I miss the old thread of the same name, so I have decided to take it upon myself to start a new one. :P
A few days ago my mother and I were fighting. :P
I: *brings her a roasted marshmellow*
She: Thank you. :) Peace offering?
I: Carcinogenic. ::)
I say stupid things all the time. My family loves to make fun of me for it. But it's all in good cheer. If I think of anything, I'll post it.
Quote from: Deloria on July 16, 2010, 12:36:16 PM
I miss the old thread of the same name, so I have decided to take it upon myself to start a new one. :P
A few days ago my mother and I were fighting. :P
I: *brings her a roasted marshmellow*
She: Thank you. :) Peace offering?
I: Carcinogenic. ::)
Carcinogen. The noun form is carcinogen. :P
Thank you. :)
This could only go here...
*2 students waiting for their water to boil*
#1-student:"Is there a purifier under there..."
#2-student:*checks* "yeah... that means it's not gonna bubble"
*water begins to boil*
#2-student:"Ah there it goes: it's just dissolved oxygen inside of it"
......................... because that is how boiling works... it has nothing to do with convection or steam; obviously we've just dissolved oxygen in the water........ for centuries... more mysteries solved by second year physics students.
Wow. :o
These are second-year physics students? Oh that is not ok...
Quote from: Delling on November 11, 2010, 08:08:54 AM
This could only go here...
*2 students waiting for their water to boil*
#1-student:"Is there a purifier under there..."
#2-student:*checks* "yeah... that means it's not gonna bubble"
*water begins to boil*
#2-student:"Ah there it goes: it's just dissolved oxygen inside of it"
......................... because that is how boiling works... it has nothing to do with convection or steam; obviously we've just dissolved oxygen in the water........ for centuries... more mysteries solved by second year physics students.
Brandon, these are not second year physics students; these are
initiates!
Quote from: Deloria on November 11, 2010, 01:14:51 PM
Brandon, these are not second year physics students; these are initiates!
lol ;D
Quote from: wilco64256 on November 11, 2010, 12:03:38 PM
These are second-year physics students? Oh that is not ok...
No. No, it isn't. My roommate pointed out that they could be undenominated sciences... that does not make it okay.
The people who wrote my TI manual are idiots. :P They had this in it: "Horsepower in KWH".
Quote from: Deloria on November 15, 2010, 01:52:24 AM
The people who wrote my TI manual are idiots. :P They had this in it: "Horsepower in KWH".
XD Oh dear. I despair for all textbooks.
(http://www.snapdrive.net/files/391413/DespairTextbook.jpg)
Quote
FF writer, here's my response to your question about the following sentences:
"The cat had obviously been lying in the mud."
This is incorrect, as "had" is the past tense of the verb "have", which requires "lay" in this context. The two words -- "had...lying" function as a part of a split verb phrase. The "-ing" suffix merely puts the verb in a progressive or continuous form, so if you are implying that this was happening in the past, then you should write "had been laying", but without context, whether the action is still continuing (which would require present tense) can be unclear to the reader. Appropriate context could be "Sarah looked at the muddy footprints and thought with a sigh, '...'."
If you want to clearly show that the action has stopped, then you would write, "had lain".
"She was just lying around."
Technically, this is incorrect as "was" is the past form of "is", and so "laying" is appropriate. See the above note on the past progressive tense. However, given that the above is probably a sentence one would write in an informal context -- e.g., in a personal e-mail or perhaps in casual speech -- and the fact that "lying around" could be seen as an idiom and not part of a verb phrase (i.e., "is/was lying/laying around") I would suggest that it's OK in informal writing, and that includes dialogue. In formal writing, however, I would avoid it -- just to avoid the chance of offending someone who knows a lot about grammar.
(And to fellow grammar snobs, I will say that although I did just start this sentence with a coordinating conjunction, which makes me cringe in most contexts, it is important to remember that different scenarios have different expectations for adherence to formal grammatical rules. In my opinion, mastering all types of communication is the key to personal and professional success.)
:shock: :wall: :'( :smack: :stabs:
If anyone sympathizes with dear Tom above, answer me this: do you regularly hear things like "was sanking" or "was ranning" or "was thoughting"? No, and do you know why? BECAUSE IT'S WRONG! ::) (It resides in a realm of things which are so utterly and blatantly wrong that they really require no further exploration... though I can offer same if you so desire.)
As for the red text: THAT'S NOT HOW USAGE WORKS!! If it's illiterate in one register... IT'S STILL JUST AS ILLITERATE IN A DIFFERENT REGISTER! >:(
I don't think he gets to give an opinion to grammar snobs as if he were one. ::)
Wow... that's a very long and pseudo-intellectual explanation for someone who clearly doesn't have a clue. :P
The complete idiot's guide to grammar and style (http://books.google.com/books?id=8dbDjgc7voIC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=lay+lie+idiot&source=bl&ots=bJ26tgnvCg&sig=1-sqLuwS0qH6Gx2lqmjYGoX42UA&hl=en&ei=-1DeTsWhA-nl0QH96M2oBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false)
I like the Idiot's Guides. I got one for Understanding Cathlocism as research on the college I went to.
Brandon-chan, where did you find that gem? :P
A friend posted a link on facebook (in outrage at the common ignorance of the proper use of "lie" and "lay"); the article was actually RIGHT and perfectly fine.
Someone (FF writer) had posted for help in the comments saying that grammar check told her "The cat had obviously been lying in the mud" and "She was just lying around" were fine (score one for grammar check, because they are), but her boyfriend APPARENTLY AN ENGLISH TUTOR told her that they were wrong... swing in Tom to the rescue with... that. *points in a manner which he hopes will not be taken as "derisively with horror" but realizes that there really is no hope of that*
In Calculus Summer Camp Saturday School (for those of us hooligans who didn't finish their homework), we found out my roommate was extremely ticklish, so we cornered her as she defended herself with a chair.
Her: I will beat you all if you come near me!
Me: You can't hurt me! I protect you at night!
Here's one I read here, in the forums, a while back:
"... quote on quote..." (succeeded by said phrase, with quotation marks!)
What? ???
When do you EVER write "quote unquote"? Let alone "quote on quote"? ::)
*does forum search* Hrmm... it's been done at least twice, each time by a different person... interesting and weird. It's probably in emulation of what they HEAR: they listen to someone who regularly says "quote unquote" as a verbal tick but they hear "quote on quote" and then begin interjecting that into their own writing. :-\ ::)
Like when people write "could of" when they mean "could've"
Indeed.
