1325: "Rejection"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:34 pm UTC

Goranson wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:I think this view is somewhat understandable in light of ridiculous conflicting sexist social norms that prescribe celibacy for women and sluttiness for men.

By what standard in western society is this a contemporary social norm? Women are sluttier right now than they have been in probably centuries. A woman can go out and have a one night stand and almost nobody is going to care.

People still judge women who sleep with too many men, much more than they judge men who sleep with too many women. It's not that a single one night stand is going to cause a lot of shaming but judging by number of sexual partners still goes by two standards.
Goranson wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:Essentially, what I get from this, is that the men you describe just want sex and will hurt whoever they need to harm to get it. To me this sounds a lot like the plunderers/pirates that kill everyone that might keep them from enriching themselves in some stories. The differences are obviously that they want sex instead of gold and inflict different harm.

What I get from this is that you place women's feelings on such a heavenly pedestal that men have a moral responsibility to not hurt them in any sort of social interaction ever, to the point that you equate a man veiling sexual interest to pillaging and murder.

I think you misunderstood. I already mentioned that both the hurt and the gain are different. Pirates needed to plunder to survive, sex is not needed like that, it is something people like to do (and some people apparently do their entire lives without it voluntarily). Of course murder and pillaging is worse than hurting peoples feelings, what I'm saying is that knowingly hurting people is wrong even if you gain from it (although I'm inclined to be okay with it for larger discrepancies, such as pushing someone out of the way to steal food from someone who has plenty of it).

The allusion aimed at the subjects knowingly and willingly hurting other people, I didn't say that hurting peoples feelings is just as bad as murder, nor that sex is as valuable a bounty as the gold you need to survive. Although, as I said, while neither hurting peoples feelings for sex, nor murdering innocent people to survive is okay, hurting peoples feelings to survive may be okay.

Also please note that my post was in relation to a post that described someone who was completely convinced that the person he deceived did not want sex with him.

EDIT:
Soft Hyphen wrote:
Rock on people, be honest about your intentions and romantic interest, and go out and be awesome.


"Um, hello. From what little interactions we've had, you seem like a very interesting person that I'd like to get to know better. Would you be amenable to developing a friendship with me that, over the next few months or possibly a year or more I'd like to see grow more close, with the ideal of it of turning it into a romantic relationship at some point, but not necessarily since out friendship might very well lead me to conclude that we are not compatible, in which case we can remain friends, though if you decide early on that there is no possibility of a romantic relationship ever, then I'd just prefer not to do this whole thing in the first place and focus my energies on someone who will entertain that possibility?"

How well would that go over?

How about: "I have to tell you something: I like you... I'd like to get to know you better. Would you like to [insert activity] with me some time?" After all, the quote said: be honest about your romantic interest, not get married/go exclusive/form an intense romantic relationship in 30 days.

The point was: let the other person know you have romantic feelings for them as opposed to having no romantic interest and just wanting to be their friend. And maybe you develop romantic feelings later but that doesn't make you dishonest.
Last edited by PinkShinyRose on Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:49 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9835
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby addams » Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:39 pm UTC

This Thread is not very Romantic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQerH4nRTUA
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4569
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:39 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:Also please note that my post was in relation to a post that described someone who was completely convinced that the person he deceived did not want sex with him.

In the (highly mistaken in case I haven't been clear enough about that) worldview that these guys are operating under, she "did not want to have sex with him" in the same sense that nobody really wants to pay for anything when they could get it for free, but they might be willing to pay if what they get in return is good enough. These guys are operating under the false belief that women are interested in all kinds of nonsexual niceties and not sex, while men are interested in sex but none of the nonsexual niceties, and that relationships happen when they both compromise on those interests and provide what the other wants in exchange for what they want. So the guys are trying to present an image of "I'm totally open to giving you all those niceties you want and I won't be very sexually demanding" -- like someone who's selling a product hyping up how it has all the features you want and a low price. I don't see how that's deceptive. It's a completely mistaken worldview about how relationships work, certainly, but it doesn't seem dishonest. Because it's a completely mistaken worldview, there is a lot of room for misunderstanding there, and just as someone offering a product and not mentioning a price might fool passers-by into thinking that they're just giving away free gifts (especially if that society actually operates largely as a gift economy and the seller is only under the delusion that it's a market economy), so too a guy who thinks he's selling how great a romantic partner he would be by downplaying his sexual interest could easily be mistaken for someone just being friendly and not romantically interested. There's a misunderstanding happening there, and it is on the guy's part, but that's different from malicious deception.

