy if I was you". We were young eh.

Simply a statement of reality I think there.

mixedmedia 04-04-2008 05:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
I tend not to read roachboys posts, he generally gets insulting to me in them, and I'd rather not be told my opinions are shit for having them. I do on occasion when they are quoted, but thats not very often.

There is no selective amnesia here, MM has not been clear, and STILL has yet to explain what the exploitation is while throwing it back on us for responding to her, after all if it didn't matter we would not respond, which is no argument at all.
I've been very clear about my stance here, you just don't agree with me. You're taking one word out of thousands I have typed here (used in a different context than you are requesting from me, I might add) and calling my whole argument nil because I have yet to quantify it for you. Meanwhile, conveniently ignoring all of my questions and multifarious mission statements.

Let me see, how could the phrase 'i'd hit that,' ever be construed as exploitative of another human being?

Number one, using 'that' to describe a person that you would like to fuck is exploitative whether you want to admit it or not. I find the use of the word 'that' in this phrase to be very significant.

But more interesting to me, is considering the most recent origin of this phrase, (as well 'i'd tap that') which happens to be a segment of the hip-hop culture in which women have been most literally exploited - in that they've been promoted as being anonymous, available, disposable and interchangable. Which after about a decade of outrage on the part of a horrified white America, started to trickle into white culture without a second thought, eventually winding up here on this thread where it is legitimized as 'male bonding' and 'sexual expression.' It's funny, but I don't recall those words being bandied around when this was a 'black issue.'

Now, people have two choices when observing this phenomenon:
1. They can dismiss it outright and say that it's just harmless fun and has absolutely no further implications to society and the state of male/female relations.
or
2. They can question it when the realization dawns on them that we have accommodated an attitude, even if in a less overtly offensive manner, that just a few years ago we thought was despicable.

Now, no, I do not think that a guy directing 'i'd tap that' at me amongst his friends without my knowledge is necessarily exploitative, although it is on an innocuous level. And I can certainly imagine many scenarios in which being the subject of the phrase would be violative enough to make me feel that I've been exploited.

But can we acknowledge that our acceptance of this phrase into our vernacular combined with the increase in the last twenty years or so of women in the media seen not only as sexual and desirable, but sexually available (I think there is a big difference there), is, at the very least, a curious thing and okay to talk about?

Now if all this is still unclear to you at this point, I don't think I can think of a plainer way to put it. If you want to talk about any of these things, then fine, let's talk. This is what I have been wanting to do all along. But I'm done having my argument minimized and dismissed like this is a silly game for you.

And to bring it allllll the way back around to my first contribution to this thread. If you are using these phrases as anything other than a mockery of the men who use it as if it were an entitlement, then I think it's stupid. Grow the fuck up.

The end.

filtherton 04-04-2008 05:57 PM
Context is definitely important. Every time I hear someone say "I'd hit it" about someone they've never met I sincerely question their maturity. Most of the guys I know who say shit like that in that context aren't exactly the cream of the crop when it comes to the crop of "men who have sex with ladies who don't work in the sex industry." What they're really saying when they say "I'd hit it." is "At some point in the very near future I'm going to think about her while I masturbate." Which is fine. It's just not something I'm inclined to want to hear about.

It seems like such a ridiculous thing to say. You'd hit it? Would you use birth control? Would you hang out afterward? Would you stick around if she got knocked up? Would she be conscious? Would it bother you if she wasn't? Would it be like you just borrowed her vagina for a while, and gave it back once you were done? You'd fuck someone just because you found them physically attractive from a distance? Really? Is it like you're just jerking off inside of someone else? Have you ever had sex with someone you cared about?

The only times I say "I'd hit it." are when I'm making fun of people who say "I'd hit it." and usually then I say something more like "I'd domesticate that shit" or "I'd pile drive that sasquatch."

Lasereth 04-04-2008 06:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
Context is definitely important. Every time I hear someone say "I'd hit it" about someone they've never met I sincerely question their maturity. Most of the guys I know who say shit like that in that context aren't exactly the cream of the crop when it comes to the crop of "men who have sex with ladies who don't work in the sex industry." What they're really saying when they say "I'd hit it." is "At some point in the very near future I'm going to think about her while I masturbate." Which is fine. It's just not something I'm inclined to want to hear about.

