[helene_t]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 24 2008, 11:59 PM, said:

barmar, on Mar 24 2008, 10:22 PM, said:

BTW, I think a female executive would consider it a compliment to be told that she "has balls".  She's in a traditionally male-dominated profession, and this would be a mark that she's accepted into that community.  Feminists might not like the fact that the idiom for this is based on a male-centered world, but it's a simple, historical fact.

I would not. I would consider it insulting.

If it was meant as a compliment I would take it as such but I think it's a silly expression.

[kenberg]

Jlall, on Mar 24 2008, 04:41 PM, said:

kenberg, on Mar 24 2008, 06:56 AM, said:

I was thinking maybe his next growth spurt would be to stop discussing stupid fucking ***** with young women he was trying to impress.

WOW, and I thought the moral of your story was going to be "I realized how the language has changed and evolved, and how things that were taboo 100 years ago when I was a kid no longer have the same meaning/impact."

What is wrong with talking about stupid fucking ***** in an unoffensive/unattacking manner with someone? Why should that offend them? It's so much different to say "dumb stuff"? Doing dumb stuff does not have the same emphasis and thus probably doesnt convey his point as well. Perhaps he should say REALLY dumb stuff! I think it says a lot about how we have come along as a society that the intent of words are far more offensive than the words themselves. Certainly if I were to say "***** you" that should offend you, but if I say "sorry that was a fucking retarded play i made" that should not offend you. If it does offend you that is from an irrational bias against the word *****.

And if you think it is ok to use the word ***** in front of your guy friends but not in front of a woman you are trying to court, I'm sorry but I think THAT is really a sexist and antiquated idea. Believe it or not women can handle the words ***** and ***** now, and it is not even considered unladylike to use them!

To be honest after reading this thread I think the problem is really there are many generations of people reading these forums. Nobody who is oldschool is going to be convinced by anything I say, and I think the reverse is true also.

I am not sure I had a point, maybe just an observation, hopefully reasonably on topic.

It is, as you say, partly generational. Here is a variant from a few years back. I was in Denny's eating breakfast and at a nearby table a lawyer was discussing a divorce case with his client, rather loudly. It went something like *****, we will show her if she wants to ***** with us we'll ***** her, fucking right. I sat for this for a while and then leaned towards them and suggested that if they wanted to discuss fucking they should get a private room. A bit later after they had left ( to go where and do what I didn't ask) an older lady came to my table and thanked me. She was there having breakfast with her granddaughter, age 10 or so, and had not been much enjoying it. Sure the guy was being obnoxious enough just by his loudness, but I might have let that go.

But then a story on the flip side:
I was at a stupid fucking dinner at a stupid fucking conference sitting at a table with people I didn't know. I finished my dinner, made some polite talk for what I thought was long enough, and started to get up to leave. Just as I got out of my chair there was the familiar tapping of fork on glass announcing after dinner talks. "Oh *****!" I spontaneously said, and sat back down. With that as a starter we all quickly became friends and escaped soon after to the local bar. My comment was taken by all as an accurate assessment of the situation.

It's not all generational though. I have a fifteen year old granddaughter and I can't imagine her walking along quietly listening to a guy talking at length about stupid fucking ***** that he used to do, no longer does, blah blah blah. Maybe it's genetic. I like to think so.

I seriously doubt I have a point. That doesn't stop others.

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Mar 24 2008, 01:41 PM, said:

And if you think it is ok to use the word ***** in front of your guy friends but not in front of a woman you are trying to court, I'm sorry but I think THAT is really a sexist and antiquated idea.

No this is called being a gentleman (or at least an element thereof).

[pclayton]

kenberg, on Mar 24 2008, 04:24 PM, said:

I sat for this for a while and then leaned towards them and suggested that if they wanted to discuss fucking they should get a private room. A bit later after they had left ( to go where and do what I didn't ask) an older lady came to my table and thanked me. She was there having breakfast with her granddaughter, age 10 or so, and had not been much enjoying it.  Sure the guy was being obnoxious enough just by his loudness, but I might have let that go.

I was at a supermarket with Kimi a few weeks ago and some guy (roughly my age) in front of us in line was having it out with the cashier.

He just kept going off on her, and I finally said, "dude - having a bad day aren't you".