Where it gets really problematic is when you get the equivalent of the bum who washes your windows at a stoplight without you asking for it and then expects payment and gets pissed off if you don't. It's all fine and honest business (if a bit annoying) if he's just standing there with his squeegee saying "I'll wash your windows! It'll be real cheap! C'mon your car needs it, I need the money, it'll be good for us both!" But once he starts actually doing the work and then expecting you to reciprocate on the trade he wants but you never agreed on, then that's not OK. (The analogue there is a guy who starts treating a girl he's interested in like she's already his girlfriend, as far as buying gifts and doting and all the things he thinks are a man's obligation to a woman in a relationship -- and then gets pissed off when she doesn't hold up her end of the "trade" that she never agreed to. Never mind that relationships aren't trades like that in the first place).
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26346
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Feb 21, 2014 8:01 pm UTC

Goranson wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:I think this view is somewhat understandable in light of ridiculous conflicting sexist social norms that prescribe celibacy for women and sluttiness for men.

By what standard in western society is this a contemporary social norm? Women are sluttier right now than they have been in probably centuries.
[citation needed]

I rather think you're making the typical mistake of confusing the Puritans and Victorians for the entirety of the past thousand years. But in any case your ill-advised decision to use the word "sluttier" belies your own prejudices on the matter. Which kinda makes you look like someone who's bitter that women apparently like having sex nowadays but still won't have it with you.

A woman can go out and have a one night stand and almost nobody is going to care.
What about if she has dozens?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Introbulus
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:09 am UTC
Location: New York
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Introbulus » Fri Feb 21, 2014 8:16 pm UTC

Guys...

I want ice cream. Right now.

What if...what if I am a woman? :shock:

Spoiler:
Seriously though we're all born naked and confused apes with no means of defense, and that's basically how we die too. Everythign inbetween is gravy.
If you can read this, you are wasting your time.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Fri Feb 21, 2014 8:18 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:Also please note that my post was in relation to a post that described someone who was completely convinced that the person he deceived did not want sex with him.

In the (highly mistaken in case I haven't been clear enough about that) worldview that these guys are operating under, she "did not want to have sex with him" in the same sense that nobody really wants to pay for anything when they could get it for free, but they might be willing to pay if what they get in return is good enough. These guys are operating under the false belief that women are interested in all kinds of nonsexual niceties and not sex, while men are interested in sex but none of the nonsexual niceties, and that relationships happen when they both compromise on those interests and provide what the other wants in exchange for what they want. So the guys are trying to present an image of "I'm totally open to giving you all those niceties you want and I won't be very sexually demanding" -- like someone who's selling a product hyping up how it has all the features you want and a low price. I don't see how that's deceptive. It's a completely mistaken worldview about how relationships work, certainly, but it doesn't seem dishonest. Because it's a completely mistaken worldview, there is a lot of room for misunderstanding there, and just as someone offering a product and not mentioning a price might fool passers-by into thinking that they're just giving away free gifts (especially if that society actually operates largely as a gift economy and the seller is only under the delusion that it's a market economy), so too a guy who thinks he's selling how great a romantic partner he would be by downplaying his sexual interest could easily be mistaken for someone just being friendly and not romantically interested. There's a misunderstanding happening there, and it is on the guy's part, but that's different from malicious deception.