In fact, this whole "what you've heard is not what you mean" thing is also why people can't get homophones right (they're/their/there;it's/its;to/too;etc.). :P
Homophones (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0J-T2lr0Ms)
Quote from: snabbott on December 07, 2011, 08:18:07 AM
Homophones (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0J-T2lr0Ms)
I was seriously hoping that was going to be a funny link about homophones. Instead you gave us singing veggies?! You're fired!
In related news:
(http://kita.com.ua/uploads/tiny_mce/loadimg/th_c570d89f19c9c175628c537ef2a89ac1.jpg?hash=120)
Sorry this is going back a bit, but I thought I should comment:
QuoteQuoteI would suggest that it's OK in informal writing, and that includes dialogue.
As for the red text: THAT'S NOT HOW USAGE WORKS!! If it's illiterate in one register... IT'S STILL JUST AS ILLITERATE IN A DIFFERENT REGISTER!
I agree with all of Brandon's post except for this - sort of. I agree that if something is grammatically incorrect in one register, it's grammatically incorrect in all registers. Ideally, one should try to be as grammatically correct when speaking to friends as one is when writing a job application. (That's not to say you'd use the same vocabulary, though.) After all, grammar is for making oneself understood, which applies informally.
BUT, the same is not true of writing dialogue. While I wish every English speaker had perfect grammar, it's simply not going to happen, and if all your characters speak with perfect grammar then (unless they all go to an English public school or something) it's not going to be true to the characters. If a poorly educated character with no interest in literature says "If I were you" instead of "If I was you" then it will be out of character, even if the phrase is grammatically correct. Likewise with "My friend and I/me went...", "I'm better than he/him" and "It's he/him". Although the former option is the grammatically correct one, almost nobody knows this, and it would be really weird for everyone in a film, book or videogame to speak in a grammatically correct way. While it would make the grammar more palateable and soothe all our inner grammar nazis, it would almost certainly compromise the integrity of the characters.
Two things I will NOT put up with, though, are poor grammar from a narrator or another intelligent character, and poor grammar or spelling in subtitles. Both point to a lack of grammatical knowledge among the writers themselves, which is just unacceptable.
"Park your car in the lumber yard."
I've been told that is the best way to check, if someone has a Dorchester accent. That's some wicked **** right there.
Quote from: darthkiwi on December 23, 2011, 09:18:57 AM
Sorry this is going back a bit, but I thought I should comment:
QuoteQuoteI would suggest that it's OK in informal writing, and that includes dialogue.
As for the red text: THAT'S NOT HOW USAGE WORKS!! If it's illiterate in one register... IT'S STILL JUST AS ILLITERATE IN A DIFFERENT REGISTER!
I agree with all of Brandon's post except for this - sort of. I agree that if something is grammatically incorrect in one register, it's grammatically incorrect in all registers. Ideally, one should try to be as grammatically correct when speaking to friends as one is when writing a job application. (That's not to say you'd use the same vocabulary, though.) After all, grammar is for making oneself understood, which applies informally.
I could have been clearer. :P I was referring specifically to the implication that a grammatical error is somehow "okay" or less erroneous because writing is informal.
It IS of course permissible for writers to write their characters so that the dialogue reflects the usage common to that character's idiolect. This is less a comment on grammar than it is on style.
"Could care less" is a big pet peeve of mine.
People using "literally" in a figurative way.
Quote from: drusain on February 14, 2012, 09:04:47 PM
"Could care less" is a big pet peeve of mine.
People using "literally" in a figurative way.
Unfortunately, there are common phrases that are commonly misquoted, and some that are badly phrased, such as "All that glitters isn't gold." So, it sounds like you're saying "Gold doesn't glitter." Umm... Ok.
But, then again, we live in a world where it's common to floss the food out from between one's teeth immediately AFTER brushing. Sure, sweep the corners after mopping the floor... Why not? ::)
That one's just misquoted. :P "Not all that glitters is gold"
Quote from: Deloria on February 15, 2012, 03:20:23 AM
That one's just misquoted. :P "Not all that glitters is gold"
Not necessarily:
All that glitters is not gold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_that_glitters_is_not_gold)
Also:
All that is gold does not glitter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_that_is_gold_does_not_glitter)
Notice: Febuary (pronounced "Feb-yoo-ay-ry") and Nucular (pronounced "Noo-kyu-lahr") are NOT words!
People who speak those words sound illiterate. February and Nuclear, however, ARE words. That is all.
How do you say February then? I pronounce it Feb-you-air-ee. Sometimes it throws me off though when I'm trying to spell it out. Have to remember the extra R :P
(Your Blanka avatar totally wins, by the way. Big Street Fighter fan)
Quote from: writerlove on February 18, 2012, 03:06:11 PM
How do you say February then? I pronounce it Feb-you-air-ee. Sometimes it throws me off though when I'm trying to spell it out. Have to remember the extra R :P
(Your Blanka avatar totally wins, by the way. Big Street Fighter fan)
I actually say the full word: "Feb-roo-air-ee"
I liked the Blanka-chu image, but it wasn't rightly sized for an avatar. Therefore, I resized this one. Thanks. :)
(http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs31/i/2008/236/e/c/BLANKA_CHUUUUUUUUUUUUU_by_williamshade.jpg)
Blankachu!
Hm. I have tons of speech impediments. I only eat p-sgetthi and my house is powered by "Nucular" energy, so what?
My parents both have strong Southern accents, my mom's is out of this world. My mother can't pronounce "-TH" words so heaven only knows why she decided to name me, "Timothy." Not a big deal but lucky for me, she raised me and 25 years later and I am still the only person I know who can't pronounce their own name (you see, my mother taught me how to speak so I picked up all my mother's speech impediments,) but I wouldn't have it any other way, so please, feel free to call me "timofy":-D
Women in particular seem to pick up on my speech impediments.
Quote from: ladidada on February 21, 2012, 11:57:50 AM
Hm. I have tons of speech impediments. I only eat p-sgetthi and my house is powered by "Nucular" energy, so what?
My parents both have strong Southern accents, my mom's is out of this world. My mother can't pronounce "-TH" words so heaven only knows why she decided to name me, "Timothy." Not a big deal but lucky for me, she raised me and 25 years later and I am still the only person I know who can't pronounce their own name (you see, my mother taught me how to speak so I picked up all my mother's speech impediments,) but I wouldn't have it any other way, so please, feel free to call me "timofy":-D
Women in particular seem to pick up on my speech impediments.
Some people learn Sign Language just to be able to communicate clearly. I have friends whose speech impediments have forced them into signing.