It seems like such a ridiculous thing to say. You'd hit it? Would you use birth control? Would you hang out afterward? Would you stick around if she got knocked up? Would she be conscious? Would it bother you if she wasn't? Would it be like you just borrowed her vagina for a while, and gave it back once you were done? You'd fuck someone just because you found them physically attractive from a distance? Really? Is it like you're just jerking off inside of someone else? Have you ever had sex with someone you cared about?

The only times I say "I'd hit it." are when I'm making fun of people who say "I'd hit it." and usually then I say something more like "I'd domesticate that shit" or "I'd pile drive that sasquatch."
I'm pretty sure that when most guys say "I'd hit it" they mean if they were put in an alternate universe they would have sex with that girl if they were dating the girl or something along those lines. It's ridiculous to assume that when it's said it means that they want to go fuck her in the street and then leave.

filtherton 04-04-2008 06:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lasereth
I'm pretty sure that when most guys say "I'd hit it" they mean if they were put in an alternate universe they would have sex with that girl if they were dating the girl or something along those lines. It's ridiculous to assume that when it's said it means that they want to go fuck her in the street and then leave.
In other words, "In the alternate universes that provide a backdrop for my masturbatory fantasies, where women exists solely to provide knob service and reality based problems and responsibilities are nonexistent, I would totally hit that shit."

What you seem to be saying is that "I'd hit it" doesn't actually mean "I'd hit it" it means "In some alternate reality, where me and that woman are in a committed monogamous relationship I would engage her in sexual intercourse". I don't think I buy that, though I would believe you if you told me that that's what you mean when you say "I'd hit it".

I guess that's why i think the phrase is silly. When I say I'd do something, it's because I'd actually do it, as in actually do it if given the opportunity. I try not to say that I want to do things that I don't actually want to do in actual reality.

ShaniFaye 04-04-2008 07:14 PM
so let me get this straight....saying you'd have sex with some one is bad unless you're joking when you say it?

Put me in the "bad" line then because I honestly dont see it as anything but a compliment.....maybe Im stupid because I dont see it being exploitive one iota.

Shauk 04-04-2008 08:24 PM
man, like my last 3 or 4 posts are pretty much ignored, that makes me a sad panda. someone debate me!

ngdawg 04-04-2008 08:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shauk
man, like my last 3 or 4 posts are pretty much ignored, that makes me a sad panda. someone debate me!

Can't debate something that's agreed upon....

Shauk 04-04-2008 08:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngdawg
Can't debate something that's agreed upon....
oh well damnit. let me go find another thread then where i'll have a completely nonsense opinion.

filtherton 04-04-2008 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaniFaye
so let me get this straight....saying you'd have sex with some one is bad unless you're joking when you say it?
No, I'm saying that there are good ways to say you'd have sex with someone and there are bad ways. There are apparently also some ways to sound like you're saying you'd have sex with someone when you're actually just saying you'd have sex with some sort of sterile, abstract mental approximation of that someone. Depending on the particular context, "I'd hit it" could be any of these things. I'm just saying that the context in which I usually hear people say it places it firmly in bad ways to say you'd have sex with someone.

Quote:
Put me in the "bad" line then because I honestly dont see it as anything but a compliment.....maybe Im stupid because I dont see it being exploitive one iota.
I don't think you're stupid. Smart people disagree about things all of the time.

mixedmedia 04-04-2008 09:11 PM
When I use the word 'stupid' in this thread I am being emotional and I'm sorry. But there is a point (in frequency) at which I find the use of these phrases to be indicative of a certain ignorance. That's not to say that I think everyone who has used them at any time is stupid or ignorant. I respect you, shani, and I would never characterize directly anything you do or say as stupid. But at the same time, I find the outright rejection of my point view on this thread to be willfully stubborn. Disappointingly stubborn.

Ustwo 04-05-2008 03:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
I've been very clear about my stance here, you just don't agree with me. You're taking one word out of thousands I have typed here (used in a different context than you are requesting from me, I might add) and calling my whole argument nil because I have yet to quantify it for you. Meanwhile, conveniently ignoring all of my questions and multifarious mission statements.
Not sure what a multifarious mission statement is but I'd be happy to answer any unanswered questions. I did take one word out of a 1000 but I can clearly see where say 'the' would work in this debate but not where 'exploitive' would. Its a strong word, it deserved an explanation.

Quote:
Let me see, how could the phrase 'I'd hit that,' ever be construed as exploitative of another human being?

