"I'd hit it" - a discussion
 

"I'd hit it" - this phrase, along with "I'd tap that", is so commonplace in youth and adult male conversation nowadays that it almost deserves no explanation. In the event that you've really never heard it, here's a few definitions from urbandictionary.com:

EDITED TO ADD THE VIDEO:

You think Dexter has a sister?
Yea, I bet she smokin like chesnuts on an open fire..
I'd hit that, I'd hit that, I'd hit that.. I'd hit that.
*chanting* I'd hit that..

My first question to the TFPers: Is this this sudden development? I'm not old enough to know if this type of slang existed in the past, perhaps with different words. I'd like to discount it as an artifact of YOUTH culture, but I simply can't, based on how many adults - on TFP and elsewhere, I've seen or heard using it.

There's a few things I find interesting about these two phrases. The most obvious observation is the physical (and violent) nature of it. It's peculiar that "hit" and "tap" are used when talking about sex, because sex itself isn't inherently violent.

I'm not sure if we can make the a logical leap and say that it actually promotes physical harm, simply because of similar slang phrases: "hit it (the gas pedal), "hit it (the bong)", "hit the hay", "hit the road", "hit it up," "hit me back." It's still an interesting observation, especially considering the epidemic level of domestic abuse and rape in the US.

Do you think using phrases like this societally and subconsciously excuse violence, or violent sex? I personally think it does, and the proof is simple enough; "I'd do her" conveys the same meaning, but it has fallen OUT of usage as of late. It's interesting too that the phrase isn't "I'd hit her", or "I'd tap her", but "it" and "that." Is this perhaps an indication that you're objectifying her, rather than addressing her as a female person?

My final question, and the one I'm more acutely interested in, follows.

WHY is this an aspect of socialization for men? I'd like to keep this civil, so please avoid telling me it's because men are pigs or because all we do is think about sex.

In my own novice sociological opinion, it has developed as a way for men to boost their self-esteem by implying that the woman in question would actually ALLOW him to have sex with them, or that they could MAKE the woman have sex with them. Both are foregone conclusions in the usage of the phrase, cleverly ignoring the fact that she'd have to accept your advances in order to "hit it." As my girlfrend eloquently replied to someone's usage of the phrase, "Would SHE "hit" that? Probably not, asshole!"

I think it also serves a purpose for men in bonding, allowing them to feel closer to one another by acknowledging that they'd both like to "hit that", and thereby share a common interest and perception of beauty.

If you agree with my interpretation, how can we encourage these two things (increased self esteem and male bonding) without simultaneously objectifying women and excusing sexual violence?

If you don't agree with my interpretation, tell me why.

I need to think more on this but I understand "tap" is used as in "tap a keg"

Or "Tap an ass"... :orly:

It's an enjoyable pastime. Some women are attractive and sharing that fact with friends is a commrodary thing.

I first noticed this phrase around the time that Britney came on the scene, and thus I correlated "Hit me baby one more time" to "I'd hit it".

Now you're on the trolley....

Slang changes constantly. I started hearing this probably 6 or 7 years ago, which means that the hipsters were using it 10 years ago. The keg analogy seems logical, but I know enough about slang not to count on it.

Stay cool, daddio.

http://www.slapyo.com/wp-content/klingonhitit.jpg
http://www.slapyo.com/wp-content/spaceghosthitit.jpg
http://lolcat.com/pics/idhititkitten.jpg

I'm glad this thread was taken seriously by the male participants, not like the juvenile frat-boy cluster fuck I expected it to be.

Heaven forbid we discuss why we use the words we use, or what effect they may be having on men or women through their common use.

I don't think "I'd hit it" suggests rape, and thus violent sex. It's about the instance in which an opportunity would present itself. There's nothing to suggest the situation wouldn't be consensual.

BTW, I just realized that you can't have consensual without sensual.

I know that some people probably see "I'd hit it." as inappropriate, but quite frankly we as human beings are sexual. It's in our nature to admire a sexual form. Don't think we weren't tempted to post pictures of Jessica Alba to illustrate an "I'd hit it" situation.

Yeah, I started hearing "I'd like to tap that ass," probably in the late '90s, Northern California-- mostly from surfers and stoners. By the time I got down to Southern California in '99, it was "I'd tap that," and everyone was saying it. "I'd hit that," seemed to pop up around a year or two later, and at first I heard it mostly from the Black community.

I have been known to use variations on "I'd tap that," but I generally don't use "I'd hit that," not because I think there is really a nuance of violence in it (I really don't think so), but just because the phrase somehow doesn't seem to flow with the way I use slang. Interestingly, though, I have heard "I'd hit that," being used by a lot of girls in reference to guys they'd do.

