Sexism

[Danneskjold]

This was more or less brought to my attention by the abortion thread when it was said that it's sexist to call a man a name that implies that they are womanly. The quote I am going to center this around is below.

PS: *I* think it's both sexist and demeaning to use the word "pussy" to refer to a weak man.

****** was an amazing physical specimen, standing 5'7 and weighing 210 pounds of muscular steel, ******'s body was riddled with hard, taut muscles that were quite apparent whether they were active or not. As ****** pushed off the ground you could see the arm muscles strain, bulging off the bone. There was no one within miles that could outlift ******.

Ok, now, let's suppose that I said this about someone named (for the sake of comic value) Arnold. This would be a very nice compliment to Arnold. However, if I said this about Janet, I highly doubt that pointing this out would make her feel very good.

Whether the difference between the average woman and the average man are genetic/innate or environmental is irrelevant. The fact is that they are there. The only things that really come into play here are that there is a difference, and that society encourages that difference to some degree. Because a person's environment encourages the difference (whether or not the environment or surrounding people do so because of innate leanings or past environments) when someone is told that they are not different from that which society says should be, it is an insult.

If I were to call someone a coward, would that be bigoted against those who are cowardly? If I go up to a woman and call her manly (something I would never do) would that make me sexist against men? Society looks down on certain things, one of those things, is for a human being to transcend genderal boundaries (The sometimes exception being homosexuality). When one does so it is looked down upon just as it is looked down upon to be a coward.

Because society recognizes certain differences between males and females, and thinks that it is bad to transcend these, people are insulted for doing so. This does not mean that society is bigoted against the other gender, this means that someone has done something culturally taboo.

Whether or not there is a logical basis for society to look down on genderal transcendence in non-homosexual cases is a discussion for a different thread.

I hope I haven't made any real enemies. I will be glad to change my stance if a more logical argument is set against me. Right now, however, this is the way I see it.

One a less serious note: Take the old saying "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent" by Eleanor Roosevelt. So, in order for me calling a guy a pussy to be insulting to the guy, he must believe that it is a bad thing to be a pussy. This makes him as sexist as the guy who called him the pussy. Then, to add to the already comedic situation, a woman takes offense to the word "pussy" being used as an insult. This means that she must recognize it as an insult, and therefore is as sexist as the other two. The world is just so bigoted sometimes.

[Aaron]

Ok, now, let's suppose that I said this about someone named (for the sake of comic value) Arnold. This would be a very nice compliment to Arnold. However, if I said this about Janet, I highly doubt that pointing this out would make her feel very good.

I disagree. Any 5'7" 210lb woman of pure muscle obviously also put in a lot of work to get there, and I'd expect would be very proud of her mesomorphic physique.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

In using foul language, there is no absolute rule. In certain contexts, the example you gave would be sexist. In others it would not be. Also, it depends on who says it.

"Son of a bitch" rarely refers to a mother, for example, but to the person instead. But in some instances, people play the dozens to demean family members.

So long as we are on genitals, would it be sexist to call a person a "heartless prick"? I personally think genitals are wonderful things and do my best to take good care of mine. Yet I find myself using this kind of language on occasion. Do you think this reveals some hidden need to castrate myself or low self-esteem?

Or how about being a proponent of strong family values when you call someone a "bastard"?

This could go on all day and get quite funny after a while.

Words basically have 3 meanings: literal, contextual and emotional. Good use of language will take advantage of all three. Poor reasoning usually pretends one or the other doesn't exist and all kinds of disagreements ensue from clashes in semantics.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Well, I'm the guy that used the P-word. Did you know what I meant when I used it? I certainly wasn't comparing weak men to vaginas, that's for sure. "Pussy" is pretty much, at least in common American speak, a known quantity. It was, in fact, meant as an insult. I was outing men who seem to think they have the right, and logical authority, to be hypocrites. I was speaking mainly about how so many men cower at the thought of medical procedures that are somewhat mundane when compared to what most women endure (and actually go do, more importantly). I was indicting a category of men, and I fully chose to refer to them not as weak men, but as pussies. It was that, or balls-less, but I liked pussy better, it really seemed to get the point across.