Legitimate speech impediments and accents don't bother me; intentional ignorance, however, bugs me to no end.
And, regarding those who can't pronounce their own name: Try asking an American girl named "Déjà" to pronounce her own name properly... not happening. ::) The same applies to her parents. Most Americans dumb enough to name their child that will ALWAYS call her some form of "Dedja", nothing like "D'Asia" (which is closer to the original French pronunciation).
At the barbershop today
Old Cuban # 1 "Y-Y-Yo, You got to try my been can chicken!"
Old Cuban # 2 "Beer can? How ya make it?"
Old Cuban # 1 "Whaddya mean how ya make it? Take a chicken, shove a beer can up it, throw it on the grill"
...heh
Sometimes the little kids I teach scare me with their thought processes. For context, this has been "Native American Month" for them and I overheard a conversation from them:
Kid 1: "I'm an Indian!"
Kid 2: "I'm not an Indian. I'm a human."
Oh wow.
I have a speech impediment too. :( I'm told it's because I grew up bilingually and to this day can't differentiate between the German "sch" and the English "sh" which are apparently slightly different. :( It's more noticeable in English, which is why I generally don't post any voice clips online. :P
Quote from: Deloria on February 22, 2012, 10:28:38 PM
I have a speech impediment too. :( I'm told it's because I grew up bilingually and to this day can't differentiate between the German "sch" and the English "sh" which are apparently slightly different. :( It's more noticeable in English, which is why I generally don't post any voice clips online. :P
"sch" and English "sh" ARE equivalent! Perhaps you mean the way the Swiss pronounce their ich-lauts? It is really, really close to "sh"... despite the two being different sounds. ???
No, there actually is a difference, however subtle it might be. :S It's why Russian can have five of them. :P
ʃ,ʂ,ç,ɕ, and technically s, though I doubt you consider it amongst your inventory of Russian "sh" sounds. (all 5 of those are in Russian) :P BUT! "sch" and "sh" are both ʃ usually. HOWEVER, it's possible that this is different in Swiss German (unfortunately, the wiki article is less than helpful on this point. ::) )
To put it another way, rather than simply trying to be "right" at you or to be arguing for the sake of arguing, what I'm really trying to say is: You don't have a speech impediment. :P :yes:
Quote from: Deloria on February 22, 2012, 10:28:38 PM
It's more noticeable in English, which is why I generally don't post any voice clips online. :P
Awwww... :( I wanted to hear your accent. :-\
Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee tooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! :yes:
Conversation with coworker while we ignored our boss giving out the daily briefing.
Coworker, "I didn't have cheese or peanut butter, do you think a stick of butter would work on a mouse trap?"
ladidada, "A whole stick?"
Cowoker, "What!? No, I mean a piece of butter! Like a-a splatch"
ladidada, "I was going to say, what kind of mice do you have that require an entire piece of butter"
Coworker, "Yeah, yeah but no, you think that would work?"
Ladidada, "Nah, only if you put peanuts on top of the butter."
Coworker, "I didn't think of that!"
:rofl:
Me (at 7:15 this morning): I'm not playing this game where I take oxy in retarded form and then still get to be in agony for the next three hours anymore.
My mother: Ok.
Me: So instead we're going to dissolve it in grapefruit juice, tonic water, vodka and warm water! :D
Quoted because it is, in fact, extremely stupid/irresponsible and also incredibly effective. :P And also because I proved that it is never too early for cocktails.
Quote from: Deloria on March 15, 2012, 09:20:30 AM
... I proved that it is never too early for cocktails.
:rofl: XD :hug:
I think that belongs in your sig. :yes: XD
:hug: :hug: :hug:
<3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3!
"Peruse" used as its own personal antonym (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=MO85j9jmj-g#t=920s). "Per-" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/per-) means "throughly"; "Peruse" means to Read (originally, to Use) thoroughly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peruse?s=t).
And, for fun:
Leech (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/leech?s=t) vs Leach (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/leach?s=t)
(Not exactly antonyms, but nearly in the end results.) (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-01-29-plastic-chemical_N.htm)
Quote from: DawsonJ on March 17, 2012, 12:31:20 AM
And, for fun:
Leech (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/leech?s=t) vs Leach (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/leach?s=t)
(Not exactly antonyms, but nearly in the end results.) (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-01-29-plastic-chemical_N.htm)
They seem closer to synonyms to me - leeches leach blood from you. :P
Friend 1: Why aren't you helping carrying this?
Me: I'm supervising! I need to learn to be a manager someday!
Friend 2: Getting a whip, 'cause that'd be awesome.
My Sweetie: Sorry, but I don't think anyone will take you seriously with your size even with a whip.
Me: Yeah, I'd probably need a fat suit and stilts.
Leeches do not "leach", they "leech". From the OED:
Quote
3. fig. To drain (someone or something) of energy, money, etc.; to drain (something) away or from something.There appears to be some confusion with leach v.2 4.
a1961 in Webster's 3rd New Internat. Dict. Eng. Lang. (at cited word), Bankers who had always leeched them white.
[1964 Listener 13 Aug. 225/2 It [sc. a modern office block] has neither virtues nor vices; it just sits there like a graceless woman, leeching away a bit more of the city's vitality.]
1974 Times Lit. Suppl. 1 Mar. 211/4 The invading Englishman‥leeching the land with his reservoirs and his crass afforestations.
1981 R. Davies Rebel Angels iii. 98 'What's he been up to?' 'Leeching and bumming and sornering.'
1988 Times 17 Feb. 12/1, I see no reason why the London cabbie should not‥leech his heritage‥for mutual gain.
1990 Times 5 Apr. 1/3 The brain-drain‥leeched 45,000 people from the territory.
So I guess the verb "to leech" is derived from the noun.
"Leach" as a verb seems to only apply to the percolation of a liquid. "Percolation" means passing a liquid through a porous material. So that has nothing at all to do with leeches.
Plastic bottle chemicals leach (release) into water at high heat. Ticks leech (absorb) blood from animals.
They seem like antonyms to me. ???
On a totally separate subject:
People like to use informal definitions, with the following excuse.
"It's in the dictionary, so it must be right." (http://englishplus.com/news/news1100.htm)
Quote from: darthkiwi on March 17, 2012, 11:37:07 AM
Leeches do not "leach", they "leech". From the OED:
...
So I guess the verb "to leech" is derived from the noun.
"Leach" as a verb seems to only apply to the percolation of a liquid. "Percolation" means passing a liquid through a porous material. So that has nothing at all to do with leeches.