Where it gets really problematic is when you get the equivalent of the bum who washes your windows at a stoplight without you asking for it and then expects payment and gets pissed off if you don't. It's all fine and honest business (if a bit annoying) if he's just standing there with his squeegee saying "I'll wash your windows! It'll be real cheap! C'mon your car needs it, I need the money, it'll be good for us both!" But once he starts actually doing the work and then expecting you to reciprocate on the trade he wants but you never agreed on, then that's not OK. (The analogue there is a guy who starts treating a girl he's interested in like she's already his girlfriend, as far as buying gifts and doting and all the things he thinks are a man's obligation to a woman in a relationship -- and then gets pissed off when she doesn't hold up her end of the "trade" that she never agreed to. Never mind that relationships aren't trades like that in the first place).

This sounds different. I suppose he didn't do anything malicious in this case, assuming he either wants a relationship or think that the girl is just interested in those other things instead of a relationship (in case of the latter I assume he doesn't get the whole feelings thing). It does make me wonder: does the guy in the example want a relationship or a prostitute? The latter is actually a business transaction, just a really weird one in a sector where a lot of slavery is involved...

As for your last paragraph: I don't think there is a lot of ambiguity about the fact that rape is not considered okay in Western society and even nutbags that think it's okay themselves should get a hint from media and anti-rape laws.

As I think I mentioned before: I have nothing against prostitutes, I just think there is a difference between a relationship and prostitution.

gmalivuk wrote:
Goranson wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:I think this view is somewhat understandable in light of ridiculous conflicting sexist social norms that prescribe celibacy for women and sluttiness for men.

By what standard in western society is this a contemporary social norm? Women are sluttier right now than they have been in probably centuries.
[citation needed]

I rather think you're making the typical mistake of confusing the Puritans and Victorians for the entirety of the past thousand years. But in any case your ill-advised decision to use the word "sluttier" belies your own prejudices on the matter. Which kinda makes you look like someone who's bitter that women apparently like having sex nowadays but still won't have it with you.

To be fair, I introduced the term 'slut' (in a derived form) so it may have been a reaction to my use of the word.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4569
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Feb 21, 2014 9:47 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:This sounds different. I suppose he didn't do anything malicious in this case, assuming he either wants a relationship or think that the girl is just interested in those other things instead of a relationship (in case of the latter I assume he doesn't get the whole feelings thing). It does make me wonder: does the guy in the example want a relationship or a prostitute? The latter is actually a business transaction, just a really weird one in a sector where a lot of slavery is involved...

There are other relationships where people get some kind of mutual (but different) benefits that are not business relationships, so thinking that romantic relationships are like that isn't the same as thinking of all women as prostitutes.

Take for example someone who teaches Tai Chi in the park for free. The teacher is getting something out of having students to teach, otherwise they wouldn't be advertising the class and welcoming students. The students are obviously getting something out of it too. Nobody is paying anybody anything, but both parties are getting some kind of enjoyable benefit out of the relationship, which is different for the teacher and the student. Likewise two people with complementary talents might work together on some kind of a hobbyist project -- say an artist and a writer collaborating on a free webcomic -- and each is getting the benefit of what the other can bring to the table, but neither is paying the other.

That's the way I think these guys view romantic relationships: men need something from women, women need something different from men, and when a man and a women can provide those things to each other (a bit grudgingly in each case as neither is really interested in the same thing that the other wants from them, but it's worth it for the payoff), romance happens. It was certainly the impression a much younger version of me had from TV and movies and general social tropes, until someone set me straight. (Except that I secretly also liked the nonsexual stuff too, and thought that made me weird for a guy. What set me straight was realizing that women "secretly" like the sexual stuff too, and that it's not weird for a guy to like the nonsexual stuff, and bam, it's clear that we all really want more or less the same things and this whole trade model is baloney).

As for your last paragraph: I don't think there is a lot of ambiguity about the fact that rape is not considered okay in Western society and even nutbags that think it's okay themselves should get a hint from media and anti-rape laws.

I think you misunderstood my last paragraph, as it wasn't supposed to be talking about rape. It was supposed to be talking about guys who go whole-hog trying to ply a woman's affections with gifts and affections above and beyond what an ordinary friend would give, and then storms off angry when that doesn't result in sex. To be clear I am saying that that is a bad thing. But it's not rape, unless he decides to "take what he's due".