As far as "foul" language goes, I don't make it my lynchpin, but I'm definitely not adverse to it because to me there are times when certain of those terms are what I am truly looking for.

rde

Glad he didn't use "poo poo head" because then, he too would be a pussy.

[Danneskjold]

It may be because it's first thing in the morning for me here, but I'm really confused about whether any of us agree or disagree or what. I get the feeling that we half-agree.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

LOL...

Well, that's a start. And it's a good sign.

On most Objectivist forums, they would not be half-agreeing, but half-disagreeing instead right now.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Heh. There are few things more satisfying than successfully creating gray areas on O-forums.

[Judith]

What offended me was (1) the use of a rude word for a body part, and (2) the fact that it was a woman's body part that was used as a term of insult for a man.

Different people have different concepts of "bad words". My own concept revolves around body parts and bodily functions. I'm quite willing to use some words in conversation to express frustration or to give emphasis, but I wouldn't dream of using those very same words to mean intercourse or defecation. I consider the body to be sacred, and I don't approve of using rude words for its parts.

I also see a lot of men use disrespectful words for women's body parts, and that offends me; since I'm not a dualist, it makes me feel disrespected as a person. And to use a rude word for a woman's body part as an insult toward a man -- I can't help but feel insulted by it.

If you recall our discussion about sexism and pain perception, here's an article from today's Washington Post, which led me to remember this very discussion as I read it:

Judith

--------------------------------------

Not Feeling Each Other's Pain

Men and Women Hurt Differently -- and Some of The Difference May Really Be in Their Heads

By Francesca Lunzer Kritz

Special to The Washington Post

Tuesday, December 19, 2006; Page HE01

When I get a particularly nasty headache, I race for the ibuprofen bottle and down three 200-milligram tablets (a dose long ago approved by my doctor) and get on with whatever I was doing, comforted by the knowledge that I've taken action to dull the pain and that I will feel better soon. When my husband has a headache, he delays doing anything -- including telling me, for whatever comfort that might bring -- and succumbs to the ibuprofen (taking just two tablets) only when the pain is so severe he can't do much else.

Some might say our headache techniques are a manifestation of our quirky personalities -- and there may be some truth in that. But research presented at a University of Maryland Dental School conference this fall suggests my XX and my husband's XY chromosomes might also be partly to blame. While sex differences alone may not account for the variability of individual pain response, said keynote speaker Karen Berkley, a professor of neuroscience at Florida State University, growing research suggests that men's and women's nervous systems process pain information differently and act on it differently.

"Sex matters in pain, and a better understanding of this is going to lead to less pain in the world," Berkley said.

That could be because it might help clinicians fine-tune pain treatments as need grows. A new report by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) shows that, as the U.S. population ages, patient complaints of pain and use of painkillers are rising, particularly in white women older than 45. Researchers are still trying to learn how much of the rise is sex-related and how much is tied instead to such factors as age, personality and overall health.

The dental school conference was not the first to consider the role of sex in pain perception. In 1998 the National Institutes of Health convened a panel on the subject; it concluded, based on early research, that women experience more pain than men, that women discuss pain more frequently than men, and that pain treatment that is effective for one sex may not work as well for the other. A cascade of research followed. Among the better-known studies:

· A 2003 study in the journal Circulation found that women, unlike men, are more likely to experience achiness or tightness, rather than pain, during a heart attack, and therefore don't necessarily seek prompt treatment.

· A 2003 study in the journal Gastroenterology found that areas of male and female brains reacted differently to pain, with the female brain showing greater activity in the emotion-based centers called the limbic regions, and the male brains showing greater activity in the analytic or cognitive centers.