Guys talk like that in part because we really do cherish our immaturity in various ways. But there's a camaraderie in it, and a genuine shared appreciation for women, as well as just enjoyment of being slangy. I don't know that I see any harm in it.

see my signature for my level of maturity on this subject.


furthermore, there is really no need to overthink things. Lust is normal. This just is verbiage stemming from that.

The phrase "hit it" has been used for decades in reference to anything from drugs to music.

Musicians use "hit it!" to start an upbeat song.

Pot smokers use "hit it" when referring to smoking; ie. "let me get a hit of that,".

Most likely "tap it" or "tap that ass" owes its etymology to tapping a keg or anything that requires drilling (oil tap, water tap, etc.). It could also refer to the sound that is produced by particularly vigorous sexual activity.

SORRY FOR THE EDITS, I wanted to clarify a few things.

http://www.purseblog.com/images/jess...ba_new_bag.jpg
I'd hit that.

Levite explains another aspect well: we're all big kids, and we have fun acting as such from time to time. High school, for me, was one big "I'd hit that", and so was part of college.

Not only is there the juvenile appreciation of the female form, but there is something to be said for unbridled truth. I mean, I really would hit that. I really, really would. And instead of turning on all of the filters that say "You can't just say you want to shag a woman outloud" we simply say exactly what we're thinking.

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/7335/hititny3.jpg

Thats one of my favorites.

Jin - Seriously lighten up. The problem on this is you are really over analyzing motives. Sometimes a red wagon is just a red wagon. This is one of the many internet 'meme's' and personally I think it sounds better than 'tap that ass' and is far more acceptable then 'I'd like to fuck her'. Its a euphemism, nothing more.

Yay, I'm here. :p

As far as 'tap that ass' goes, I always assumed it referred to the tapping sound made while having rear-entry intercourse. I think it's pretty safe to say that, if not the origin of the phrase, it's the way many other people interpret it, as well. It's much more correlative, in my opinion, than the 'tapping a keg' suggestion.

Now, this does suggest a very familiar objectification of a strange woman that, as a woman, I find to be stupid and presumptuous. But, as I've been told again and again and again here at TFP, this is just the way guys are. So be it. Stupid and presumptuous. :p

As for 'I'd hit that,' I've never thought about it in the context of violence or rape. More just an adaptation of 'I'd tap that' - another stupid and presumptuous remark made by men to gratify their own unfeasible fantasies and untapped masculinity.

Now, all that said, I realize that some perfectly nice guys make a habit out of saying these things, but personally, I would never really respect a man who said them as anything other than an occasional joke. Maybe a sign of maturity is knowing when to keep your trap shut. I dunno...

Quoted for truth.

My friends and I simply said "I would." Clear, succinct and to the point. Without any cutsie analogies either.
and my 2 cents . . .
<a href="http://s119.photobucket.com/albums/o157/jmarkj/images/whimsies%20and%20oddments/?action=view&current=clinton.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o157/jmarkj/images/whimsies%20and%20oddments/clinton.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
two times
<a href="http://s119.photobucket.com/albums/o157/jmarkj/images/whimsies%20and%20oddments/?action=view&current=Britneywsnake.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o157/jmarkj/images/whimsies%20and%20oddments/Britneywsnake.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

It's not like guys sit in front of middle schools for 3 hours a day and say it. I'm not sure why it'd be offensive. It's simply a more honest and improper to say, "she's attractive".

And, yes, all men objectify women before they meet them. That's kinda a no brainer. The news flash is, of course, that women do it, too. I'm not ashamed to say I've been objectified a number of times and it's flattering. Yes, it might be a bit awkward if a woman said, "I'd hit that" when I was in line at the bank, but I can't imagine being offended by it at all. Shoot, I might not even think it was stupid and presumptuous. Why is it not stupid? Because it's totally normal to find someone sexually attractive without knowing them. Presumptuous? No, because the "I'd hit that" doesn't mean "I'm going to hit that". It simply speaks of a hypothetical situation where it becomes available to hit, and then gets hit.

JinnKai, congratulations on being today's winner of "The Stick Shoved Up My Ass Is Lodged Deeper Than The One Up The_Jazz's". It's not often that I get to bestow this award given how humorless I usually am, but you sir have managed to pull it off, so well done.

All people aware of their own sexual nature think about sex with other people from time to time. It means nothing. "I'd hit/tap it" is just a way to communicate this fact in a crowded room.