In the window-washing bum analogy: the bum isn't stealing from you when he just washes your window without you asking for it and then demands money. It doesn't become stealing until he reaches into your car, takes your wallet, and grabs the cash he thinks he's owed -- or points a gun at you and demands you hand it over, or otherwise threatens you into compliance. When he performs a service unrequested and then demands payment, he's being an annoying entitled ass who doesn't understand how legitimate businesses operate, but he's still not a thief unless he takes his "payment" by force.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

Goranson
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:36 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Goranson » Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:00 am UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:People still judge women who sleep with too many men, much more than they judge men who sleep with too many women. It's not that a single one night stand is going to cause a lot of shaming but judging by number of sexual partners still goes by two standards.

Well, if that's what you think you should say that, because that is light years from saying that social norms encourage women to be celibate.

PinkShinyRose wrote:Also please note that my post was in relation to a post that described someone who was completely convinced that the person he deceived did not want sex with him.

If you were completely convinced that someone absolutely did not want sex with you, the only way to make sex happen would be rape. Unless the guys in question are raping the women, then the women are consenting to sex right along with the men, even in the men's own warped view that sex is something you have to veil interest in to get from women. Your analogy of pirates pillaging and murdering completely ignores all the agency women have in the situation.

gmalivuk wrote:[citation needed]

No it's not, since I was rebutting somone who provided no citation for their assertion.

gmalivuk wrote:I rather think you're making the typical mistake of confusing the Puritans and Victorians for the entirety of the past thousand years. But in any case your ill-advised decision to use the word "sluttier" belies your own prejudices on the matter. Which kinda makes you look like someone who's bitter that women apparently like having sex nowadays but still won't have it with you.

Oh please, spare me your sanctimony. As PinkShinyRose said already, he/she was the first to use the word, and in any case "slut" is practically a term of endearment these days. Maybe you just socialize with prudes.

User avatar
Introbulus
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:09 am UTC
Location: New York
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Introbulus » Sat Feb 22, 2014 2:37 pm UTC

Goranson wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:[citation needed]

No it's not, since I was rebutting somone who provided no citation for their assertion.

You're a shithead. [citation needed]
If you can read this, you are wasting your time.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26346
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Feb 22, 2014 2:46 pm UTC

@Goranson: lots of words can be terms of endearment among people within a group and slurs coming from people outside the group. I'd say "slut" is absolutely one of them.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9835
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby addams » Sat Feb 22, 2014 5:58 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:@Goranson: lots of words can be terms of endearment among people within a group and slurs coming from people outside the group. I'd say "slut" is absolutely one of them.

I may not understand the rest of the argument.
I understand that one.

It is not What a person is called.
It is the Way a person is called.

Shakespere addressed the Rose.
An old colloquialism addressed the Casual Acquaintance.

"I don't care what you call me.
As long as you don't call me Late for Dinner."


Spoiler:
What is Your Name?
Me?

You don't need my Indian Name.
Do you?

Slut? As a term of endearment?
Yes. I have done it.

I have called myself a Culinary Slut.
I will eat, nearly, anything.

You eat it first.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Goranson
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:36 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Goranson » Sat Feb 22, 2014 8:35 pm UTC

Introbulus wrote:You're a shithead. [citation needed]

And you're a pedophile, no citation is needed because it's inherent to pederastic style of writing you employ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27_razor

gmalivuk wrote:@Goranson: lots of words can be terms of endearment among people within a group and slurs coming from people outside the group. I'd say "slut" is absolutely one of them.

Look up "slut" on urban dictionary, the first definition is not at all derogatory, and the second one is outright positive. "Slut" is not a word that needs any euphemisms.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26346
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Feb 22, 2014 11:15 pm UTC

Yeah, Urban Dictionary, that bastion of well-researched and properly sourced information about the variety of uses and connotations a word has in the general population.

The fact that UD users upvoted sex-positive definitions doesn't mean anything about how society in general views the word or people the word is ascribed to.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9835
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby addams » Sat Feb 22, 2014 11:30 pm UTC

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=slut
1.slut
a woman with the morals of a man


There.
The things I learn from the Internet.

That is true?
OK!

