"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.

It's a bit different, though. If I say you're hot, it's a subjective physical impression and usually a compliment. If you call me stupid, it's either an objective observation (if you were talking about someone with a low IQ) or an insult.Stupid? Do you mean ignorant to social norms? If so, then social norms aren't consistent. Presumptuous need not apply, though, as "I'd hit it" is not "I'm going to hit it".

I could understand if you said it was disrespectful, because that makes perfect sense, but sexual attraction combining a loose interpretation of what's socially acceptable doesn't seem to scream stupid or presumptuous.


Men objectify women. Women objectify men. We all have physical form, and said physical forms can be sexually pleasing to other people. I can't comprehend being offended by that. Yeah, if you weren't appreciated for your big sexy brain I could see you being frustrated with people not liking ALL of you, but MM and Abaya (and all the ladies of TFP), everyone here on TFP loves you for your big sexy brains. Many women on TFP don't even post pictures and are well respected and well liked.

The funny part is I rarely say "I'd hit that" and it's always in jest.

It's quite interesting that I've yet to hear a female say that "I'd hit it" is an appreciated, or even appropriate thing. Onesnowyowl's "I've taken the phrase back" is analogous to African-Americans calling each other niggas as a way to defuse the outright offensiveness of its counterpart.

I'll admit that this was a silly thread as soon as a woman comes forward saying she APPRECIATES reading "I'd hit that" on one of hundreds of posts on TFP. Or a female who thinks that it teaches them good things about who they are and what they're actually valued for.

As of yet, the only ones defending such an objectification are men who (quite naturally) assume that it isn't offensive because they themselves are not offended by it. While it might be natural, it's also naive.

As an aside to men who would actually care to learn about what their media and their words says to women, check out Dreamworlds II or Dreamworlds III. They're prohibitively expensive, but check them out at a library if you can. I promise that they're worth it.

I don't know if MM agrees with this or not, but in the discussion I just had about this with my husband, I discovered that I wasn't being clear about one bit: I DON'T have a problem with men and women being sexual beings and feeling attracted to all kinds of people. Yes, that is totally normal and fine and unoffensive. I am not interested in some kind of sexual thought police.

However, what offends me is the social need for expression of these thoughts among groups of men, as some means of achieving "camaraderie"... as if there are no better ways to go about "bonding" with people. Why do such thoughts need to be voiced? Why descend to that level? Why not challenge each other to go UP a level and talk in a respectful way about women? Because no one wants to be the "loser" who spoils everyone's fun by asking, "Would you talk about your daughter like that? Then why are you talking about other women like that?"--and risk being laughed at or accused of having a stick up one's ass? Is it so insufferably uncool to be the man in the group who actually RAISES the standard of the conversation?

If you are an attractive female let me into the heads of the men you have met...

Female: Hi, my names Amy, whats yours?
Male 1: I'm what you have been looking for baby, oh momma, I'd hit you like the angry fist of God, you know what I mean toots?

Translation: God I'd like to fuck her.

Female: Hi, My names Amy, whats your?
Male 2: Jack, so very nice to meet you. Say haven't I seen you in Dr. Thompson's lab?
Female: Yes, he is my research mentor for my PhD in high energy physics, I'm working on the singularity project.
Male 2: Singularity project? (laughs) I hear you are going to destroy the planet.
Female: (chuckles) Yes I read that too, sometimes you wonder why the press prints that crap but then you remember what they were like in undergrad.
Male 2: I don't think I ever met a sober journalism major, anyways tell me more about your research.

Translation: God I'd like to fuck her.

One is socially inept, one is less so, both with to achieve the same result.

I am mixed on this. I am quite aware of the offensiveness of the statement and how it objectifies women and yet, from time to time I have been known on Internet forums to pipe up with an "I'd hit it" or "I'd like to tap that"...

From my point of view, humour is transgressive. The fact that it is offensive, is what makes it funny for me. The fact that the likelihood of me *ever* "tapping that ass" is about as close to zero as you will ever get is what makes it funny for me.

That said, I have never been a big fan of groups of guys standing around nudging each other and saying, I'd like to fuck her, as beautiful woman walks by. I know why it happens, I can even appreciate why it happens and have even participated. That said, I always feel a little queazy afterwards. Like a smarmy businessman on the make or a frat boy with a gullet full of Old Milwaukee.

Absolutely spot on, Abaya. Mind if I put this in my signature?

[EDIT, saw Ustwo's post]

I resent the implication that all men behave in such a juvenile manner. It might be hilarious to you to create a hypothetical situation like this, but this not how things happen for some men.

SURPRISE: Some men are actually capable of maintaining a conversation without having a side conversation with their penis about where they should put it. While you might think that they have the same effect, the second response has a drastically different effect in that the woman at least BELIEVES that you aren't an asshole thinking about the fastest way into their pants. So if this is really how you think, it probably works better for you to disguise your unending lust in the guise of actual conversation. But for those of us not in an unending conquest to fuck, it's possible to have AN ACTUAL CONVERSATION ABOUT SOMETHING MEANINGFUL.

For the record, I don't actually believe that YOU think this way all the time either. I think this is a funny "anecdote" so you can fit in with the guys talking about 'hitting it.' If you actually put some thought into it, I imagine you aren't always thinking about sex when you're having a conversation with a woman who MATTERS to you.

