| |
|
Okay, here's a possible example: I have no idea what this post is about. That is to say, you don't seem to have any interest in discussing the band in question's music in that thread. Now, sharing your knowledge of the Sao Paulo scene is good, and helpful. Stories about not seeing the band live and celebrations of the international day of rock are kind of off the point, but fair enough, really.
But when you then drop in a big picture of the band and the comment:
So, which one of them you think should be more tired of being sexy? I vote for the girl in cowboy boots
- it gives the impression that you do not want to talk about the band's music, just which of them is more HOTT. I could be wrong, and you could think that NME review is a really great piece of writing (it's not) - but you didn't say so. You just wanted to talk about which one of them "should be more tired of being sexy", which is even more irritating given the fact that it's a reference to their name, which in turn is a reference to a woman's desire NOT to be seen as a sex object all the time!
I posted the review because it had just been sent to me by a friend (with whom I was talking abut CSS on that day due to that very thread), and I though it would be a good addition to the thread - not only because it was a piece of writing about the band (great of otherwise), but also because it provided a picture so those unfamiliar with the bands looks could get familiarized.
As for the comment about "which one should be more tired of being sexy", I added it because I didn't feel I should just post something and then say absolutely nothing. Perhaps the joke was of not the best taste, but I though it was compatible with the very band own sense of irony. Sorry fot that.
Which, I suppose, might not rankle if it did not seem to be your immediate first reaction so often. This is the same reason, I think, why several of us started rolling our eyes when the first response to Kali's 'Things we do for money' thread was sure to include a "don't forget to PM me a link" - which in another context, i.e. to be blunt coming from someone else, might seem a lot less sexualised and, well, creepy.
So, when I manifest my interest in seeing the work Kali was planning on doing, it was creepy because it was me saying it? I'm sorry, but to me it only shows your bias against me.
The context here also involves your self-professed identity as a man who loves the ladies and can't shut up about it,
My self-professed identity as a heterosexual male who is interest in women, yes. And I can shut up about it. Most of the time, I am shut up about it. In that thread we were discussing Barbelith attitude towards het m-i posters, and I was trying to explain - however clumsy - why sometimes I say stupid things that annoy people in here, which means it was said in context. And that post is over six months old, ever since them I've being made an effort to be more sensitive about such issues.
who is only held back by the materialistic sensibility of the local heterosexual women
Of the local humanity, actually. If you knew this place, you'd understand what I was saying: São Paulo really trully is and evil place, when it comes down to interpersonna relationships. If you were familiarised with this city cultural, social, and economical context, you'd see what I mean. As it is, you are just judging a comment without knowing the context in which it was said. Nut, then again, you'll just have to believe me on it, unless you pretend to live and work here for a while some day.
and who gets pissed off with women for not being into the same things you are, not in spite of but because you are such a sensitive, appreciative lover.
Yeah, well, since that was the Het 101 thread, I was trying to be particularly blunt and honest about my more selfish side when it comes down to sex, indeed, without adressing the normal etiquette and respect for others issues that I - and any other person - abide by IRL. I was talking about those unreflected first rections we have before our super-ego kicks in and we put such nasty feeling aside. If you think I turn around to a woman and go" I hate yu for not doing what I like", you are living in a fantasy world. I did mention one time in which such nasty behaviour took pcontrol, but, as I explained to people who PM-ed me about it, it was a one time deal, and there were lots of other factors to the story I didn't talk about (and, as I said ia PM also, it evidently does not constitute an excuse for the behaviour of course, but that was not "my best moment by far") Anyway, it was a misoginistic comment nonetheless, and I'll ladly retract it.
The phrase competition for sex is worrying with or without the money issue. It implies to me Teh Laydeez dangling their sex in front of rival men to see who'll give them the best offer, y'know, because sex is a reward women give to men
Actually, I meant it to imply that everyone around here seems to see sex as some sort of consumer product, and it is how people behave around here, be they male or female, straigth or otherwise. But I see your point.
competition for sex is a dodgy phrase. Instead of being something that two adults engage in, as equals, because they want to, it's some sort of commodity being sold to the highest bidder by unscrupulous females. It conjures the image of Nice Guys being kicked to the curb while the grasping female moves on to a guy with a shinier car.
Lots of really, really yucky connotations there.
I agree, and it was exactly what I was pointing out: the evils of the attitude of comepting for sex. It also conjures images of womanizing men lying and mistreating women just to show off for his buddies, and a whole lot of other messy things. I was not praising such competition at the time of those posts, I was, I guess, denouncing it.
Talking about taking girls out as a route to a sexual relationship is also sticky with assumption. For one thing, the people being 'taken out' are girls--not women. For another, if you say 'I took so-and-so out' rather than 'I went out with so-and-so' this is generally used to imply that the jaunt was your treat. So if we're talking about 'taking girls out' as an opener to eventually engaging in sexual activity, we're doing a couple of things: possibly infantilising the women in question, and implying that there's a kind of transaction going on whereby if you pay for sufficient dates, you get your jollies.
Granted, I shall not use the phrase anymore and bw watchful of its implications on every day behaviour
Thanks for the advices, people. I'm here to learn anyway |
|
|