A Culinary Slut is a woman that eats like a man.
A non-defined Slut is a worm that acts like a man?

That Works!
Wait. Wait.
ech. Go ahead. Tell me.

With the Morals of a Man?
What kind of Morals are Those Morals?

Dang. Just when I was beginning to understand.
Shoot! Can you change it?

Who edits Urban Dictionary?

Who knows what is going on inside that woman's head?
If she acts like a man, she's a Slut.

"Sluts! Go with the Men!"
"Wait Up! I'm Coming!"

I act like a Man.
Some of them.

No one can act like All men.
No one person has that much Stupid in them.

Where are we going?
On a date? ok.

Do you have your own sleeping bag?
You expect me to share a sleeping bag with you?

umm. ok. I'll take the top part.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Goranson
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:36 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Goranson » Sat Feb 22, 2014 11:39 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Yeah, Urban Dictionary, that bastion of well-researched and properly sourced information about the variety of uses and connotations a word has in the general population.

The fact that UD users upvoted sex-positive definitions doesn't mean anything about how society in general views the word or people the word is ascribed to.

At the very least it shows that among certain demographics the word does not have a negative connotation, so you can stop being offended on behalf of women everywhere anytime it's used ever.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26346
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Feb 23, 2014 12:07 am UTC

I'm not offended on behalf of women everywhere, nor am I offended every time it's used. When my own female friends use it in self-attribution, for example, it's obviously fine.

No, my problem was your using it, and "proving" that some people don't attach negative connotations to it (a fact of which I am already abundantly aware) doesn't change that.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Goranson
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:36 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Goranson » Sun Feb 23, 2014 12:41 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:No, my problem was your using it, and "proving" that some people don't attach negative connotations to it (a fact of which I am already abundantly aware) doesn't change that.

Well, then I guess that's your problem.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Sun Feb 23, 2014 1:26 am UTC

Goranson wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:my problem was

Well, then I guess that's your problem.

What does this add to the conversation? I assume you wanted to say something more with this...

I agree with gmalivuk that choosing the special derogatory word instead of a more accepted word generally suggests the intention to offend (other words may also have negative connotations in this case, but I think that in some cases those are secondary to the definition instead of the primary purpose of the word). I agree that using it in reaction to an earlier use makes it understandable and I don't mind, but it's still at your own risk and it's not fair to discount gmalivuks point. Similarly, I used the word out of its normal context (as a perceived social expectation as opposed to an observation of people) suggesting a different intention, but I do understand if someone says they are offended by it and I hope to learn the limitations of acceptable conduct of the readers of this forum if they exceed my own limitations.

Goranson
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:36 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Goranson » Sun Feb 23, 2014 1:51 am UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:What does this add to the conversation? I assume you wanted to say something more with this...

He said absolutely nothing in his post other than that he didn't like me, and specifically me, using the word. I've said already that I didn't intend it to be derogatory, and it still bothers him, so what more is there to say?

PinkShinyRose wrote:I agree with gmalivuk that choosing the special derogatory word instead of a more accepted word generally suggests the intention to offend (other words may also have negative connotations in this case, but I think that in some cases those are secondary to the definition instead of the primary purpose of the word).

"Slut" is honestly the most polite word there really is to describe a woman who has a lot of sex with a lot of different men. Would you have prefered I said "whore" instead? Feminists have been fighting to remove the association of shame from the word "slut" for years now, and yet for all the lip service you seem to be paying to liberating gender roles you're unnaturally sensitive to the world "slut" being used in an entirely non-judgemental context.

User avatar
Introbulus
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:09 am UTC
Location: New York
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Introbulus » Sun Feb 23, 2014 2:14 am UTC

Goranson wrote:
Introbulus wrote:You're a shithead. [citation needed]

And you're a pedophile, no citation is needed because it's inherent to pederastic style of writing you employ.


And you continue to be a shithead.

No citation is needed because you are a shithead.
If you can read this, you are wasting your time.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9835
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby addams » Sun Feb 23, 2014 2:46 am UTC

Goranson wrote:"Slut" is honestly the most polite word there really is to describe a woman who has a lot of sex with a lot of different men.

