"I'd hit it" - a discussion - Page 8 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

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

He made a worthy foil, that's for sure.

I'll second that.

04-04-2008, 09:11 PM	#284 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	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. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

04-05-2008, 08:47 AM	#288 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Well all'righty then. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

08-04-2009, 12:32 PM	#293 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Man, I miss UsTwo. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

08-04-2009, 12:40 PM	#295 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	I wonder if, due to his occupation, he'd ever say "I'd drill that!" to attractive females behind their back. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

08-04-2009, 11:23 AM	#292 (permalink)
Shauk Confused Adult Location: Spokane, WA	I'd hit it. Still a valid and fun term in 2009.

08-04-2009, 12:38 PM	#294 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	He made a worthy foil, that's for sure.