Actually the first example is likely to net him a slap across the face... The second, is more likely to result in getting laid.

I'm a 24 year old man with a career in a committed relationship. I play Playstation 2 (Star Wars Battlefront, to be particular). I really love Batman and Superman. Sometimes I drive my car—a car that looks like a big toy—fast. I laugh about the stupidest things ever with friends. I say funny things to my guy friends that I wouldn't say to my mother or my daughter (just ask Crompsin). I descend to that level every now and again. It's fun.

There's no harm in being somewhat infantile from time to time. Why should someone be chastised for laughing at a fart or an open zipper? You can pretend that you're always an adult, but if that's true you might just be missing out on a lot of fun. Not every conversation is about establishing gender equality in Afghanistan and how the Taliban have been replaced by drug running warlords who still can't seem to understand that women are human beings, too. Not every conversation is about what we can do to eliminate the glass ceiling and how disgusting it is that women still earn like $0.75 to the dollar of what men make.

I'm not denying that it DOES act as camaraderie and I'm not denying that it is usually intended in just, NOR am I denying that I, myself, have done it.

What I originally asked in the OP is how we can achieve the same ends (bonding and camaraderie) without objectifying women in an offensive way. Certainly there are ways to be jovial and funny without conversations about "hitting it."

There are plenty of ways to talk about the attractiveness of women and having sex with them without implying that you'd fuck her twelve-ways from Sunday. (NOTE: Especially on a forum where both men AND women participate).

Good point. I was trying to formulate earlier in which context this expression works, and for me it has a lot to do with how unlikely it is to happen. Basically it works for unlikely and borderline abstract scenarios. When it becomes a statement about a possible scenario, the objectification makes me uncomfortable. But when it comes to more "abstract" objectification I don't have a problem with it. As long as it's occasional.

Yeah. There is something very uncomfortable to me about being in a large all-guy group and having a sexualized discussion of this sort.

Again, lighten up.

Today I had a patient whos a med student, shes also attractive, we had a very nice conversation, and my reptile brain wanted to fuck her brains out too. Were I single I may have tried harder to move in that direction. Maybe you are nicely Alan Alda like and tamed, but sorry when I see an attractive woman, wondering what she looks like naked is always part of my thought process.

The issue is, so what? I see nothing wrong with it.


Thats what I meant of course, both want to get laid, one has a better chance, but both are doing what they are doing with the same goal in mind.

Intellectually agreed.

I do find though that maybe via the sociological apparatus it is what we do as human beings. If it wasn't via these words it would be with other words, it is about that pecking order and socio-language for acceptance and persuasion.

If one looks at the teasing that happens, it's part of the sociological game, it is shameful, hurtful, and downright mean sometimes. But there is a sociological reason that it happens, it is a mechanism for how we learn in some capacity.

I don't know if any of that makes sense, but maybe you can understand what I'm talking about if you look at it from a scholar's point of view.

Objectification happens. I don't disagree with Ustwo's scenario with the woman in his chair. If I meet an attractive woman, there is a part of me that does react and wonder what she'd look like naked what it would be like to have sex with her. I think that is only natural.

The issue at question here is more along the lines of what do we do with these impulses. I am all for immature behaviour. I just think that with any actions we take, any words we use we need to think about the implications of what we are doing and saying.

This is the same as using the "gay" (as in, "you are so gay" or "that is so gay"). You may think you are just kidding around but there is meaning to words you utter and the meaning is not always pretty.

Well, I had a margarita and now I am back.

Reading over all this again, I feel like I am being used to counteract an argument I am not making against people who are not guilty of the actions I am arguing against. Could it be that I am coming up against a fraternal reaction?

I've stated plainly more than once that I am not talking about men who make these statements jokingly once in a while. I am talking about the men who are being parodied in these incidental 'i'd tap that' moments of whimsy. Certainly, you realize when you are saying these things, will, Martian, others, lol, that you are parodying the behavior of other men out there. Real men.

I said this:
I said this:
...obviously not aimed at guys who use the phrase occasionally in a joking manner.

Yet I am responded to by guys who say themselves that they only use the phrases occasionally in a joking manner, yet are somehow still in disagreement with me. Are you here to defend guys who do not use the phrases occasionally in a joking manner? If you are, I think you should make that clear.

If not, then consider condemning the usage, because I think there is merit to cyn's comparison to the objectification of racial epithets and these kinds of sexually overt comments about women.

If this is what you have a problem with, then by all means let me know and we can discuss it. But if you just want to make a generalized argument with me because I am a woman taking issue with the way some men behave then you'll have to state your case explicitly as it applies to these men.