No. That is not true.
Some people call her Mom.

If you don't know her well enough to call her by name or call her, Mom;
Then don't call her.

What are you calling her for?
Feeling Lucky?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

elasto
Posts: 3443
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby elasto » Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:19 am UTC

Goranson wrote:"Slut" is honestly the most polite word there really is to describe a woman who has a lot of sex with a lot of different men. Would you have prefered I said "whore" instead?


Wha..? Your sentence was: "Women are sluttier right now than they have been in probably centuries." You honestly don't think that could have been more politely rendered as: "Women probably have more sexual partners right now than they've had in centuries."

I seriously think you are just rationalizing: You copied the phrasing of the poster before you, putting no thought into whether it might cause offence. Just hold your hands up to your carelessness and move on.

Straight off the top of my head, there are a whole host of phrases such as 'sexually liberated' or 'serial monogamist' that don't have nearly the offense-causing baggage of 'slut' or 'whore'. If you can't come up with something more polite than those you simply aren't trying.

(And, seriously, insiders to a group subverting a word like feminists calling each other slut or homosexuals calling each other queer or African Americans calling each other nigger does not suddenly translate to outsiders casually being able to throw the phrasing around also. I am skeptical you genuinely think this is how the world works...)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26346
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Feb 23, 2014 4:24 am UTC

Goranson wrote:"Slut" is honestly the most polite word there really is to describe a woman who has a lot of sex with a lot of different men. Would you have prefered I said "whore" instead?
In addition to addams's points and elasto's suggestions, what about "promiscuous"?

I am as skeptical of your claim that you really couldn't think of a single better word, as elasto is of your apparent ignorance of the difference between reclaiming a word for one's own group and using that word for a group you don't belong to.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Goranson
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:36 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Goranson » Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:12 am UTC

elasto wrote:Wha..? Your sentence was: "Women are sluttier right now than they have been in probably centuries." You honestly don't think that could have been more politely rendered as: "Women probably have more sexual partners right now than they've had in centuries."

I seriously think you are just rationalizing: You copied the phrasing of the poster before you, putting no thought into whether it might cause offence. Just hold your hands up to your carelessness and move on.

Straight off the top of my head, there are a whole host of phrases such as 'sexually liberated' or 'serial monogamist' that don't have nearly the offense-causing baggage of 'slut' or 'whore'. If you can't come up with something more polite than those you simply aren't trying.

In my experience, to the average person who is under 30 the once negative connotation of the word slut is simply gone. I have heard it used commonly by men and women in a way that affirms women being sexually promiscuous. If you want the word to not be used in that way and to still have the connotation it once did when used by anyone who isn't a feminist, all I can ask is why? How does it benefit women if slut still has connotation it once had? It seems like the only group who gains anything from it is people looking for things to be perpetually outraged about.

elasto wrote:(And, seriously, insiders to a group subverting a word like feminists calling each other slut or homosexuals calling each other queer or African Americans calling each other nigger does not suddenly translate to outsiders casually being able to throw the phrasing around also. I am skeptical you genuinely think this is how the world works...)

Women and feminists are not the same thing, so the "in group" defense is tenuous.

gmalivuk wrote:I am as skeptical of your claim that you really couldn't think of a single better word, as elasto is of your apparent ignorance of the difference between reclaiming a word for one's own group and using that word for a group you don't belong to.

And I am skeptical of your attempt to try and affirm yourself a moral highground because of the word "slut". I very much doubt that it comes from anything close to genuine place.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9835
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby addams » Sun Feb 23, 2014 6:06 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Goranson wrote:"Slut" is honestly the most polite word there really is to describe a woman who has a lot of sex with a lot of different men. Would you have prefered I said "whore" instead?
In addition to addams's points and elasto's suggestions, what about "promiscuous"?

I am as skeptical of your claim that you really couldn't think of a single better word, as elasto is of your apparent ignorance of the difference between reclaiming a word for one's own group and using that word for a group you don't belong to.

Promiscuous!
That's right!