I was attempting to make a joke. :P
Also, I was using the transitive form of leach. I didn't know there was actually a verb form of leech.
Quote
...passing a liquid through a porous material. So that has nothing at all to do with leeches.
Well, blood is a liquid, and your skin (and veins) become "porous" through the action of leeches. :P (Again, joking.)
Sorry, it's just I've seen so many people write "leach" when they mean "leech". XD I thought you were being serious. XD
Verbs are either transitive, intransitive or reflexive. :P I don't know what you mean by distinguishing between "verb form" and "transitive form". :P
Scene: Today's dinner
MY DAD: Why aren't you having any carrots?
ME: 'Cause raw carrots make my throat swell up and I can't breath.
MY DAD: What? How were we supposed to know that?
ME: I told you guys last week.
MY DAD: Well, you can't expect us to remember everything.
ME: And last christmas, month before that and last summer.
Fun times with the family.
Quote from: Deloria on March 18, 2012, 10:37:06 AM
Verbs are either transitive, intransitive or reflexive. :P I don't know what you mean by distinguishing between "verb form" and "transitive form". :P
I think by "verb form" he just meant that it had a dictionary entry that is a verb. :yes:
By "transitive form", he means the transitive definition as opposed to the intransitive (so pretty much exactly what we expect unless we expect a morphological difference). :yes:
"Ode to a Spell-Checker"
"Eye halve a spelling checker
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marks four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.
Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.
As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.
Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My checker tolled me sew."
-Author unknown
:rofl:
Quote from: Deloria on March 18, 2012, 10:37:06 AM
Verbs are either transitive, intransitive or reflexive. :P I don't know what you mean by distinguishing between "verb form" and "transitive form". :P
Quote from: Delling on March 18, 2012, 07:59:05 PM
Quote from: Deloria on March 18, 2012, 10:37:06 AM
Verbs are either transitive, intransitive or reflexive. :P I don't know what you mean by distinguishing between "verb form" and "transitive form". :P
I think by "verb form" he just meant that it had a dictionary entry that is a verb. :yes:
By "transitive form", he means the transitive definition as opposed to the intransitive (so pretty much exactly what we expect unless we expect a morphological difference). :yes:
Yes, I was distinguishing between verbs and nouns. I
do know a thing or two about grammar (though nowhere near as much as either of you).
The way I wrote it was a bit confusing. These two statements are unrelated:
Quote from: snabbott on March 17, 2012, 03:35:49 PM
Also, I was using the transitive form of leach. I didn't know there was actually a verb form of leech.
Coworker at lunch, "You know, heart of palm always reminds me of that scene in Indiana Jones where the priest rips out that guys beating heart. The guy who named it must have been pretty bad-arse!"
Me, "Hm. You should turn off your TV every once and a while and pay more attention to the outside world, like the palm tree we're under."
3 1/2 HOURS LATER...
Coworker, "Ohhh! Heart of palm is the heart of a palm tree, ohh! Yeah, I was going to say, what does it have to do with the palm of a hand"
Quote from: ladidada on March 23, 2012, 11:27:00 PM
Coworker at lunch, "You know, heart of palm always reminds me of that scene in Indiana Jones where the priest rips out that guys beating heart. The guy who named it must have been pretty bad-arse!"
Me, "Hm. You should turn off your TV every once and a while and pay more attention to the outside world, like the palm tree we're under."
3 1/2 HOURS LATER...
Coworker, "Ohhh! Heart of palm is the heart of a palm tree, ohh! Yeah, I was going to say, what does it have to do with the palm of a hand"
That reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Otto (the school bus driver) asked, "Why do they call them fingers? I've never seen 'em fing."
:rofl:
Friend told me this story:
Friend, "So I went to pay for the subway, the lady at the register asked
Subway Employee 'foot long or 6"?"
Friend, "Look at it, you tell me"
Subway Employee, "Uhh 6 inches?"
Friends, Nope, you get one more guess"
The future generation looks even more pathetic than ours :-\
Every generation says this about the next generation. :P ::)
Lady walking her dog on the phone
"I don't even know why I bother to chew corn anymore"
Quote from: ladidada on March 25, 2012, 06:11:24 PM
Friend told me this story:
Friend, "So I went to pay for the subway, the lady at the register asked
Subway Employee 'foot long or 6"?"
Friend, "Look at it, you tell me"
Subway Employee, "Uhh 6 inches?"
Friends, Nope, you get one more guess"
The future generation looks even more pathetic than ours :-\
Maybe she only knows metric? :-\
Could I get a 30.48 cm sub on Italian bread? :P
Ha ha haa! :rofl:
I took a break from reading yesterday while drinking my ICED black tea and became consumed with this scene nearby.
SO
These two mothers bump into each other (literally), Gasping shock at first followed by ecstatic joy, hugging. I guess they're best friends. Anyway they both had little toddlers and I lost track about what the parents were saying but started paying attention to the kids and started marking every time they had to repeat themselves as their mothers ignored them to catch up.
Little boy, "Mommy. Mommy. Mommy. Mommy. I need to pee. Mommy. Mommy. Mommy. Mommy. I Need--mommy. Mommy. Mommy. Mommy."
Boy's mother, "Okay in a minute" (back to ignoring)
Little Girl, "Look at this, mom. Look at what I found. Mom! mom. Mom (X8 more times). (She found a nickle btw and she got 2 quest points for it!)
it reminded me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNkp4QF3we8
Quote
me: Please, please be there. XD
I kind of desperately need your help.
19:51 Now, this isn't a joke
So please, no matter how many jokes we've actually made on this subject, please take it seriously. XD
I can't turn Caps Lock off in Word. :P
19:52 I know I've not been around in days, but I have a really, really good explanation. :P
Basically, my mother decided keeping me perpetually drugged on narcotics and sleeping pills was a good idea
And then I started panicking when I came out of the daze because I HAD TO WRITE!
And then I wrote 14 pages. :P
over the past three days. :P
19:53 But hey, at least you weren't there for the "The furniture seems so friendly and my skin feels weird :D" part. :P
WHAT AM I GOING TO DO?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CAPS LOCK ISN'T MEANT TO BREAK. XP
19:54 I NEED TO WRITE!
WRITE!