Thank you. :)

When I was 15 and working my first steady job with a landscaping crew of marginal citizens I participated in those "har-har lookit that" group discussions as a means of protective colouration. The absurdity of the conversation was and is part of it's pleasure, in my opinion. Some citizen will not randomly walk over to a sweaty labourer and fuck him right where he stands. We were either toothless and tatooed, grimy, smelly, or in my case a 15 year old skinny kid.
It was like learning a whole new language, communicating in this jail-bird/seasonal worker/un-educated mileau I found myself. Some of those habits of speech have stuck with me because I remained a blue-collar worker the last 30 years.
I have spent many an hour in mixed company doing boring repetitive work and sharing conversation with men and women both about idle things like enjoying the weather, good food, the latest songs on the radio . . . and who was hot and why. The conversation has it's place. As was stated earlier, not all interactions involve Taliban or glass ceilings. Some are just idle chit-chat to pass the interminable shift hours until it is time to punch the clock and go home.
In my original post I mentioned how I like the phrase "I would" because of it's simplicity and lack of baggage.
BTW I hung on to that Clinton pic because I am pretty sure the "I'd hit it" meant he too would have smashed the Taliban in Afghanistan - the timing of that photo taken in 2001 with the other former presidents seems to back me up on that. Britney was pure fun - "hit me 2 times" is a phrase of hers I think.
If you can keep the conversation easy and flowing there is nothing wrong or objectifying to an occassional "I would", no matter how you word it. If someone at some time is able to give the phrase enough baggage that it becomes akin to the "n" word then a self-censoring will take place and there will be some other easy conversational way for either and both sexes to mention that person "A" is attractive and probably nice to get close and personal with. To me it is on the same level as mentioning how a swimming pool would be nice to jump into on a hot day, when the odds of being able to jump into that particular pool at that particular time are zero.

Hi to you too, The_Jazz :)

I haven't read all the responses, so this might have already been said, but...if "I'd hit it" or whatever vernacular is being used at the time is harmless and inoffensive, let's remove the rule from another forum (you know which one) and allow all responses to be as base as can be. Let's allow discussion of which members we'd like to fuck.

If you're not in favor of relaxing the rule, could you explain why not?

I missed this one somehow. But I think most people around here are aware of my own views about sex. But for those who are not, I love sex. I adore sex. Sex. Sex. Sex. It's on my mind at least 1/3 of every day.

But I'm just as inclined to think that my response to this issue is influenced by my love for sex as opposed to a negative response to sex or the expression of a person's sexuality.

Hey I haven't read all the responses (not even close) b/c I don't even think its that big of a deal.

When me and my friends say it, its just joking around. Its usually our way of *complimenting* the girl; with our huge "men egos", only the HOTTEST girls get a "i'd hit it" or a "i'd tap it". Any girl less than hot / top-notch cute doesn't even get a comment. If a girl is not cute, we'd never say it around our friends -- we have standards too eh, and men subconciously "compete" with each other on who's standards is better.

Also, its a cooler way for us to say "i'd like to have sex with her" and way less crude than "i'd bang her." And in no way does "hit" imply violence -- its just a slang that has a cool edge and was adopted commonly.

my $0.02

When men are alone together, be it on a jobsite, sportsteam, at a boarding school etc... a lot of dynamics come into play and immaturity is only one of many bonding mechanisms.

We're constantly testing each other for masculinity, forebearance and aptitude. Sometimes it's fun, sometimes it's tiresome, and sometimes it's scary (See "Hazing"), but it can be constant. So when you add a woman into the mix, either as a part of the group or as a passerby, guys will immediately and unifyingly shift focus away from themselves onto the new target.

The degree of this behaviour is also linked to setting of course. A locker room or construction site will be much tougher than a marketing meeting, but it's usually there in some form or another.

So to answer your question (but not excuse the behaviour) I believe that it's partly because of our wired attraction to women, but also as an escape from the roiling tension and jockying that underscores an all male environment.

Put another way: We're already at that level when you walk in the room.

Trust me....
Get to my age and hearing "I'd hit that" would make you dance down the sidewalk....

As with anything else said or done, just consider the source and forget it.

And yes, women do objectify men too. Anyone who says they never have is lying or suffering from dementia. I don't see "I'd hit it" as so derogatory and chauvinistic as to be a real issue. Everyone says it or something akin to it at one time or another.

And, please,all, for the love of everything sweet and good in the world, don't use that non-word, "irregardless"....made my skin crawl!!!!

hum yea i was gonna mention that i bet women do the same too.

what's women's equivalent?

I've only heard it is passing, but it has something to do with an elephant.

Well, I believe you ng, but I don't believe I'll ever dance down the sidewalk after hearing some dude say he'd like to do me...it's just not what floats my boat. I did have someone tell me recently that I was a lot of fun to argue with, though...I must admit that tweaked the pink bits a little. :p

I'll also take your word for it and accept that I have at times objectified men. The only times I have done this in my cognizance, though, is when I have seen men with their cocks out, hard and posing for pictures. Yes, this peaks my interest. But, I think that's a little different...whether we're talking about men or women. I will acknowledge a man with a handsome or otherwise interesting face, but I do not imagine myself fucking them when I do so. Nor do I imagine my hand in their wallet or sitting behind the wheel of their fancy sportscar.

And I was called out for using 'irregardless' one time before and it was humiliating. Hope I didn't do it again. doh!

Only level 1 grammar nazis call people on "irregardless", which actually is a word. *former grammar nazi*

MM, you really don't objectify men when their members aren't displayed for you? No offense, but that strikes me as a bit odd.

When I was in college I was in a dorm that alternated male/female floors.

I used to wear sweat pants a lot being a college guy, and sometimes you hang free in them, underwear is just more to wash.