Number one, using 'that' to describe a person that you would like to fuck is exploitative whether you want to admit it or not. I find the use of the word 'that' in this phrase to be very significant.
Sex is a basic physical act. We can add all the emotional layers we want, but for men a least the physical nature is what matters in the moment. If this wasn't true then we wouldn't have otherwise happily married men going to brothels. An interesting question in prostitution is WHO is being exploited, the women for sex or the men who are driven enough to spend cash for sex. I do not find 'that' to be very significant. Would it be better if it was 'I would do her'? That was the 'hit it' of my generation.

Quote:
But more interesting to me, is considering the most recent origin of this phrase, (as well 'i'd tap that') which happens to be a segment of the hip-hop culture in which women have been most literally exploited - in that they've been promoted as being anonymous, available, disposable and interchangable. Which after about a decade of outrage on the part of a horrified white America, started to trickle into white culture without a second thought, eventually winding up here on this thread where it is legitimized as 'male bonding' and 'sexual expression.' It's funny, but I don't recall those words being bandied around when this was a 'black issue.'
I can't say I know the origin of the word, nor does it matter, it matters in context of how its used. A nerd on the internet saying 'I'd hit that' has absolutely no connection to hip-hop culture any more than eating cracklins (pork rinds) would connect him to slavery. I have no idea if the phrase IS from hip-hop, I first saw it on fark.

Quote:
Now, people have two choices when observing this phenomenon:
1. They can dismiss it outright and say that it's just harmless fun and has absolutely no further implications to society and the state of male/female relations.
Yep.

Quote:
or
2. They can question it when the realization dawns on them that we have accommodated an attitude, even if in a less overtly offensive manner, that just a few years ago we thought was despicable.
Just a few years ago? Lets see from my youth, which would be 20 years ago. 'I'd fuck her brains out', 'I'd do her', 'I want some of THAT' (yes that). I'm not sure when this innocent time was, but you might have to go back to the Victorian, where talking about sex, at least on paper, became taboo, though I'm sure they had a very nondescript euphemism or two for it, they were human after all.

Quote:
Now, no, I do not think that a guy directing 'i'd tap that' at me amongst his friends without my knowledge is necessarily exploitative, although it is on an innocuous level. And I can certainly imagine many scenarios in which being the subject of the phrase would be violative enough to make me feel that I've been exploited.
Your choice of language makes me wonder what your real issue is here. Guys talking among themselves, about you, can be violative? I've caught people saying things behind my back which really pissed me off, but violate is an aggressive term, an assault on you directly, something far stronger than saying things which are crude or rude.

Quote:
But can we acknowledge that our acceptance of this phrase into our vernacular combined with the increase in the last twenty years or so of women in the media seen not only as sexual and desirable, but sexually available (I think there is a big difference there), is, at the very least, a curious thing and okay to talk about?
Yes but your time frame is too short. With the information age its more available but we are looking at closer to the last 40-50 years which if you think about it coincides with the women's lib movement. This is a far deeper issue than just media or what phrase kids are using. Women wanted to be accepted as sexual beings, not just baby factories, and fighting for the right to birth control etc leads to making women sexually available. Its a side effect womans liberation.

Quote:
Now if all this is still unclear to you at this point, I don't think I can think of a plainer way to put it. If you want to talk about any of these things, then fine, let's talk. This is what I have been wanting to do all along. But I'm done having my argument minimized and dismissed like this is a silly game for you.

And to bring it allllll the way back around to my first contribution to this thread. If you are using these phrases as anything other than a mockery of the men who use it as if it were an entitlement, then I think it's stupid. Grow the fuck up.

The end.
Well I can guess we can drop the old 'hit a nerve' concept from earlier eh? Your argument isn't being minimized and dismissed, I think its not graspable by many of us in this thread. To me it seems your real argument is about victimization of women, and that I just don't see here. It to me is regressive, back to a time where women were considered unable to defend themselves from the whiles of men, and were not suppose to like sex for sex itself. I happen to like that amazon has 24,000+ sex toys on line, that birth control is readily available, that porn is greatly destigmatized, that arguments are over if women should be allowed to be topless in public rather than how long their sleeves must be on their bathing suites.

If you want to discuss how women are viewed in hip-hop culture, be my guest, thats not my culture, and I'd have nothing to add there. I can only speak of my culture, middle class white, and in mine saying 'I'd hit it' is completely innocuous.