You're going to think this so hilarious when you get back. :P
I know you. XD
19:58 You'll be pleased to know that I figured out how to save it after ten minutes of panicking. :P
Please let's never, ever speak of this again. XD
I'm glad to have provided you with comic relief. :yes:
XD
I've had worse - the Alt key got stuck (not the actual key - Windows was confused) on my work computer while I was working remotely. It's really hard to do anything with the computer in that state. :wall:
:hug: XD In fairness, it was HILARIOUS! Then, you were all like--"let's never speak of this again!" And then promptly posted it to the forum. XD
I have to be able to laugh at myself. :P
Quote from: snabbott on March 28, 2012, 11:37:28 AM
XD
I've had worse - the Alt key got stuck (not the actual key - Windows was confused) on my work computer while I was working remotely. It's really hard to do anything with the computer in that state. :wall:
Oh I bet. :( That sounds utterly infuriating.
The advantage of living in a place where English is the 3rd most spoken language at home,
Sign inside Target. Have a picture on my phone but too lazy to upload
"Weth pant, no tocuy"
I'm sure you can translate.
Wet paint, don't touch? ???
iPinta mojada, no toquen! (Correct? Been seven years since I took a Spanish class! :P)
"behind every great woman is a man...staring at her behind".
might have been a little more filthier the first time I heard it
I think I've shared this before -- it's from years ago.
I was meeting a friend in our campus diner (back when I was still in college) and when we sat down together this happened:
FRIEND: "I didn't know this came with cheese."
ME: "What is it?"
FRIEND: "Chicken cheese steak."
There's a looooong pause.
FRIEND: "Oh."
Deloria, regarding the Falkland Crisis: "How do you go to war when you can't sustain the effort for more than 72 days!? It's the stupidest I've ever heard!"
I actually said that I didn't understand how a country could justify offering Britain a casus belli with a massive imperialistic gesture when they didn't have the resources or manpower to actually sustain a war for more than 72 days. XD
Moi, "You still have a thing for Kyra?"
Friend, "Cha, I don't Kyra about Kyra at all."
(Posted on: April 04, 2012, 02:10:38 PM)
Friends talking among each other
Friend 1, "It seems my new job involves checking in *real* guns. I have to open the boxes, pick them up, and look for the serial numbers."
Friend 2, "So what your saying is your fingerprints are on dozens of potential murder weapons"
"You're going to see Troy (http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0332452/)?"
"Yeah"
"Does it have a guy called Achilles in it?"
"Yeah, Brad Pitt plays him."
"He's the guy that dies with a spear to the heel, right?"
"Thanks for spoiling the movie!"
Between who and who did this conversation occur? I kind of feel sorry for both participants...
To be fair, it's one of very few things the movie was even semi-accurate about, making it kind of a spoiler. :P
Quote from: Haids1987 on May 19, 2012, 04:19:13 PM
Between who and who did this conversation occur? I kind of feel sorry for both participants...
Me and my friend. He was the one going to see the movie. I spoiled it to him by telling about a plot point from a 3000 year old story. And it was an arrow, my bad.
Maybe I should just out of being a dick, spoil to someone that the Odyssey doesn't have Geroge Clooney in it (http://www.amazon.com/The-Odyssey-HOMER/dp/0140291032/ref=sr_1_11?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1337555574&sr=1-11).
I found a thread on another board about a woman dressed like a stripper. Some guys cat called her and after she shook her body, they threw money at her. (The person who wrote about it was just witnessing). People like that give women a bad name. *sigh*
Quote from: writerlove on June 11, 2012, 12:54:29 PM
I found a thread on another board about a woman dressed like a stripper. Some guys cat called her and after she shook her body, they threw money at her. (The person who wrote about it was just witnessing). People like that give women a bad name. *sigh*
Or you could look at it from the perspective of.... this woman wore clothes she probably felt attractive and self confident in, and people threw money at her. Which she probably kept, and therefore she made money just for wearing clothes that made her feel good.
That's bad?
Oh dear. XD I was wondering when slutwalks would become a topic, but this is close enough. :P
I think people should be able to dress however they like and still be treated like anyone else. :P
The reason women are objectified is that men objectify them. I'm always frustrated when women who are raped are criticised for wearing revealing clothing: the reason that's often brought up against them is that they encouraged the rape.
But the reason women are raped is that *men do the raping*.
I know you were talking about a woman wearing overly revealing clothing, not being raped, but this is really all interlinked because gender issues and objectification are a really messy spectrum. But look, if this woman were living in a culture that didn't objectify women and sought to treat women as *people*, she wouldn't have the opportunity to have money thrown at her for wearing revealing clothing.
I just hate how women are objectified today. The post also said she had most of her butt showing. I didn't know if this kind of thing was allowed in discussion since try to be a family oriented board. Anyway, call me conservative but I think there's a time and place for certain types of clothing. Scantly clad clothing is not for a public shopping place. If she wants to wear that to the club, I'm not stopping them. I just think there's a line of decency for dressing. (peopleofwalmart is one of many examples how it's crossed :P)
Also, I'm not trying to imply revealing clothing leads to rape. NO ONE deserves sexual and/or physical abuse, regardless of circumstance. Sometimes unfortunately circumstances line up to a horrible event. Because we women are seen as objects, men think women can be played with and don't have standards. Newsflash: NO MEANS NO. My ex didn't get that message. He used to play with my bra under my shirt when I didn't want him to. Even when I told him no, he still did it. Another reason we didn't work. Anyhow, I don't know what can be done to correct this assertion. Women have been treated as second class citizens for years (and still are in some places).
Never give up. Never surrender. And never let the bastards think you'll be satisfied with anything less than equal treatment and rights. Speak out when you can against prejudices and cultural biases and beliefs that go against this, things that objectify or subjugate or victimize women. Stay aware of current issues that effect your rights.
How active you want to be in advocating women's rights is up to you, really. I'm not exactly a hugely active advocate myself, but I at least try to do things like petitions and emails and to political figures, awareness via online posting, and my general outlook and attitude. I also try not to jump in offense at absolutely anything--I know people whom I personally feel go too far in that direction as well.
Basically, my mom said once to a family friend when I was a kid, "Just because she's a girl doesn't mean she can't do everything you can." Damn right, mom. :)
I'm not totally sure how we got onto this level of sordidness, but since we're here...
Psychologists tend to believe that rape is NOT about sexual desire or objectification, it is about exerting power over another person. I'm sure that's not an 100% of the time thing, but it does mean that blaming society's objectification of women for it is as off target as blaming the victim. The only person at fault is the one who did it.
(Also, I'd like to point out that men can be raped, and are raped, by women and by other men. It is not a purely one-sided crime. It's less common, but it happens and the less it's talked about the less male victims feel they can report it so sweeping it aside is a bad thing always.)