I learned (sadly after I left the dorm) from a friends girlfriend that the rumor with the top floor girls was that I was hung like a horse.

I thought it was pretty cool that a dorm floor of women objectified me, even if I was oblivious to it at the time.

Ah to be 19 again.

I've caught myself being objectified a few times in the last year, I caught one woman checking me out as I was sitting with my legs spred a bit and displaying more than I intended, she was motioning to the woman next to her at the time, she turned a bright shade of red when she saw I was looking at her.

Honestly I rather enjoy it, I'd far rather be objectified than ignored ;)

No, I don't. And I don't think it's odd at all.

I've had this conversation here so many times. Maybe I truly am odd, but I don't see men and picture myself having sex with them. I become familiar with men and get a sense of who they are and then I may fantasize about having sex with them during masturbation. But even this is rare and usually occurs with men I am involved with. But no, I do not walk down the street checking out guys and thinking about fucking them. I'm just not that attracted to physical characteristics.

Well, wait....

anything that anyone says could be understood as a word.
irregardless: because it said by stupid people, irregardless is a word that circulates amongst stupid people irregardless.

on the thread:

most of the posts seem like they come from very defensive boys who can't respond to a simple question irregardless of how simple the question is.

No, it's been a while since I've done this, but there have been times in my life when I have imagined sex with men I see around, flashes of sexual positions and scenarios, and it is regardless (:p) of what they looked like. I guess 'cause I'm getting laid more regular now, I don't do it anymore. This would be almost like an exercise, it became habitual, but I would picture myself with men of all ages, races, cultural leanings, what have you...from the bearded homeless guy on the corner, to the fat Jewish guy at the deli, to the young WASP stud walking his dog in the park. But it's always been something going on in my head that was secret and I liked it that way. I wouldn't want to go around blabbing about it all day.

But if this is akin to what you guys are talking about, that's fine. The looking and the thinking is not what I take issue with.

Threadjack: sorry, dude... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irregardless
one of the explanations: an erroneous word that, etymologically, means the exact opposite of what it is used to express, attested in non-standard writing from 1912, probably a blend of irrespective and regardless. Perhaps inspired by the double negative used as an emphatic.

OK, back to ogling, hitting and sexism :D

Why does how she sees men seem odd? Personally, I envision them all with their pants off, but that's probably seen as odd too. Bet lots of ladies here played the "boxers or briefs" guessing game. Would that be considered "objectifying"?

So what do you take issue with? I'm a bit confused by that. Is it that we're not ashamed to express it? Surely you don't think all men intend on acting on such thoughts, so I can't imagine it's that. And not all men see women as only a pair of tits and an ass. There are men out there like that, but there are idiotic women too; that's certainly not a phenomenon that's tied to the Y chromosome.

Objectification occurs. It's natural and it's a part of life and there's nothing wrong with it. If I see an attractive woman walking down the street I'm certainly not going to think 'wow, she has a big, sexy brain.' I don't even know her name, and am therefore certainly not appreciating whatever intellectual merits she may or may not have. It's a purely physical response. How is it wrong, then, if I express this to my friends in the appropriate context? I would argue that for the vast majority of men in the vast majority of situations it has to be said at least partially in jest; after all, we're not intending to actively pursue a sexual relationship with every attractive woman we see. All other concerns aside, I simply wouldn't have the energy to do so. Therefore, when I say it there is almost by definition a sense of irony involved; I know it's not going to happen, but it's a way for me to express in an amusing way my appreciation for that particular woman's physical attractiveness.

I've never understood why it should be wrong for me to admire a beautiful woman. In the same sense, I've also never understood why it should be wrong for me to express an appreciation of that woman's beauty. I may recognize the necessity of repressing such sentiments in certain social contexts, but that doesn't mean I understand it.

Oh, but I would hit that.

(Had to be said.)

More threadjacking ... but I've already said my piece with regard to the OP ...

Sorry to ngdawg ... and with all due respect ... <i>irregardless</i> IS a word as recognized by that irrefutable source: the <i><a href="http://www.oed.com/">Oxford English Dictionary</a></i>

HOWEVER ... it is not supposed to be used in "normal" speaking (See "1934 WEBSTER" entry above). Irregardless ( :) )... the OED has been known to <i>remove</i> words at times.

The more you know ...

According to my last english teacher (professor specializing in early 20th century literature who taught at a doctorate level), while the word is not standard, it is still allowable so long as one does use it as a double negative.
No, ng, it's not odd that you imagine men with their pants off. As a matter of fact it's endearing. :) And yes, it's objectification, but I think we've established that most men don't mind being objectified. MM does, but more than that she doesn't really seem to do it herself. When I say odd I'm not saying that she's lying or that there's something wrong with her, merely that I've never heard of that before.... but wait:
Oh. You have objectified men. Well this is a pretty good idea of how men are, but add onto it that some of us will occasionally share it with another man as an attempt at commonality. "She's hot!" followed by "Yeah!" is about as close as most men come to emotional bonding.

Note that it is 'recognized' as a nonstandard, humorous usage borne of two words. In writing, it'd knock off some serious points and in speech, is grating.