ShaniFaye 04-05-2008 04:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
When I use the word 'stupid' in this thread I am being emotional and I'm sorry. But there is a point (in frequency) at which I find the use of these phrases to be indicative of a certain ignorance. That's not to say that I think everyone who has used them at any time is stupid or ignorant. I respect you, shani, and I would never characterize directly anything you do or say as stupid. But at the same time, I find the outright rejection of my point view on this thread to be willfully stubborn. Disappointingly stubborn.
I dont reject your point of view I just dont agree with it. Same as I dont agree with atheists or people who think its a good idea to use the three day rule when getting a girls phone number, or that the number of people a person has slept with prior to their current S/O is really that big a deal.

I've never said that you werent entitled to think about it what you want, Im just REALLY confused with the "when its ok and when its not ok" to express that someone is "doable"

You and Abaya both have stated you wouldnt "hang" with people that do that and that confuses me. Now....Im not some chick that hangs out in bars with the "hens" (actually I dont hang out in bars at all) and oogles guys (or girls) left and right. BUT neither Dave or I have a problem when we are out and about and people watching stating that a particular person has piqued our interest.

I've read and I've read and I still really dont get why thats wrong?

mixedmedia 04-05-2008 04:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Not sure what a multifarious mission statement is but I'd be happy to answer any unanswered questions. I did take one word out of a 1000 but I can clearly see where say 'the' would work in this debate but not where 'exploitive' would. Its a strong word, it deserved an explanation.



Sex is a basic physical act. We can add all the emotional layers we want, but for men a least the physical nature is what matters in the moment. If this wasn't true then we wouldn't have otherwise happily married men going to brothels. An interesting question in prostitution is WHO is being exploited, the women for sex or the men who are driven enough to spend cash for sex. I do not find 'that' to be very significant. Would it be better if it was 'I would do her'? That was the 'hit it' of my generation.



I can't say I know the origin of the word, nor does it matter, it matters in context of how its used. A nerd on the internet saying 'I'd hit that' has absolutely no connection to hip-hop culture any more than eating cracklins (pork rinds) would connect him to slavery. I have no idea if the phrase IS from hip-hop, I first saw it on fark.



Yep.



Just a few years ago? Lets see from my youth, which would be 20 years ago. 'I'd fuck her brains out', 'I'd do her', 'I want some of THAT' (yes that). I'm not sure when this innocent time was, but you might have to go back to the Victorian, where talking about sex, at least on paper, became taboo, though I'm sure they had a very nondescript euphemism or two for it, they were human after all.



Your choice of language makes me wonder what your real issue is here. Guys talking among themselves, about you, can be violative? I've caught people saying things behind my back which really pissed me off, but violate is an aggressive term, an assault on you directly, something far stronger than saying things which are crude or rude.



Yes but your time frame is too short. With the information age its more available but we are looking at closer to the last 40-50 years which if you think about it coincides with the women's lib movement. This is a far deeper issue than just media or what phrase kids are using. Women wanted to be accepted as sexual beings, not just baby factories, and fighting for the right to birth control etc leads to making women sexually available. Its a side effect womans liberation.



Well I can guess we can drop the old 'hit a nerve' concept from earlier eh? Your argument isn't being minimized and dismissed, I think its not graspable by many of us in this thread. To me it seems your real argument is about victimization of women, and that I just don't see here. It to me is regressive, back to a time where women were considered unable to defend themselves from the whiles of men, and were not suppose to like sex for sex itself. I happen to like that amazon has 24,000+ sex toys on line, that birth control is readily available, that porn is greatly destigmatized, that arguments are over if women should be allowed to be topless in public rather than how long their sleeves must be on their bathing suites.

If you want to discuss how women are viewed in hip-hop culture, be my guest, thats not my culture, and I'd have nothing to add there. I can only speak of my culture, middle class white, and in mine saying 'I'd hit it' is completely innocuous.
Fine. You know, I think it's fairly obvious that I am talking about a phenomena and you are talking about me. I am talking about somethng larger than how you and your buddies directly feel about the phrase 'i'd tap that.' And I'm sick of the implication that I'm somehow too emotionally involved to have a discussion about it. What about all of the other people in the world who write books and make documentaries about these kinds of issues - are they all just indulging their own personal hang-ups? Please, it's insulting. I am not any more emotionally involved than you are.