Besides, having been a dancer in a few nightclubs I can tell you.... women do plenty of objectifying of men. Men do plenty of objectifying of men. You don't get as much of a sense for that in the mainstream media because, of course, straight men run everything and direct it at other straight men but that doesn't change the fact that it's there. Women are likely a lot more subtle -- I've rarely heard a girl cat call at a guy walking down the street, but it's like a daily thing to hear a girl lean over to her friend and say "Check out that piece of eye candy!" or something along those lines.
I'm not saying it's right, but I'm saying objectification of attractive people is simply a fact. And it's been a fact for a long time -- point out to me an ugly person in an ancient Greek statue. Seriously. People like pretty things -- and that includes people.
Quote from: crayauchtin on June 11, 2012, 10:41:39 PM
Besides, having been a dancer in a few nightclubs I can tell you.... women do plenty of objectifying of men. Men do plenty of objectifying of men. You don't get as much of a sense for that in the mainstream media because, of course, straight men run everything and direct it at other straight men but that doesn't change the fact that it's there. Women are likely a lot more subtle -- I've rarely heard a girl cat call at a guy walking down the street, but it's like a daily thing to hear a girl lean over to her friend and say "Check out that piece of eye candy!" or something along those lines.
So, I was walking home from TaeKwonDo one night last year and this trashily dressed girl was on the same side of the street as me trying to call her apparently drunk friends across. As I was passing by, she slapped my butt... temptation to sidekick her into the wall was rather high, but I just kept walking instead. ::) So, it totally happens and goes both ways.
Quote from: crayauchtin on June 11, 2012, 10:41:39 PM
I'm not saying it's right, but I'm saying objectification of attractive people is simply a fact. And it's been a fact for a long time -- point out to me an ugly person in an ancient Greek statue. Seriously. People like pretty things -- and that includes people.
Greeks were really the first humanists... polytheistic humanists, who knew... so they celebrated human beings on all levels. The way this comes through in their art is a near-obsession with a "perfect" physical form consequently that would the style of sculpture that would be continued by the Romans and later emulated by the Renaissance artists. It wasn't really about objectifying people so much as celebrating certain people's accomplishments, individuals, lovers, etc.
Anyway, Vulcan/Hephaestus was regarded as quite ugly:
(http://www.suburbanjournals.com/2010/Vulcan_Coustou_Louvre.jpg)
Do you see it? Yeah, me neither. Maybe the face a little... that nose isn't all that flattering but then neither is this angle. You couldn't expect the sculptors to change style on a dime... sculpting is hard. :yes:
Having this discussion in the "Stupid things you've said or heard" thread amuses me, but I think I'll throw in my two cents anyway.
I hate t-shirts. I never feel like I can breathe when I wear them, so I prefer to have something with an open neckline. This, combined with my, erm, sizable(?) bust really creates more skin than I'd like to show, but I'd rather be comfortable and able to breathe. There was a period of about 2 years where I only wore t-shirts because of some issues that had happened with a guy and there was one day where my roommate convinced me to dress up and go out for tea. I was wearing a dress. Not even a low-cut one, just a dress that didn't go all the way up to my neck, and a guy that ended up joining us at the cafe made a comment of "nice cleavage."
I pretty much went home and immediately changed. Later he tried to put his head on my shoulder (he kind of followed us the rest of the day) and I freaked the hell out and kind of had a mental breakdown that lasted a few days before I felt okay again. I didn't feel safe and I didn't feel comfortable and that wasn't fair.
I guess my point is that no, being attractive to guys is not really on my list of things I consider when I'm getting dressed. I'm worrying about my own comfort and maybe a desire to feel pretty (to myself), but wearing a low-cut shirt is not an invitation, and it was a huge deal when I felt comfortable enough to wear them again. I shouldn't have to change something as irrelevant as what I wear just to feel safe. Even if you're actively encouraging that kind of attention (which I don't, ever), that's not a reason to feel you're entitled to more.
And while we're on psychology, I think there are some gender stereotypes at work here. If men are supposed to have the power, then if they desire something and women say no (and they abide by that), the women are actually in control, and I think some men (who are deeply disturbed) can find that emasculating because, you know, men are in charge and get what they want. Obviously men do get raped and that's horrible and I think it gets overlooked because it's just too shocking an idea that men don't always want sex, but admitting to that is somehow emasculating as well.
Obviously you can't blame society for a person's actions (you are accountable for your own decisions), but I do think there's a sizable effect.
Ok, not sure how much I can say about all this...I totally agree that women are not objects, that rape is on the person who did it, not who it happened to, etc. Not to minimalize anything, but I'm on vacation and have limited time to respond, so I may not go as indepth as I would like.
One problem with society these days is that a lot of women want to walk around showing as much skin as possible. And then they wonder why men treat them like trash and don't respect them. I grew up with modesty drilled into me. No shorts that are too short, no shirts that show too much cleavage. Part of it is because the moment men see some skin, their thoughts go straight to sex. It's the way they're wired. To this day, if I am wearing something that's lower than I would like, I throw on an undershirt. It covers the cleavage, but doesn't mean you have to wear something that's up to your neck. Kels, I'm with you...I'm pretty well endowed.
Plus, it drives me crazy when women wear shirts that have them hanging out, and Daisy Dukes where they've had to squeeze themselves into it. I may go shopping with Erik, and the last thing I want is for his thoughts to go where they're not supposed to. Granted, I have an amazing husband and he tries to look elsewhere...or we've had times where he's turned to me to try to keep from looking at the people passing us. He's even told me that he hates it when women wear things that revealing because it does make it hard on any man...especially married ones!
Back to how I wear clothes really quickly before I have to go. I have this very cute Grecian type drape neck dress I wore a few days ago. Mom DaCosta absolutely loved it. I wore it to breakfast and was sitting next to Erik and his 18 year old brother. As I'm eating, I feel like I'm having to pull the shoulders back, as I felt like anyone could see down the shirt as I was eating. Quick fix: I ran upstairs after breakfast, threw on the undershirt, and came back downstairs. then I didn't have to worry about anyone looking at "the girls" throughout the day. I love to dress up and look pretty...but the only person I want looking at me in any type of sexual way is my husband.
Sorry if any of this feels disjointed...but just my thoughts. :)
Quote from: Rosella on June 12, 2012, 04:40:20 AM
Having this discussion in the "Stupid things you've said or heard" thread amuses me, but I think I'll throw in my two cents anyway.
Actually, given some of the common misconceptions and gender stereotypes being trotted out... it's pretty fitting. XD
Quote from: Rosella on June 12, 2012, 04:40:20 AM
There was a period of about 2 years where I only wore t-shirts because of some issues that had happened with a guy and there was one day where my roommate convinced me to dress up and go out for tea. I was wearing a dress. Not even a low-cut one, just a dress that didn't go all the way up to my neck, and a guy that ended up joining us at the cafe made a comment of "nice cleavage."