So....boxers or briefs, handsome? ;)

Absolutely ... and I agree with you; I can't stand the usage of the word simply because most people wouldn't <s>use it correctly</s> correctly use it. EDIT 3 ... and THAT'S a split infinitive. Fuck all!

Whatever gets me the most points?

Will, when you welcome objectification for yourself and think that somehow that makes it alright to therefore objectify women, you ignore the hegemony (am I using that big word correctly?) of the situation.

The same goes for anyone who uses the phrase "lighten up" when these sorts of discussions occur. It's really not for the member of the dominant group (in this case men, but insert powerful segment of society here, be it whites, or the rich, etc.) to tell the subordinate to lighten up. There's quite a long history of oppression.

MM, I like the way you pose the question. As far as I know these gents on TFP, they are fine upstanding dudes, but: who exactly are you all speaking for when you defend the culture of "I'd hit that?"

Hegemony means leadership. I think what you're trying to say is that women and men are different. I know this, but I find that starting with similarities, such as objectification of the opposite sex (or the same, if you're homosexual), makes sense when one is bridging the gap.

Men are not dominant over women in my environment, though. My bosses boss is a woman, and she owns the whole building. My SO is a woman (surprise!) and she's dominant in many things. All women are dominant in sex.

I've never oppressed anyone, except a few republicans.

#1 What makes you think I'm ashamed? I said that it was personal to me. It was mine. And I liked it that way. I hardly equate verbalizing 'i'd tap that' with liberation.

#2 I already addressed the rest of these observations. Go back and read my posts. You are taking issue with me only for the reason that I do not like men who say sexually overt things about me or behave in sexually overt ways towards me in my presence. And if I see a man who makes these kinds of statements about women often in a way that is too frequent for humor and irony, then I lose a great deal of respect for them. Sorry. Can't help it. I think it's stupid.

If you want to defend these men. Please do. Thus far, no one has wanted to touch that subject. It keeps turning into, 'well, I only do it in a joking way,' when that is explicitly NOT what I am talking about.

Hooray! Men and women are equal!

I see my timid, self-effacing manner has been wasting time:

Will, you say that you know men and women are different, but are trying to "bridge the gap." Deciding that objectification occurs on a level playing field is simply being willfully (haha see what I did there?) ignorant of a history of... well I said it in my previous post and I hope I don't have to convince anyone that historically, women have gotten the short end of the stick when it comes to being treated as objects.

We don't live in the 1950s. It's okay to admit that while that happened, it's not the norm anymore. I don't hold a grudge against the Romans for making my forefathers into slaves.

It wasn't my intention to imply that you're ashamed of whatever you may think or feel. What I was attempting to highlight is that there are men who feel the exact same thing and who have no problem expressing it. Within the 'culture of masculinity' (whatever that is) it's seen as normal and a way of reinforcing bonds in a masculine way. And I personally see nothing wrong with that.

I think you're misunderstanding me, as I'm not taking issue with you at all. I'm simply pointing out that this can be way of expressing (albeit crudely) an identical sentiment that is often considered harmless or even romantic in a different context. And you still haven't answered my question. You don't have any problem with guys thinking these things, and I'm still assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that you don't assume these same guys intend to act on these thoughts. Is it the expression that you take issue with, and if so why?

If you want me to tell you why some men are boorish and stupid, you're going to be disappointed. I don't have an answer to that. Some people are stupid. Such is life.

I'm hesitant to put words into willravel's mouth, but what I personally am attempting to highlight is that even though men and women are different in some ways, this isn't one of them. We all have sexual thoughts about strangers. Some of us express them, other's don't. That's really the only difference, and I don't think it's as clear cut across genders as might first be assumed.

Lighten up.

Oh I know...as has been mentioned already, there's nothing wrong with sexual thoughts, or even expression of these thoughts in the right way. I also know that both men and women do it. But the "Idhitthaterati" is a very specific group. That's what I'm talking about.

Will... when I say "there's a history" I don't mean to put too fine a point on "history." Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that we live in a culture in which men are not the dominant half of the population, at least (and this is a big "at least") when it comes to objectification of the opposite seks [sic]? How do the things we say reinforce or steer clear of said culture?

Martian speaks well on my behalf. Yes, men and women are different. Ours are on the outside, for example. Still, both men and women objectify others sexually at least to some degree.

Seriously, the TFP women will have to tell us what I thought I heard in passing regarding elephants that was sexual in nature.

Yes, I take issue with the expression because I think it is disrespectful and, in some instances, threatening to a woman. Certainly you can understand this on some level. Perhaps it's similar to how some men will get very upset when other men make comments about their wives, or their sisters or their mothers. It's a visceral reaction, not an assumed, snobby one.

Listen, I have dealt with this all my life. I've even heard grown men make comments about my own daughters when they were as young as junior high. Now they are grown and they deal with it. I have an eight-year-old daughter and no doubt in 4-5 years I will start to hear comments made about her. But none of us are about to throw ourselves down on the pavement and pitch a fit about it. The question was asked and I expressed myself honestly. As far as I'm concerned I've said my piece and someone doesn't like it, then, pfft. So what. :)

****************************************
I was about to post this when I saw Martian's response so I went back and responded, but I want to say it and it's a pretty fitting end to a conversation that I consider over. For my part.