· A review article on the male brain, published in November in the Journal of the American Medical Association, cited several published studies showing anatomical differences between male and female brains that could account for differences in experiencing pain.

But the goal at the University of Maryland meeting was not just to update research. The idea was also to devise guidelines to help standardize future research, says Joel Greenspan, a professor in the department of biomedical sciences at the dental school and a chairman of the pain conference. Without this, Greenspan says, it will be harder to compare findings or apply them in clinical practice.

For example, since studies show that men's tendency to delay pain treatment increases their risk during a heart attack, should pain scales be sex-specific to ensure more-prompt care? Or should women in a clinical trial of pain medication all start painkillers on the same day of their menstrual cycle so that researchers can factor in how estrogen might relieve or exacerbate pain -- and whether women need different doses of pain relievers than men?

Answers to these and other questions are expected to be published in a pain journal next year. For now, says Lee Ann Rhodes, an internal medicine specialist and head of the pain center at the Washington Hospital Center, there is not enough evidence to steer patients toward different pain relief options at the start of treatment on the basis of sex alone.

Clinicians are increasingly aware, however, that one person's pain reliever may not do the job for another.

Take Erica Gerber, 36, of Richmond, whose rheumatoid arthritis, a joint disease, was diagnosed four years ago. Gerber, who has since given up her job as a property manager because of pain and mobility problems, had assumed that she would get relief from the same arthritis drug that helps her father, 58. Not only did the drug not work for Gerber, but it temporarily reduced her liver function and caused hair loss -- side effects her father didn't have. Gerber now takes a different arthritis drug, which doesn't cause the same side effects but also doesn't relieve her pain as well as her dad's medication does for him.

Identifying pain treatments that work effectively for both men and women is crucial, experts say, as pain reports increase. Last month's NCHS annual report (Health, United States, 2006) was the first to include a special section on pain. The survey found that the use of narcotic drugs for pain relief had increased 30 percent since 1988.

One in four adults surveyed for the report said they had experienced a day-long bout of pain in the past month, and one in 10 said the pain had lasted a year or more. Women were more likely to report pain than men, and white women older than 45 were more likely than any other group to report pain. Chief among the sources of pain among women: low back pain, migraines and other severe headaches, and joint pain including arthritis. Among those 18 and older reporting back pain, there were a higher percentage of women than men in every age group, racial and ethnic group and economic group.

Margaret McCarthy, a professor of psychiatry and physiology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, speculates that hormones, in particular estrogen, may be tied to more severe and frequent pain for women. Other researchers have theorized that estrogen has a protective role, which might help explain why older women, in whom estrogen levels have dropped, appear more prone to pain. Or their pain could be just age-related. For now, though, these are just theories.

Sherry Marts, vice president of scientific affairs at the Society for Women's Health Research, a nonprofit group based in Washington, says she views identifying pain treatments specific to women as one more piece "in our current move toward individualized medicine, with a goal toward giving the right drug to the right person at the right time." Marts says she hopes future research can include not just a better understanding of sex differences in pain perception but of different pain scales, so that women's efforts to gauge their pain isn't matched to men's -- something that has been known to result in the under-treatment of women for pain.

Still unclear is whether women's emotions affect their perception of pain more than men's do. In a study at the University of Bath in England last year, male and female volunteers put their arms in warm water for two minutes, and then in icy water for another two minutes. According to the researchers, the women reported feeling the pain of the cold water sooner than the men and weren't able to endure the pain as long as the men could. When the groups were asked to think about the physical pain, rather than their emotions associated with the pain they were experiencing, the pain decreased for the men, but not for the women. The finding, according to Ed Keogh, a psychologist from the Pain Management Unit at the University of Bath, suggests women seeking pain relief may benefit from coping strategies in addition to painkillers.

As research progresses, experts caution against foregone conclusions.

"It's clear that when pain gets very extreme, many of the sex differences disappear," Berkley says. "But that's important, too, because we don't want to get so caught up in the idea of differences in pain that we look to treat differently when we don't need to."