He thought he found a sympathetic ear in me so he starts in about how she did fucking did this, and fucking did that...

I said, "I don't care about your problem and WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE".

I think he was more embarrassed about his language than the fact he was having a public argument.

[helene_t]

Jlall, on Mar 25 2008, 01:41 AM, said:

I doubt she would have considered it insulting if I had said "that took balls", or that she would consider someone "not a gentleman" for using the same word that she used casually.

Indeed, but she did say you scared her, I think she was referring to the fact that you alerted a 4♣ bid as "Gerber".

[kenrexford]

I am truly enjoying this debate. I am waiting to see how incredibly vulgar people can be in the context of arguing the offensiveness of vulgarity, in a purely scientific discussion. There are several vulgar words not yet tried out.

For example, no one has yet discussed whether one could use the term "cunt" in a way that would not be offensive. Apparently, the origin of the word has something to do with a hollow place, and it was not originally offensive. One might, then, note how a person did not open 1NT because the person had a cunt. The causal observer might assume that this meant that only women don't open 1NT because of a suit that is not stopped, whereas the meaning of the speaker might be to note that a "hollow place," a suit without any stopper, was a concern. A "cunt" suit, if you will.

Or, consider if someone were to comment that his opponent was quite a dick. This, of course, might be a compliment, noting his detecting skills in analyzing the hand. A big dick might be someone known to many in the bridge world as quite the hand analyzer.

[irdoz]

I dont think this argument about standards necessarily reflects an evolving language which divides people along generational lines.

Im in my early 30s and know when I was 21 I regarded censorship of language as something stupid older people do, sometimes political correctness and an impingment on my freedom to express myself the way I wanted to.

As I got older and spent much more time with people mainly older than me I came to view the sort of language I used to use all the time as not always appropriate depending on context.

In the last 10 years I dont think language has evolved that much or standards changed - and my brother who is 10 years younger than me is having exactly the same arguments I did - but not because standards have changed dramatically in 10 years.

I don't think 'non-offensive' intent is the yardstick either. For example if the young man referred to before said to the women he was with 'I was a stupid f-word c-word' then a significant number of people would regard that as both sexist and vulgar - independent of intent.

'You've got balls' is certainly not something I'd say to any woman I worked with because in that context there are so many other ways to say the same thing.

Somehow I think arguments about standards and where the line is and how the line got to be there are ongoing - and the way you decide where the line is at any moment is by having discussions like this.

[fifee]

dicklont, on Mar 24 2008, 02:36 AM, said:

It is remarkable to see that the moderator edited a post because he figured it would offend some people en thereby has now offended others. As a good sport he has opened a thread to discuss his decision.

It is very hard to do the right thing here, therefore you should try to do nothing for as long as possible.
But being a moderator you have to draw a line sometimes and be subject to criticism.

I think that this is a very pleasant forum and heve never had any problem here with the language or the messages. Is this really a problem?

here here.

[han]

Could somebody sticky this thread?

[finally17]

The fact of the matter is that not only is language constantly growing and evolving, but the speaker's intentions are hardly the only thing that matters. Communication is a two way street, and if your audience will be offended by statement XYZ, no matter how mundane you think it is, you're crossing a line if you use XYZ.

Now, since there are always people who take things to extremes, a list of things that are considered unacceptable shouldn't be generated by asking the question "does anyone have a problem with this" but rather something like "do a reasonable percentage (whatever that is) of reasonable people (however we define that) have a problem with this."

But all of this debate "i think this is acceptable and here's why" or "i'm offended by this or that because it's A or B or C" isn't going to serve much purpose.

I'm still stuck on how several people find post-editing by mods acceptable, and I'm really curious why that part of the discussion hasn't been more of a focus.

[kenberg]

I would strongly resist any attempt to censor ideas. That's where the real test comes. No doubt we should allow (but we need not celebrate) coarse language in the expression of these ideas.

Asking a woman how large her tits are doesn't quite qualify as an idea.

And now I will take Han's suggestion and stick this thread.

[brianshark]

I believe the actual use of bad language has two distinct aspects (which a lot of people don't seem to distinguish).

The first is to set the tone of conversation. The second is when it is used as an insult.