Aberkok and roachboy, thank you.

Willful ignorance of history and its ongoing effects on the present seem to be very popular these days. The more I argue on this board, the more I realize that my arguments 99% of the time, revolve around respect, due propriety, compassion and an understanding of disadvantaged or vulnerable viewpoints. These things form the core of my ethics and inform almost all of my opinions. Therefore when I hear, you know, things out of the mouths of people that are lacking in these principals, I get very upset, because I know in my heart it's not right.

But anyway, blah, blah, blah, I'm going to bed now. Night.

"Willful ignorance of history" is a pretty strong accusation. Am I correct in thinking that what you're stating is that willravel, myself and others are intentionally ignoring historical repression of women in order to attempt to defend our fellow men?

I believe that history serves a very useful purpose. At the same time, I don't think it does any good to continually hold onto the past. There comes a point where you have to draw a line between 'learning from history' and 'holding a grudge.'

Now, I'm not saying sexism doesn't happen; I'm certainly not so naive as all that. By the same token, I believe in leading by example. I believe in equality and for that reason I endeavour in all things to treat women as equals. While this means that I find acts of outright chauvinism to be morally reprehensible, it also brings me into conflict with the feminist crowd on occasion, as I don't believe in holding the past against the present. Feminism creates a barrier and barriers are counter-productive to a goal of actual equality. Or that's how I see it, anyway.

I don't make excuses, not for myself nor for any idiots you may encounter. aberkok mentions 'Idhitthaterati,' which is an interesting concept but not one I can condone. Behaviour engaged with the sole intent of making a woman uncomfortable is inexcusable (as would be the reverse), but this is not the same thing as an off-hand remark. This is why I am continually stressing proper social context. Saying something like that on the street probably isn't appropriate, whereas in a bar or other social setting it may be okay.

Again, if you're looking for an explanation for such a group, I suspect you're looking in the wrong place. As none of the men here seem to belong to it, we can't really tell you why these guys do what they do.

I don't think the analogy of family members really holds up, because it's a different situation. My intuition on the matter is that men aren't comfortable having members of our immediate family objectified in that way because we're not comfortable with thinking of our family members in a sexual context; or, in the case of a wife or significant other, we're not comfortable in many cases with other men thinking of them that way. If a guy makes a comment about my sister being hot, it forces me into a situation where I have to think of my sister in a sexual way, which needless to say is something that I'm not the slightest bit comfortable with. If someone makes a comment about my wife or girlfriend, I'm forced to acknowledge that other men think of her that way. While personally I'm not sure I'd have a huge issue with that, for many men it crosses the boundary by forcing them to acknowledge that other men think of their wives in a sexual context and that they thus have competition. Neither of these are comfortable situations, which is why they're taboo. I don't think they have anything to do with a woman's reaction.

I noticed but I didn't want to look like a grammar Nazi so I bit my tongue :p.

Interestingly this thread, at times, sounds a lot like the recent thread that talk about racism.

One more time, since it seems like a few of you missed it in my post #43.

I don't care about objectification--IN THE MIND. I don't care about people having sexual THOUGHTS about others. Got it?

I care about when it gets expressed among a group of people as a form of "bonding," because I'd like to believe that men (and women, if such behavior goes on among their groups as well) are better than that. However, I can tell you that I have been standing in front of several large groups of one gender or the other recently--and you'd better believe it's not the women chattering about how they want to "hit" the male members of our research team. Never. But the revolting tone of the comments made by the groups of construction workers, right in front of me--about me and other female members of our research team--it made me fucking sick.

Yes, I am a social scientist, and I recognize the behavioral patterns and causes if I step back and look at them from the outside, simply observing and writing down the patterns of this group of people. I would recognize the same patterns if I had to step back and study a remote culture, for example one that practices female circumcision or sex-selective abortion. I would understand how and why such practices persist in their own context.

BUT, just because I understand how behavior works, does not mean I have to condone that behavior. I know WHY my high school male students used the word "gay" every other word--that did not stop me from nailing them every single time the word was used in my classroom, to the point of issuing detentions if they failed to pay attention to the rules of respectful language in my classroom.

I will not tolerate disrespectful language, and I will not apologize for having standards of how people around me should conduct themselves in terms of being respectful.

How many gray hairs does JinnKai have, anyway?

Does that stick happen to have a chicken puppet on the end of it?

...

Thread: Just another case of women being unable to accept any form of compliment as positive.

Puppies and sunshine? Too pussy.
Rough 'n tough? Too abusive.
Dr. Phil speak? Too patronizing.
From the heart? Too realistic.

There is no happy medium because... well... uhm... t...
*Crompsin randomly interjects Pig's earlier reference of jackin' his manbat to Auld Lange Syne's "Happy New Year"*

Reminds me of a line from that lunch we had recently...

I'm not holding onto the past. You're taking my remark into an unintended context. I was responding to aberkok's conversation with will about gender inequality. I am not saying that my argument is resting on the historical oppression of women, but to say that it has no impact on this issue is, in my opinion, willful ignorance.

Charlatan is right, this conversation is very much like the dialogue about race.