Francesca Lunzer Kritz is a Washington area freelance writer. Comments:health@washpost.com.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Judith,

Oh, stop being an elbow!

You're such a pancreas at times!

Michael

[Judith]

Judith,

Oh, stop being an elbow!

You're such a pancreas at times!

Michael

Ouch! Michael! You're such a .. such a ... BRAIN!

Judith

[Danneskjold]

If I call a guy a pussy, he gets defensive, if I call a girl a pussy, she rolls her eyes and if she gets the joke she laughs. When I call a guy a pussy, I am telling him that I believe him physically weak (I think we can agree that there is ample scientific evidence that men, because of hormones and bonestructure, are naturally inclined to be stronger than women). He takes it as such and is therefore offended (unless it is something he's proud of). I call a girl a pussy, she is not offended because she literally has one and it is a statement of the obvious and is not and should not be offended. It is only an insult to the guy because it is something that he does not want to be. This is, in part, because of a the surrounding culture that says that it is not good to be physically weak if you are a guy or at the very least because the guy does not want to be thought of as physically weak.

It's not an insult because he's being called a body part of a woman, it's an insult because of the value placed on the difference between men and women.

[Rich Engle]

I have two basic uses for "pussy," and they bear no resemblance to one another.

One is simply as was used. And I don't mean physically weak. I mean weak-willed. Afraid at the expense of others.

The other has to do with the fact that when you have an intimate, deep relationship, slang words for certain body parts suddenly take on a very different tone. These words, between lovers, are far from derogatory.

As far as crude use on the street, I don't do that.

[BAMF]

If I call a guy a pussy, he gets defensive, if I call a girl a pussy, she rolls her eyes and if she gets the joke she laughs. When I call a guy a pussy, I am telling him that I believe him physically weak (I think we can agree that there is ample scientific evidence that men, because of hormones and bonestructure, are naturally inclined to be stronger than women). He takes it as such and is therefore offended (unless it is something he's proud of). I call a girl a pussy, she is not offended because she literally has one and it is a statement of the obvious and is not and should not be offended. It is only an insult to the guy because it is something that he does not want to be. This is, in part, because of a the surrounding culture that says that it is not good to be physically weak if you are a guy or at the very least because the guy does not want to be thought of as physically weak.

It's not an insult because he's being called a body part of a woman, it's an insult because of the value placed on the difference between men and women.

Whenever I use the word 'pussy' I use it to mean cowardly or weak (in any way). I call myself a pussy sometimes, whenever I feel too scared to do something that is not scary or that I feel should not be scary. I think it's really just a funny word...and it's hard for me to take seriously. If a guy called me a pussy, I'd laugh. Just as I'd expect him to laugh if I called him a bitch. *shrug* I don't know...it's odd to have a debate over such a frivolous word. We're all pussies. :devil:

Side note: If I had a significant other and he used words like 'pussy' and 'cunt' for my below the waist region, I would have no problem whatsoever with that. I mean, is he always supposed to use the word 'vagina'? *starts a list of words for 'vagina' in her head*

Edited December 20, 2006 by Kori

[Judith]

If I call a guy a pussy, he gets defensive, if I call a girl a pussy, she rolls her eyes and if she gets the joke she laughs.

. . .

It's not an insult because he's being called a body part of a woman, it's an insult because of the value placed on the difference between men and women.

That's part of my point. Calling a guy something associated with a woman is an insult to a man. How do you think that makes me, a woman, feel? Remember the standard Jewish prayer upon waking? "Thank you, God, for not making me a Gentile, a slave, or a woman"? Thanks a lot.

I have two basic uses for "pussy," and they bear no resemblance to one another.

One is simply as was used. And I don't mean physically weak. I mean weak-willed. Afraid at the expense of others.

Another example. The implication is that women are weak-willed and men are not.