And it's good to see you, kramus.

Personally, my girlfriends and I have co-opted this for ourselves; we've been saying "I'd hit that/it" since 2004. My guy friends also feel comfortable enough to say it around me, because, well, I say it too.

I don't really have a problem with it, mostly because the places I've seen this happen are places you expect it to happen--parties, bars, that sort of thing. I think there is an expectation of objectification in certain places. It's not something I've seen out on the street, or straight to my face about me.

Trying to raise this back into a discussion, while it's very much yes, sometimes a red wagon is just a red wagon, we still have programs on TV about the life of a red wagon, how it orginated, how it's used, and what importance it has on society.

So how is it not any different than the discourse of using nigger, gay, or other colloquialism to convey some sort of ideology. Obviously some of these words have with them an amount of baggage attached. What I sense here is to try to discuss the statement "I'd hit it" in the same manner as nigger or gay.

If that is the case, then I don't see how these "I'd hit it" meme photos push the discussion any more than in the nigger word discussion threads we've had posting,"What's up mah nigga?!?!?!"

Just because this is the way for you doesn't mean it should be that way for everyone. As a woman, who has been casually objectified since the age of 13 (I remember the first time, yez) it becomes a little tiresome. And you start to think of these things as being stupid and presumptuous. That is human nature just as much as your masculine impulses.

'Flattery' is the luxury of the unaccustomed.

And again, just to be clear, I can understand and laugh along with the use of these phrases in a humorous way, but there comes a point where it becomes tiresome. To put it in my own way, it's akin to exploiting everything of beauty that comes your way for personal use. Like a real estate developer looking at an expanse of virgin forest, lol. To me, sorry, that is a sign of immaturity whether you are male or female. Immaturity or some sort of OCD. :p

Not to toot my own horn, but I've been objectified plenty since I was around 13. I'm not sure if it's a matter of a gender inequality (which it may very well be, I dunno), but it's rather silly to think that men aren't objectified. I'd go as far as to call myself accustomed to being objectified, but even if it happens 40 times in one day I'm still flattered. I see no harm in it. Even if it's a flaming homosexual (using the term to be descriptive, not offensive), it's still flattering.

Does intent come into play when you're coming to your judgment about being stupid or presumptuous?

Does intent come into play when deciding to use the word nigger to describe your friend in a brotherly way?

I'm sorry, but this conversation just seems like so much pissing in the wind to me. There always has been and always will be a segment of the population that is going to sexually objectify another segment. We call these "men, aged 13 to 50" and "women, aged 13 to 50", respectively and roughly. This is hardwired into the male brain, and while the object of the objectification may shift based on the sexual preferrences of the objectifier, the actual deed is as certain as death and taxes.

Jinn, perhaps the vernacular could be "cleaned up" a bit to eliminate what you think is a violent connotation, but you are going to have to go to that particular mountain, Mohammed. It ain't gonna come to you.

Besides, without the current slang, Fark wouldn't have any clever lines to go with their teacher mugshots, and some of those are just plain old entertaining.

Well, very well, are you suggesting I be flattered by some stranger wanting to fuck me doggy-style?

I think gender inequality definitely plays a role in it.

I'm about to go make dinner, but it has just occurred to me that I just am not flattered by a man wanting to have sex with me because of the way I look. I don't find that flattering. It doesn't impress me with myself.

I agree with that Jazz, there will always be, but I do think that the effort of making it a discussion is the challenge. Decades ago you couldn't discuss racism in any manner, even in our lifetime homosexuality was too taboo to even label appropriately.

I'm just trying to attempt the discourse of the OP, the community may not be up to the discussion and that alone has it's own merit and meaning.

I'm not black, so my opinion is kinda useless when it comes to that word. I've only experienced racism once, and it was "reverse racism", or racism that comes from a person who's been treated poorly by the race his or her whole life. Because I don't know what it means to be black and face that word, it's not my place to give it an okay or not.
This is the "I'd hit it" thread, not the "I'd hit it from the back" thread. You have no way to know whether it's doggy!

But seriously, it's just a statement that suggests that you're sexually attractive. As an attractive woman, I don't know why you wouldn't expect to be objectified from time to time. Sure, it's not as nice to hear as "You're very beautiful", but it basically means the same thing.
I make this proclaimation in an attempt to bridge the gender inequality gap:

Women of the world, objectify me all you want. Shoot, even men. It doesn't bother me one bit and it's for a good cause.