I did not say that the reactions are the same, I said they were similar in that they are visceral reactions as in immediate, negative, emotional reactions. And I take it that forcing YOU into a situation where you are forced to think about your sister having sex is wrong? But my argument has no merit? Interesting.

I'm with abaya in that this is all about respect. You can talk 'til your blue in the face about respecting a woman's equality, but as long as you're okay with every woman around you being available for 'male bonding exercises' and 'childish fun' (as long as they aren't your sister, of course) then it's all just blah, blah, blah.

Do girls never talk amongst themselves about which guys they would want to be with in a theoretical hypothetical way?

Most likely some women do, yes... though I've never seen it happen in the direct vicinity (earshot) of the male in question, as happened to me with the large group of male construction workers talking about me and my colleagues in a professional setting. We were giving an introduction for a national survey of immigrants from the university; I dressed in conservative, figure-obscuring clothes (in anticipation of the construction crowd), and we were not encouraging these people in any way. They continued jeering and nudging each other with their elbows as we we were speaking. So no, in my experience I have never seen or heard a group of women behave this way in any kind of professional environment.

Also, I have never heard a group of women talk disrespectfully about an attractive male in my presence, but that may be because I try to not be around people who have a habit of speaking disrespectfully. So perhaps some women do talk about "hitting that" or wanting to fuck a random guy on a regular basis, but I find it distasteful and those are not people that I want to become friends with, nor do I encourage their behavior.

Case in point. I went to a play last week in Iceland where Gael Garcia Bernal (of Motorcycle Diaries and other Spanish-language movie fame) was playing a role where he dropped his pants and waved himself around, the full monty. My friend and I were sitting in the 4th row. We observed that he was attractive (once again, MM is right in that when a male is flashing his naked body in front of us, there is more chance of commenting on their attractiveness), but we did not whoop and shout and say, "I'd hit that, baby!!". We did not even say it to each other after the play. Or any other time. Yes, he was attractive. Did that mean we needed to talk about fucking him? No. I would not have spent time with a friend who wanted to talk in that manner.

Instead, we spent the next 3 hours "bonding" by talking in detail about a whole host of other things (relationship dynamics, TV shows, politics, languages, movies, more relationship analysis, living in other countries, jobs, music, frustrations with life in general, etc), none of which included which guys we had thought about fucking lately. Is that such a difficult standard to uphold? I am not saying that guys are supposed to talk about the same things that women do--hardly. But when the conversation drifts to which women you'd like to fuck--again, WHY encourage it? Why not hold yourselves to a higher standard, as I asked earlier (and which only Jinn replied to)?

but wait----it seems to me that the discussion is happening upside down: i didn't have the impression that the op was about the justification of one's inner fuckwit frat boy and whatever investments various boys operating with various conception of what being-a-boy means (many of which read to me like some strange parody), but rather about the expression "i'd hit that"--which is strange, if you just look at the words--you know--what they say---and then think from there about effects of this motor of banality and bonding that appears to be the or a shared inner fuckwit frat boy in erasing the strangeness from that strange little expression.

and so it seems to follow: the inner fuckwit frat boy only sees what it wants to see, being a fuckwit and having no choice, and the puppeteer of that inner fuckwit frat boy, having some affection for this presumably because it, like watching sports or reading field and stream or being interested in machinery, is a device that enables "men" to communicate with each other---all of which presupposes that you buy an entire mythology of what being-male as a gender role entails--some caveman thing, i don't get it.

the maybe interesting thing about the thread then is the extent to which it is an extended performance of the nature and effects of a particular conception of male-ness or masculinity (i suppose) as a gender construct.
or
what the "hale fellow well met" gender role requires or exacts as a price at the level of reflexivity.

either way, it is curious to read the thread as an extended theater of problems that arise from a particular conception of masculinity or "being a boy."

being-a-boy as central to the manly man:
it's kinda funny if you think about it.
but that may make it difficult to be a manly man: careful you don't emasculate yourself by actually thinking about what you write.

Well, to be honest, I don't really hang out with big groups of women in bars, but if I did and that was the way they were behaving, I'd feel they were being eh, what's the word again, stupid. :)

This is the last I've got to say on the matter, because going in circles makes me dizzy. It has occurred to me, however, that much of the seeming vitriol present here stems from what appears to be a disconnect in the argument itself. Nobody has and nobody will defend inappropriate behaviour. What follows, then, is quibbling over what precisely constitutes appropriate behaviour.

I didn't state or even intend to imply that you were 'holding onto the past.' This is, in fact, precisely why I'd asked you to clarify; I was unclear regarding your stance here.

Accepting the proper place of the past events is a tricky business at the best of times. I'm all for learning from past mistakes, but I'd rather avoid having to atone for the sins of my father. This was the general statement I was trying to make and was not intended as a specific attack against anyone.

I've clearly offended you and for that I apologize. On the other hand, it's simply not in my nature to hide myself or lie about who I am. I like looking at attractive women. Sometimes I have lascivious thoughts about them, and sometimes I choose to express that. The form it takes is dependent entirely on the company I find myself in.

Actually, this is precisely what I don't get.

As stated above I am a fairly simple man and believe in honesty in all things. It's a high standard that I set for myself and I do strive towards it at all times. I am fully capable of recognizing that there are certain thoughts that are appropriate to voice in certain contexts that may be inappropriate in others. This is basic etiquette, and is not a difficult concept.