Whenever I use the word 'pussy' I use it to mean cowardly or weak (in any way). I call myself a pussy sometimes, whenever I feel too scared to do something that is not scary or that I feel should not be scary.

Yet another example, implying that all women are cowardly.

*shrug* I don't know...it's odd to have a debate over such a frivolous word. We're all pussies.

It can seem so, I suppose, since you're young and don't remember the days before sexual equality was an assumed thing. Watch some old reruns on TV sometime, like old "Bewitched" episodes. Watch for the contempt with which Mr. Kravitz, Darren and Samantha's next door neighbor, treats his wife. It's treated as funny.

Actually, maybe it's not as old-fashioned as I think. I just read a report today on contemporary leftist humor in which current comedians joke about urinating and ejaculating on their women and then beating them up.

There's a reason I've learned unarmed self-defense and learned how to shoot.

Judith

[BAMF]

Judith,

I understand where you're coming from, but I really am not implying that women are weak. I use words like this to be sort of humorous...kind of to tease. For example, many of my peers use the word 'gay' to describe something that they feel is stupid (many people believe that they are implying that being gay=stupid). I think that that is ridiculous, so I use the word 'gay' to describe some things as well, but it's more in a mocking way. I'd say, "God, this in-class essay is so GAY" with emphasis on 'gay'. That's just me showing how ridiculous I think it is to say something like that. Sarcasm. Trying to turn it into something that really does not have any meaning any longer.

I also see the same stuff you do...comedians joking about ejaculating on women, etc. I tend to find these jokes funny because I don't believe they are talking about the Dagnys of the world when they speak of that kind of thing, but rather the women who are so disgusting that...I'm reluctant to say...they deserve that kind of thing. I'm fairly sure that I don't believe it's okay for women to be ejaculated on (if they don't want it!) . Also, sometimes my best friend (a guy) will make a remark about making a woman bake him a pie (or some other thing like that), but it's funny to me because I know that he is really poking fun of the people who REALLY act like that (kind of like the 'gay' example). It's never funny to me when a real woman hater makes a joke about slapping women (or a real racist makes a racist 'joke'). I'll have to think about this further. I guess I've never actually thought about WHY I laugh at what I laugh at. Thanks for your input, Judith.

[Danneskjold]

Doesn't sexism imply that someone must be intentionally trying to point out a weakness in the opposite sex as opposed to using a culturally accepted coloquialism for weakness?

[BAMF]

Maybe you should change thread title to 'Pussy as an insult: good or bad?'

[Judith]

I understand where you're coming from, but I really am not implying that women are weak. I use words like this to be sort of humorous...kind of to tease. For example, many of my peers use the word 'gay' to describe something that they feel is stupid (many people believe that they are implying that being gay=stupid). I think that that is ridiculous, so I use the word 'gay' to describe some things as well, but it's more in a mocking way. I'd say, "God, this in-class essay is so GAY" with emphasis on 'gay'. That's just me showing how ridiculous I think it is to say something like that. Sarcasm. Trying to turn it into something that really does not have any meaning any longer.

I also see the same stuff you do...comedians joking about ejaculating on women, etc. I tend to find these jokes funny because I don't believe they are talking about the Dagnys of the world when they speak of that kind of thing, but rather the women who are so disgusting that...I'm reluctant to say...they deserve that kind of thing. I'm fairly sure that I don't believe it's okay for women to be ejaculated on (if they don't want it!) . Also, sometimes my best friend (a guy) will make a remark about making a woman bake him a pie (or some other thing like that), but it's funny to me because I know that he is really poking fun of the people who REALLY act like that (kind of like the 'gay' example). It's never funny to me when a real woman hater makes a joke about slapping women (or a real racist makes a racist 'joke'). I'll have to think about this further. I guess I've never actually thought about WHY I laugh at what I laugh at. Thanks for your input, Judith.