I pretty much went home and immediately changed. Later he tried to put his head on my shoulder (he kind of followed us the rest of the day) and I freaked the hell out and kind of had a mental breakdown that lasted a few days before I felt okay again. I didn't feel safe and I didn't feel comfortable and that wasn't fair.
See, sounds like those two deserved some side-kicks into or over nearest vertical objects. :P But... no, honestly, that's pervy and if someone was hanging around me making me uncomfortable, I would let them have it, first with words and then with everything at my disposal... but I generally imagine the "I'm going to give you a Reason You Suck speech, possibly in 7 languages, and then I'm not going to give you the silent treatment--because that actually disempowers me--oh, no--I'm going to give you the 'speaks only in languages you don't know' and/or 'never again acknowledge your existence' treatment" will generally get people to leave or behave... and if not, I have Capoeira and TaeKwonDo now. :P And, yes, I am genuinely saying that when you feel physically invaded, you can physically defend yourself. Period.
Quote from: koko_99_2001 on June 12, 2012, 05:39:49 AM
Part of it is because the moment men see some skin, their thoughts go straight to sex. It's the way they're wired.
Not even true.
I'm a bit of an authority on this... seeing as I am one. Unless my being bi somehow invalidates my physical gender... though it didn't the last time I checked. :P
Quote from: koko_99_2001 on June 12, 2012, 05:39:49 AM
Plus, it drives me crazy when women wear shirts that have them hanging out, and Daisy Dukes where they've had to squeeze themselves into it. I may go shopping with Erik, and the last thing I want is for his thoughts to go where they're not supposed to. Granted, I have an amazing husband and he tries to look elsewhere...or we've had times where he's turned to me to try to keep from looking at the people passing us. He's even told me that he hates it when women wear things that revealing because it does make it hard on any man...especially married ones!
Why is it that Christianity will preach self-control--to the extent that the Catholic Church teaches that homosexuals should be so self-controlled as to live a life of celibacy--yet it will entertain these biases about what it means to be male? Fine. If Christianity WANTS to assume that all men are pigs who can only ever think about sex ::), that's fine--but the logical conclusion of this from Christianity's OWN MORAL CODES is that MEN SHOULD CONTROL THEMSELVES.
Quote from: koko_99_2001 on June 12, 2012, 05:39:49 AM
Back to how I wear clothes really quickly before I have to go. I have this very cute Grecian type drape neck dress I wore a few days ago. Mom DaCosta absolutely loved it. I wore it to breakfast and was sitting next to Erik and his 18 year old brother. As I'm eating, I feel like I'm having to pull the shoulders back, as I felt like anyone could see down the shirt as I was eating. Quick fix: I ran upstairs after breakfast, threw on the undershirt, and came back downstairs. then I didn't have to worry about anyone looking at "the girls" throughout the day. I love to dress up and look pretty...but the only person I want looking at me in any type of sexual way is my husband.
You know, this is fair, but it sounds like you are too insecure to demand respect and to demand not to be sexualized by those around you when you say something like "that's just the way men are"--no, it's not. That's male privilege. Please, stop giving it to them. ::) You do yourself AND your brother-in-law a HUGE disservice when you assume that he can't see you in a non-sexual way. In fact, I have been in his position to the extent that people (in the cases in mind, adults when I was a kid) have voiced these views toward me: I was justifiably offended that someone would think such things of me that 1) weren't true and 2) were even within their own arguments as they presented them wholly baseless.
Quote from: Rosella on June 12, 2012, 04:40:20 AM
And while we're on psychology, I think there are some gender stereotypes at work here. If men are supposed to have the power, ...
This is the basic assumption of male privilege.
Quote from: Rosella on June 12, 2012, 04:40:20 AM
then if they desire something and women say no (and they abide by that), the women are actually in control, and I think some men (who are deeply disturbed) can find that emasculating because, you know, men are in charge and get what they want. Obviously men do get raped and that's horrible and I think it gets overlooked because it's just too shocking an idea that men don't always want sex, but admitting to that is somehow emasculating as well.
You really highlighted something that I hadn't thought of before: rather than maleness or femaleness being defined biologically or genetically or physically (ie- on appearance of certain features but not on the deeper basis of genes and function), societal stereotypes define gender PRAXIOLOGICALLY (ie- by a set of behaviors)--guys are guys because they behave like guys and girls are girls because they behave like girls, but I think if anyone is open-minded and observant even in as simple and sterilized a setting as grade school, we could all see that this falls apart.
So, when guys reject this over-sexualized mask and women assume power over their own physical and sexual lives, MEIN GOTT!, they break out of these rigidly defined, silly little models and become more real as people. That is probably something we should all be interested in--being people and individuals rather than fitting roles.
High-fives, my fellow curvy ladies :)
I think Cat's story was less about what the males at the table might see and more about her comfort level. I get it--I feel that way in some clothing as well. And I know my friends & family aren't going to ogle me, and maybe what I'm wearing isn't even all that low-cut or revealing and intellectually I know that, but if *I'm* not comfortable in it, that's about me, not them.
It's one thing to, in your own head or with friends I think, remark that you find a person attractive. "He's hot," "I wouldn't kick her outta bed for eating crackers," etc--stuff that's done in fun and not taken seriously. No one should expect that because they find someone else attractive, it gives them any rights or that person or reasons for expectations from that person. No one's style of dress or appearance means they are "just asking for" anything.
Kelsey, that guy's behavior was totally out of line. To make that kind of remark aloud to you is incredibly rude, and to try and, well, 'put moves' on you...while I want to believe okay, maybe it was flirting that went awry or he somehow misinterpreted signals from you, his earlier comment really makes me wonder if he wasn't just kind of an ass in general.
I've thankfully never had to deal with sexual harassment or aggressive behavior towards me because I'm female, but if it ever did happen--well, I'm glad I've got six and a half years of jiu jitsu and am nearly a black belt should I ever find myself in a position where I need to defend myself!
Delling -- firstly, stop being so awesome.
Second, any fool can see that Vulcan/Hephaesto's BIGGEST problem is that he was not using the right conditioner. Look at that hair! There is far too much volumizing going on. What what what are you doing?!