I think your observation about the concurrence of women's liberation and the phenomena that I am getting it is interesting and I'm going to think about it. Seriously, I will, 'cause that's what I do. But I think I'm done talking about it here. I've wasted practically two whole days of my life on this thread. I don't know if you are continually missing my point deliberately or because I'm just not speaking a language you understand, but I'm at the point where I just don't care. I know what I mean and that's good enough for me.

Thanks for playing. :)

Ustwo 04-05-2008 08:47 AM
Well all'righty then.

mixedmedia 04-13-2008 09:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaniFaye
I dont reject your point of view I just dont agree with it. Same as I dont agree with atheists or people who think its a good idea to use the three day rule when getting a girls phone number, or that the number of people a person has slept with prior to their current S/O is really that big a deal.

I've never said that you werent entitled to think about it what you want, Im just REALLY confused with the "when its ok and when its not ok" to express that someone is "doable"

You and Abaya both have stated you wouldnt "hang" with people that do that and that confuses me. Now....Im not some chick that hangs out in bars with the "hens" (actually I dont hang out in bars at all) and oogles guys (or girls) left and right. BUT neither Dave or I have a problem when we are out and about and people watching stating that a particular person has piqued our interest.

I've read and I've read and I still really dont get why thats wrong?
I'm really hesitant to reply to this thread again, but I missed your response here before, shani, so I wanted to address it very quickly so that it doesn't appear that I ignored you.

I think I stated plainly many times that the occasional use of phrases like this were not the issue. I was questioning a much bigger issue and it's something that I'm still thinking about. Which I may, if I find the time and inclination, start a new thread about.

I understand that I probably confuse people sometimes because my contributions to threads are often a 'work in progress.' I don't always have fully formed opinions on things when I start talking about them, but if I start to see patterns and connections that intrigue me, my mind starts working overtime and that can cause the topics to stray and it's a pain in the ass, I know...but I question everything, including my own thinking patterns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UsTwo
Well all'righty then.
I could have gone through your last post line by line and said, 'no, that's not what I meant...no, what I meant was...perhaps, but the way I see it...etc., etc.,' but at that point it seemed like a waste of time.

Besides, I was serious when I said your comment about the women's liberation movement and it's possible after-effects piqued my interest. It stopped me short, as a matter of fact, and I am still thinking about it...

Cynthetiq 04-13-2008 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
I'm really hesitant to reply to this thread again, but I missed your response here before, shani, so I wanted to address it very quickly so that it doesn't appear that I ignored you.

I think I stated plainly many times that the occasional use of phrases like this were not the issue. I was questioning a much bigger issue and it's something that I'm still thinking about. Which I may, if I find the time and inclination, start a new thread about.

Spoiler: I understand that I probably confuse people sometimes because my contributions to threads are often a 'work in progress.' I don't always have fully formed opinions on things when I start talking about them, but if I start to see patterns and connections that intrigue me, my mind starts working overtime and that can cause the topics to stray and it's a pain in the ass, I know...but I question everything, including my own thinking patterns.

I could have gone through your last post line by line and said, 'no, that's not what I meant...no, what I meant was...perhaps, but the way I see it...etc., etc.,' but at that point it seemed like a waste of time.

Besides, I was serious when I said your comment about the women's liberation movement and it's possible after-effects piqued my interest. It stopped me short, as a matter of fact, and I am still thinking about it...
I put up a spoiler because this is EXACTLY what I believe this place is. I want people to take a moment and THINK about it as they reveal what it says. This is a starting point to discuss how and why you believe what you believe and quite possibly find a way to a new belief based on reasonable and rational thought processes.

mixedmedia 04-14-2008 03:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I put up a spoiler because this is EXACTLY what I believe this place is. I want people to take a moment and THINK about it as they reveal what it says. This is a starting point to discuss how and why you believe what you believe and quite possibly find a way to a new belief based on reasonable and rational thought processes.
awww, that's really nice, cyn, but I was just trying to explain why I'm such a pain in the ass sometimes, lol

Shauk 08-04-2009 11:23 AM
I'd hit it.

Still a valid and fun term in 2009.

Plan9 08-04-2009 12:32 PM
Man, I miss UsTwo.

filtherton 08-04-2009 12:38 PM
He made a worthy foil, that's for sure.

Plan9 08-04-2009 12:40 PM
I wonder if, due to his occupation, he'd ever say "I'd drill that!" to attractive females behind their back.

mixedmedia 08-04-2009 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton (Post 2681685)
He made a worthy foil, that's for sure.
I'll second that.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:16 PM.
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360