I guess it's a sign of hope that the generation behind mine considers it inconceivable that they might actually MEAN something sexist or homophobic by statements like that -- that it's obvious sarcasm. I suppose my generation and the generation behind mine accomplished something! Just don't take it too much for granted. There are people out there, especially in the middle east, who would take it away from you in a New York second. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance and all that....

Doesn't sexism imply that someone must be intentionally trying to point out a weakness in the opposite sex as opposed to using a culturally accepted coloquialism for weakness?

I don't understand what you're saying here. Can you elaborate, please?

Judith

[Danneskjold]

An ism is a belief system. For something to be a form of sexism it is dependent on the intentions of the person saying it. If person A calls person B a pussy, it's only a sexist statement if he intends it to mean "woman" and not "weakling". That's the gist of it. My brain is fried right now.

[Rich Engle]

Look, we gotta bring this one home back to mama <---vaguely sexist/Oedipal statement, at the least, if you are a literalist.

Language evolves, it morphs. This is why William S. Burroughs said "Language is a virus, from outer space."

It's how it works.

Consider my favorite topic: myself.

Now, I don't have any need to prove anything to anyone about my-oh-so-favorite-self. That's because I'm comfortable in my skin, I put in some learning time, and I have enough street experience to make me, at worst, tired/but/savvy.

~I~ am the last guy that should EVER get the sexist tag laid on him. Oh my Gawd... I think it first started when I read Heinlein's "Time Enough For Love." In any event, I was never a sexist or an anything-ist. My parents were dirt farmers in the south, and they dirt-farmed their asses off next to blacks. Point being, what was stuck into me at gunpoint was simple: no pigeonholing. No blackies, no women-as-"cunts," no anything. It simply was not permitted. Humans only.

Language, this is a playground. Quite frankly, I think it is kind of weird when, er, "adults" get jiggy about using words in any way. Let me back-trench: we can all ~feel~ the language of hatred. Or, I should say, the language that flows out of hatred. I don't do that because I'm not, in the new trendy vernacular, a "hater."

Which gives me open ground, or at least open license, to use any word I want where I want-- I simply have to be careful. On occasion, I will fail.

It gives me frustration when I hear about people being offended about word-usage, it really does. It's like someone has given them a, yes, virus. They're just words, and they are only as powerful as you allow them to be, and only as meaningful as you know about things. A word cannot hurt you. Sticks and stones.

I don't hold back. Well, actually, I do, because I really, really, try to measure twice and cut once.

But in the end, I don't like boundaries. At least not linguistic ones.

It is like I said earlier, and I will try to get this down to raw principle.

There is a big difference between, say (and I am doing black/white/extremes here) me being in bed with my beloved and saying something like "Look at that gorgeous pussy waiting for me." and street smack "Man, I bet that's some good pussy; I sure would like to HIT THAT."

Viva la difference.

So, when I hear stuff about language, particularly stuff about pussy, which in my opinion is the most powerful thing on the planet, I take pause to consider.

rde

There, that should at least re-do the policy on moderation around hyeah, unless MSK is feeling randy tonite.

[Danneskjold]

I'm with ya. Too many people are too offended too easily. That's really all I have left to say.

[Judith]

Okay, guys, here's a question for you.

Are you offended when someone calls someone else a dick or a dickhead as a sign of contempt?

I am, because (1) as I said above, I don't like to see the human body disrespected, and (2) I like men and don't like to see male body parts used as a term of contempt.

Judith

[Danneskjold]

No, I use it a lot. Usually in a derogatory way directed towards guys. I predominantly use it in situations when a guy is thinking with his dick instead of his head about a girl.

[Rich Engle]

Judith asked if guys get offended when they are the victim of some kind of phallic invective.

No.

Fer crying out loud. This stuff is ingrained into us. Ever been in a junior high locker room? Heavens to Betsy!

I have never had a single problem with any word, including body-parts ones, and their variants. What I did point out earlier was what I would call a "principle," or at least something once-removed. Meaning in short that you can use the "foulest" term, like "cock," and it can even surpass itself if spoken in the language of love. It requires braveness, sometimes, and that's what vexes me because if you write, you should be unafraid of any word that hits your head. They are only words. Sticks and stones, up front.