To an extent, I believe Cat's right -- men are biologically wired to think more about sex than women. Why? Well, speaking from an evolutionary standpoint, the main (biological) goal of any animal -- including humans -- is to pass on their DNA. Women can only do so much of that -- they only have one womb and can only be pregnant once at a time (that is to say, if they're pregnant already, they can't have a second pregnancy start on top of it -- excepting in the case of identical twins, and they don't need a man for that they need a freak accident of nature). Men, on the other hand, have to do one thing, and the more they do it the greater the chance that their DNA will make it to the next generation.
This is, of course, the very basest of human instincts -- and, the great thing about being human instead of -- for instance -- a bee, is that we are all able to overcome our most animalistic tendencies and behave in a way we choose.
The problem -- as Delling pointed out -- is that men are not typically expected to desexualize themselves in any way. In fact, while straight men may not endure the objectification based on appearance that women and gay men do they're objectified in their own way -- if they're not able to "perform", if they're not as well endowed... these are considered the greatest failures. When a guy tells someone to "grow a pair" or to "man up", yes, it's incredibly sexist against women -- but it's also incredibly sexist against men. They suggest that the only way to be worth anything as a man is to be fertile.
So, really, we're surprised that men or overly sexual? I'm not. We're offended? Good, we should be. It's offensive. To everyone.
I'm certainly not excusing guys who cross the line, as that guy did with you Kelsey. But it makes it all the more important that when something like that happens, you put him in his place. By whatever means. There's a real good chance he's never had the line pointed out to him -- he could be a complete perv, and it would make no difference and he should be avoided at all costs. Or he could have no concept of what's acceptable.
And as Delling pointed -- and as I, as a man, can attest as well -- it's certainly possible NOT to be such an overly sexual being. It's a bit sad, but probably our orientations DO help with that, because we're not as solidly in the straight-man's mainstream culture, which is saturated with the objectification of women and of over-valuing of male fertility.
That said, we should ALL be taking charge of our own bodies and sexualities. The girl in the scantily clad clothes knew what she was getting into -- she shook her body when she started getting attention, it was clearly what she was after. There's nothing wrong with that.
Nor is there anything wrong with wearing less revealing clothes because they make you feel more comfortable.
There IS something wrong with making excuses -- as real as they may be -- for a man to behave like a perv. If it happens, confront him. Say something. It's the only way to change something like that for even one person -- and it SHOULD be changed.
Quote from: writerlove on June 11, 2012, 09:53:39 PM
... Anyway, call me conservative but I think there's a time and place for certain types of clothing. Scantly clad clothing is not for a public shopping place. If she wants to wear that to the club, I'm not stopping them. I just think there's a line of decency for dressing. ...
THIS.
As a straight man, I see women wearing things that blow my mind *in the worst way* in public. Honestly, when I see a woman with her rear end hanging out of her pants or wearing "Juicy" pants, or whatever, my respect level for her drops quickly. I don't see her as a "sexual being" of sorts, but as an undesirable person. I've had a lot of modesty talks with women, girls, men, and boys over the years. One thing that I'm often told by females is that "It's hard to find clothing that isn't too low-cut or revealing." I understand that it can be difficult, but a cami (?) makes for a good undershirt, which adds a level of modesty (as previously mentioned). I know many who consider themselves to be modest, but ... *sigh* seem to have lost the meaning of the word. When a person has an open neckline and leans over, others can see down their shirt because the shirt falls open - an obvious occurrence, though not understood by many. >:( A friend of mine in her mid-50s said "It's like many women are missing a gene..." because they don't seem to realize how much they show off. Some like attention, which is their choice, but don't show off everything and call yourself "modest." (Comment not aimed at anyone here.)
Men walk around showing off their underwear (pants dropped jail-style) or wearing transparent shirts - both of which also make my respect level for a person drop quickly. "Modesty" is losing its meaning the way "Awesome," "Unique" and "Literally" have in common culture - one person's
modest is another's
embarrassment. People need to think about the kind of message they're giving off. For example, where I'm from, the lower-back tattoo means "EASY" - as clearly as a flashing restaurant sign. It's a common stereotype, so it should be noted by those have such a tattoo as a warning to cover it (if they're not in that state of mind).
A person's manner of dress is their right (or, problem)... But
NOTHING gives an excuse for rape. If someone is being a "tease" by showing everything off on a regular basis then openly rejecting people's "Come-ons," they're being a jerk. That's their problem - NOT an excuse for rape. I'm related to a number of rape and molestation victims, so I've got a semi-insider's view of the victim's life afterward. I tell you... if you ever think of committing rape, go to a theater with a rape victim to see an abusive or overly-emotional movie and watch the flashbacks kick in. You'll NEVER go through with your selfish plans.
PERIOD. (I recommend
Titanic, if you can find it at a dollar cinema somewhere; I know of some people who've had flashbacks or other horribly painful memories come back on them because of the female lead's abusive boyfriend or
drowned babies floating in the water scenes.)
*A side note: I'll never understand why women who worry about the appearance of their behind wear thong underwear - it makes the rear look even bigger...
and has to be hygenically perilous.
Personally, I don't care about modesty and to me the term even has negative connotations because I now associate it with Quiverfull and bikini hate. ::) And what someone wears doesn't make me lose respect for them (what usually does that is how they speak, because, you know, snob ::)).
I think a lot of the self-image issues stem from having to adhere to a set of spoken or unspoken rules about how people should dress and I can only see these rules as harmful. People have rights to their bodies and should be able to call whatever kind of attention they want to receive to themselves without having to worry about being judged. In China the opposite is thought: If you dye your hair a certain colour or do something drastic and (to many) unseemly to it, you will be told that your image belongs to other people because they have to look at you, whereas you cannot see yourself, so you shouldn't do anything that might or could upset them.
Quote from: Deloria on June 13, 2012, 05:12:51 AM
...In China the opposite is thought: If you dye your hair a certain colour or do something drastic and (to many) unseemly to it, you will be told that your image belongs to other people because they have to look at you, whereas you cannot see yourself, so you shouldn't do anything that might or could upset them.
This is really true about Chinese culture and to a slightly lesser extent Eastern/Orient cultures in general (though that Westernization of Japan seems to be goin' pretty well :P). Supposedly, Oriental cultures are better at that whole insulating and supporting thing which the West praises highly and claims to be good at but is only truly good at where it is HIGHLY functional (places which are few and far between). Though... I don't know how true that really is about Eastern culture having not lived in it much (the flipside of this is that there is a sense that you belong to your family and the culture in general), but it is built into the Chinese language and mannerisms (much of Chinese etiquette is about saving face for others).
Oh geez. Please don't let Quiverfull ruin a perfectly good word that has many connotations and meanings to it.