On the other hand, I fail to recognize the difference between thinking something sexual and saying it. The words, after all, are merely an extension of the thought, which exists regardless of whether or not it's expressed. These thoughts are a part of human nature and need to be handled tactfully, but repressing them completely seems somehow dishonest to me.

I would not tell a woman who I'd just met that she had great tits. It may be true, but it's not appropriate. I may tell her that she looks lovely. At it's core, these are really the same thing, in that I am expressing an appreciation of physical beauty. How I choose to express it depends largely on my audience, and therefore the social situation I find myself in. The words themselves are more a product of environment than thought process, which remains largely the same regardless of who I'm speaking with. I would go so far as to contend that any man who makes such lewd comments to a woman is suffering from nothing more than a failure to understand proper social boundaries, which judging by your above statements would seem to be something we agree on (though I'm loathe to assume it and will of course be open to any contradiction on the matter).

And really that's what I'm getting at here. The thoughts are normal and the words are just words. Some guys are ill-mannered and as a consequence choose the wrong ones, but they're not inherently harmful. The thought processes behind them may be, but of course it's ludicrous to think that we can paint half the Earth's population with the same brush.

And that really is all I have to say about that.

I read some of this but I stopped when it went into a grammar discussion.

I was trying to remember what we said way back in my day....and I cant for the life of me remember saying anything other than "I'd fuck him nine ways from Sunday" lol

I have no problem with I'd hit it......I dont say it....I still use the nine ways from sunday phrase. If someone were to say that about me now....I'd probably kiss their feet. I have no problem thinking or saying it about other men (or women for that matter) that I see randomly.

Maybe I dont see it as sexist because I do it myself, I can think of several people around here "I'd hit", and to answer the question that was asked earlier about allowing the phrase in the exhibition forum....if it were accompanied by some other compliment as well, I'd have no problem with people being allowed to use it. Using it alone does not do justice to the person that put the pictures up (IMO)

Yes. Bolding mine, for emphasis. People don't usually take kindly to having their worldview--their sense of "entitlement" to talk and behave in whatever manner they feel is justifiable--questioned.

I encountered this same knee-jerk reaction when dealing with both high school and college students, particularly when teaching anthropology and cultural relativism. "I reserve the right to be disrespectful and rude towards people from different backgrounds, even in my class papers that you're grading me on! Don't you dare take that right away from me, and don't punish me for it, either!" Yeah, right. Welcome to the real world.

#1 I am not vitriolic. I am expressing myself plainly and honestly.
#2 You have not offended me.

Well you responded to the part of my post that was actually directed toward someone else and then made a statement about 'not holding a grudge.' Which prompted me to clarify what I meant because I am not holding a grudge.

No need to apologize for anything. Really. I don't know what I said that gave you the impression I am being vitriolic.

And this is fine. I've stated before, it is not the 'casual user' that I have a problem with, lol. It's the guys you are modeling in a humorous way that I am talking about. BUT, that said, I think there is an underlying dynamic of exploitation going on that you guys don't want to admit is there unless it is someone talking about a woman you care about. Then that is TABOO. And the taboo, the boundaries, are created by you (the guys) for your own purposes. The actual women walking around out there only serve as material for you. (Within the context of these 'male bonding' scenarios that we are talking about. Not as a general outlook on women.) At least admit that, and we can dispense with the 'you should be flattered' nonsense, lol.


Honesty is important, but just as important is dealing with the consequences of the words that come out of your mouth.

And I disagree that the words are inherently harmless. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. Yes, it is ludicrous to paint half the population with the same brush, as you say. Context and intent are not the same from man to man.

I think we've moved into the area of "intent." What is the intent behind the phrase ...

If my wife walks out of the shower and makes some overtly sexual movement toward me and I say, "I'd hit that." She would be happy to hear it.

If I'm walking down the street with a group of guys and a random woman walks past me and I say, "I'd hit that." She would have EVERY right to be offended and I'd have every expectation of receiving her ire.

If I'm among a group of friends of mixed gender and the phrase is used with regard to one of the men or women in the group the results could be somewhere in between the two scenarios above.

It's intention that causes the problem. And it's the misreading of social cues that lead to problems.

In most societies there are certain "rules" that are followed. When the rules are broken the results can be funny ... but oftentimes at the expense of someone's dignity. I have a serious problem with that. I've been known to indulge in a little schadenfreude sometimes ... it's human nature. But somewhere along the line we went from happy little accidents to outright meanness. I don't care for it anymore at all.

But here's the real deal ... words have absolutely no power. We choose to give them power. The phrase, "I'd hit that," actually ANY PHRASE or WORD means absolutely nothing out of context.

So arguing about these kinds of things is sort of pointless unless you define the context. Is it scenario A or scenario B ... or something else altogether?

it is a little strange to read an argument on the order of "words have no power" on a messageboard.
just saying.

and i dont think the argument works if you push at it seriously. chaos ensues. maybe it will here too, who knows?

this even though i understand the point you are trying to make.

but there is a context which seems operative in this thread:
it is what is being defended
a specific mythological construction of the manly man.
and what is being performed is the collective inability to relativize that construct.