My girlfriend is an amazing woman. She is a prime mover, and she is, in age, my senior. It was the funniest thing when we first got together... I am a gentleman. I am the guy that still opens doors for ladies.

My girlfriend is a proper lady, in the most accomplished sense of the word. She is composed, and understands what good manners are, among other things involving social skills.

And I am a writer. I choose words as I wish to use them.

At first, she was offended by my broad, flexible use of language. And, mind you, I am a gentleman.

I trotted words out, as our conversation (and relationship) began to unfold. She is a well-read woman, and certainly far from being a prude.

The ground-zero of "taboo" words is "fuck." If you trace it back, you find things-- mainly "to plant," which makes sense if you look at it. At a time, I believe it was spelled (cutting thru Olde English and such) fauq, or something like that.

Words are not something to be afraid of. I consider it a non-issue. I consider the facts regarding coitus to be a non-issue. Yet the taboos remain. Why? It is because sex, FUCKING, is the most powerful thing on the planet. It is so because it, by nature, creates life. It becomes, in the end, an issue of lifeforce. As soon as you talk about fucking, what happens when people come together to have sex; that's where all the trouble starts. That is because of insecurities, and maybe educational issues.

We should not be afraid of anything, least of all simple words.

I will make mention of the very un-argueable fact that, and I challenge anyone of any mind to argue this point, that true, strong sexual union is the strongest thing humans have. Bring it on and argue with me-- mostly I will think you are being dishonest with yourself, or you don't know how to have good sex.

Words have value. Fucking has value. We (or I should say "freethinkers," maybe) have more hurdles to handle in life than to worry about being PC. Sex has always had the taboo factor. I am one to break that barrier. If you look at certain control mechanisms in place (uh, certain religions come to mind), they focus on sex. It is because it is a powerful force; arguably THE most powerful force.

The thing that you have to grasp, when confronted with a powerful tool, is simply this: "What do you do with it?" It's that simple.

Sex has critical mass. Sex is what no one ever hardly talks about in real terms. Sex is very simple: you can enjoy it, and rejoice in it. But you have a choice~ do you buy into those that make you feel "dirty?"

Is sex dirty? I don't think so. I think (and mind you, I am a religious-minded man) that sex is glorious, and it's right, and it's beautiful. At least so between aware minds. Sex is part of consciousness.

So, if I write dirty, I don't give a rat's ass. I will use the words. They are not taboo. That is, unless you buy into that. Which means, other people are using mere words to control you. Your guilt, your misunderstanding.

Context, as MSK as said many times. There is a language of love. These are simple distinctions. There is a difference from calling someone a "dickhead," and your lover saying "I want to suck your dick." Viva la Difference, so say me.

rde

"Rock and Roll is about fucking." -- Suzy Roche

Edited December 24, 2006 by Rich Engle

[Victor Pross]

Oy, do we still have a “dirty word” problem in the 21 century? Do graphic verbal descriptions of sexual activity get people’s underwear crawling up their asses? Do we forget that the early and celebrated legal battles in America sometimes involved what are now recognized as great works of fiction that included sexual themes: books such as James Joyce's Ulysses or D. H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterly's Lover. Did we not learn anything from the Lenny Bruce “obscenity trials”? Certain words, the most notorious of which contain four-letters—such as “cunt” and “fuck”--are offensive to many people. Many other people, of course, are not offended by these same words and may in fact frequently use these words themselves, like good ol’ Rich. These very different reactions to “indecent words”---as well as to other references to sexual or excretory functions--make for potential conflict and First Amendment conflicts. This uptight prudery [with origins in a religious and pedantic country] is, in the end, a threat to freedom of speech. Let's get over it, fuckers.

Edited December 24, 2006 by Victor Pross