I was objectified by a group of 20-30 construction workers the other day (I was there to interpret languages for a study on immigrants by the university here--they were mostly Polish), and it made me feel sick to my stomach. I couldn't even understand what they were saying, but I knew the tone they were using, and it made me want to kick each and every one of them in the balls. Instead, I could do nothing but turn around and leave. Would they have treated me that way if I was one of their sisters, or mother? I seriously doubt it, because of the triple standard. It's fine to objectify strangers, maybe-fine to objectify friends/acquaintances (depending on how hot you find them), and absolutely NOT ALLOWED to talk in such a way (or let others in your "group" talk in such a way) about your loved ones. Of course, respecting all women universally is just too much to ask for, I know... I should really learn to expect less from men, as MM said.
And why is that, exactly? Who benefits from that? Why not hold each other accountable to talking respectfully about women, instead of defaulting to the lowest, most base denominator as a form of "communication" and bonding?

Acting like kids is to men as shoe shopping is to women. It's part of how we play.

FYI, I hate shoe shopping, and most other kinds of shopping as well. Even if I did enjoy it, however, comparing shoe shopping to the objectification of an entire gender (or at least, the strangers and hot friends/acquaintances of that gender, but BY GOD not one's sister or mother!) is quite a stretch, Will.

Likewise many men don't like to act like little kids, so the comparison is quite apt. Some women adore shoe shopping, and some men adore acting like a kid.

BTW, when did I even hint that I was speaking about your "entire gender"?

Jesus, what's wrong with a bit of immaturity? I sincerely hope I never take myself so seriously as that.

So far as I can recall, I've never used 'I'd hit/tap that' in anything other than an ironic sense. On the other hand, it's a bit handier to say than 'I find that woman physically attractive and would like to engage in a romantic and/or sexual relationship with her.'

Like will, I am completely clueless as to where 'objectification of an entire gender' comes from. I fail to see how one follows the other.

jeebus, what prompted this thread?

it's a joke, man...

"i'd hit it...yeah, right..."

My reaction to this issue (and other gender issues) may be reactionary, but I find the responses to be just as reactionary. I mean, it's obvious from the responses here that what I am responding to isn't a fiction. I'm just being told that I should deal with it. Well, fine, I do deal with it. I deal with it all the time. But the roads run in both directions. If I am to deal with the fact that I am often objectified in a selfish manner irregardless of my consent, then guys, you must be willing to be judged regardless of your consent or sense of fairness. In a world where everything is available to the mind, the imagination and the senses, it should be expected. And maybe part of the process of maturing not only includes not letting inanity slip out of your mouth at any moment, is owning up to your own part in being judged for such. I guess one doesn't come without the other.

where is crompsin with his timely Henry Rollins pimpslap when I need him? damn you United States Govt.

regardless, i'll say it again...see above...

I stand with MM.

If I am to deal with the fact that I am often objectified in a selfish manner irregardless of my consent, then guys, you must be willing to be judged regardless of your consent or sense of fairness.
Can you clarify? This reads as "If we're objectified, then you have to be." which is something I've stated I'm fine with. I suspect you mean something else.

sheesh, it's a joke sometimes, I've made it clear that I am not talking about men who use the phrase as a joke now and then, but the people who the phrase came from in the first place in order to make it a joke...those men who objectify women on a regular basis with comments.

Is this really so objectionable?

No, it means that you need to deal with being called things like 'stupid' and 'presumptuous'.

You know, I'm really not in the mood to get into this TFP clusterfuck again. I'm not in the mood for passionate discourse with people I can't see. I'm taking the rest of the night off.

I guess that's an interesting point. And personal feelings aside (I couldn't care less how you 'judge' me) I can sort of see where you're coming from.

On the other hand, men are sexual creatures, as are women. Expressing appreciation for a woman's physical traits is something I've always done and will not apologize for. It needs to be in the proper time and place, of course, but all the same that's essentially what this comes down to. 'I'd hit that' is an admittedly crude way of saying 'I find that woman attractive.' I've worked construction and have heard some other very colourful euphemisms, some of which truly were offensive; that experience leads me to believe that saying 'I'd hit that' is pretty bloody innocuous.

I am convinced that women objectify men just as much as men objectify women. A quick trawl through The Full Monty board seems to confirm this, with comments such as:

This being one of the more literate ones I could find, and also amusing to me because of it's parallel to the idiom that started this thread.

The thing is, guys don't get worked up about stuff like this, because we just don't care. I think (insofar as one can make generalizations that include an entire gender) that men are simply more comfortable with their sexuality and as a consequence more comfortable with the idea that sometimes an attraction is purely sexual in nature. And I still fail to see how there's anything even remotely wrong with that.