Regarding the first one, using more bad language as part of conversation generally indicates a more relaxed or informal tone. You would use it with friends, even with girls you are 'courting' if both parties are comfortable with such a casual conversational tone. You would use a more formal tone in the workplace, or in court, or with people you have just met, etc.

Regarding the second one, I believe it is only an insult if it was intended as an insult (or used in a context where it is known that it will insult a substantial amount of people - however you want to define it), so the intention and context are all that's important. I have no patience for people who are just touchy and take offence just because of a poor but unintended choice of words. Nor do I have patience for people who go around saying this or that is offensive and should not be said when it's on behalf of someone else.

I believe that bad language when not intended as an insult, but used as part of an expression or used casually in conversation, fits into the first category.

Regarding the standards we as a community should set:

1. Flame wars and insults that use bad language should be discouraged and potentially deleted (at the moderator's perogative) not because it uses bad language, but because it is a flame war / insult.

2. The general tone of the forums should be up to the general formers themselves to set. I believe they do that already and I don't believe there is any problem at present.

3. In my opinion no bad language should be censored just because it is "bad language".

[barmar]

These things certainly do depend on context.

As an example, there's an American cable TV show called "Dirt", about a Hollywood gossip magazine. The lead character, played by Courtney Cox (Monica from "Friends"), is the editor of the magazine. She's tough, drives her people hard, and is willing to do just about anything to get a story, and demands the same of her underlings. And in her private (i.e. sexual) life, she's also in charge. She's the type of woman who would call herself "ballsy" -- there's hardly any other term that sums up her style so succinctly. The people she's run over to get where she is would agree, although they'd probably be more likely to call her a bitch or cunt; she'd probably not take offense at these, either, because she knows what she did to deserve it.

[onoway]

I think that a large part of the question has to be if the person using the expression is doing so to be offensive, and if someone said to me what size are your tits I WOULD be offended, because the comment at the very least was designed to embarrass and/or offend and when using such gender specific comments has to have sexist overtones BECAUSE it was designed to offend.I cannot imagine anyone other than someone doing a brassiere fitting having any other reason than being an ignorant ass**** to make such a remark.

My work involves being around a lot of men, most of whom are not particularly well educated and there are probably few words I have not heard . However, even there, it is generally considered gauche at the least to use most of these words around the women who work there. This is not to say it doesn't happen. But I haven't noticed using such words as adding anything to the conversation and usually conversations studded with them are truly boring. (pun semi-intended)

My mother used to say that people who swear a lot are simply showing a lack of a) vocabulary and imagination. I agree with that, except that (sometimes) women use them to show how liberated they are and (sometimes) men use them to show off or with intent to offend. Then I tend to react to the intention, not the words as such. I think uday does a great job and has excellent judgement. I would hate to see the forum language deteriorate to the lowest common denominator just because it is not politically correct to have any standards anymore.

[blackshoe]

I knew a Marine drill instructor many years ago who had great facility for making an Officer Candidate feel about one inch tall and very stupid — without swearing, being disrespectful, or raising his voice. He was a Marine, he could cuss if he felt like it, but he didn't need to, so he didn't (at least not when training wannabe officers).

[luke warm]

if i used language, here or in r/l, that someone told me was offensive i'd just not use it around them anymore... i don't *want* to offend (well, usually)

[blackshoe]

Young man, indignantly: "Jubal, you are rude to ladies!"
Jubal: "Anne, have you ever seen me be rude to a lady?"
Anne: "Jubal, I have never seen you be rude to a lady. I have seen you be intentionally rude to a woman."....... Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

[Elianna]

I sometimes wonder if people who think that describing someone as "having balls" isn't sexist also think that saying a female bridge player "plays like a man" isn't sexist, either.

I think that one is definitely less obvious than the other, but just because something is less blatant doesn't mean that it's still not sexist.

About the original post, I thought that it was a funny way to say "How big are your balls?" from a female point of view (changing balls to breasts). I felt it was an amusing twist when I actually looked at who wrote it.

I understand why a moderator deleted the thread title. When I first saw it, I thought a spammer had managed to post something really vulgar. Then I saw the originating poster, and realized that it was probably safe to open.

[nat60us]

Agree with Justin.............LOL..........too much time on our hands, do u think?