A whole word with a whole meaning of its own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promiscuity

Now; That is sorted out.
Shall we gossip about our newest Troll?

20 Posts under its belt and we are being amazingly concentrate and patient with it.
To be fair; What are our choices?

Can it be that we have people that are both shallow and judgmental?
Well…Why not? They exist in the Real World. Our 2D world is almost Real.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Goranson
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:36 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Goranson » Sun Feb 23, 2014 6:16 am UTC

At least I'm not hiding behind passive agressive stanzas.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9835
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby addams » Sun Feb 23, 2014 6:27 am UTC

Goranson wrote:At least I'm not hiding behind passive agressive stanzas.

Me?
I'm not hiding.

And; I am not Passive-Aggressive.
I don't do Aggressive, most of the time.

If you want Aggressive, we have some.
Not me! I will duck out of the way.

Our 2D people can be quite cutting.
You will know when you have triggered Passive-Aggression in the Mods.

Your link to the Forum might stop working.
But; They are very nice to new arrivals.

Besides; We do need to read what others have to say.
We might learn something.

What, dear poster, Do you have to teach?
Vocabulary?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

elasto
Posts: 3443
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby elasto » Sun Feb 23, 2014 6:27 am UTC

Goranson wrote:In my experience, to the average person who is under 30 the once negative connotation of the word slut is simply gone.

Even if that is true - which I am skeptical of but don't rule out because language does evolve - bear in mind this is a message board frequented world-wide and by people over the age of 30. Also, being a written medium it's far easier for misinterpretation to arise.

But note that with this statement you are simply shifting the goalposts and further rationalizing: Even if it's true that slut has lost most of its negative connotations for Americans under the age of 30, it's still not true that 'there's honestly no more polite term to use'; Three terms which have never had the negative connotations of slut/whore have now been offered to you.

Women and feminists are not the same thing, so the "in group" defense is tenuous.

You're the one claiming feminists are trying to reclaim the word. You never claimed women were trying to reclaim the word, so I'm not sure what your point is here.

When groups use pejoratives amongst themselves in an ironic sense - like a couple of black friends calling each other 'nigger' - it still remains the case that one black man calling another black man he's never met before 'a nigger' still carries a very real risk of causing offense. And a white person calling a black stranger a nigger - then simply claiming he's 'just trying to join in in reclaiming the word' - risks much worse than mere offense...

The same is true for 'slut' even if I accept your claim that feminists are trying to reclaim it - and even if I accept you claim that they have largely succeeded for Americans under the age of 30.
Last edited by elasto on Sun Feb 23, 2014 6:30 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Karilyn
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:09 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Karilyn » Sun Feb 23, 2014 6:28 am UTC

Saw this on imgur just now, immediately thought of this thread.

http://imgur.com/gallery/HRKOqoH

And amongst the flames and irreverent claims of pedophilia (seriously, bullet dodged on not getting a moderator warning for that post, but if I was you I wouldn't keep pushing my luck), I walk through the fire to bring this message: Seriously dudes, ask the fucking girl out if you find yourself attracted to her. There's no excuse for letting it fester inside for years. As soon as you find yourself developing attraction, just fucking ask her out within the next week or two. I've yet to see one good explanation why a man should hide his romantic attraction for months and years on end, and why it's the woman's fault when he gets rejected after all that time.

Ask sooner rather than later, or it's nobody's fault but your own that you got hurt. And I'm really tired of people using hypothetical stories about some guy getting rejected after months of cringing because he was attracted to someone and didn't ask them out. Male or female, if you like someone, fucking ask them out. You have no excuse not to.
Gelsamel wrote:If you punch him in the face repeatedly then it's science.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26035
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby SecondTalon » Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:06 pm UTC

Goranson wrote:At least I'm not hiding behind passive agressive stanzas.


Do me a favor, and yourself.

Don't post things that just absolutely beg for a "Fine, aggressive then. You're banned" response.

It makes it really, really hard to resist.

On a serious note, let's not be shitheads and stop calling each other names.

..sorry, I can't even do serious for a moment. But I am serious about knocking off the name-calling.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
zmic
Posts: 419
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby zmic » Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:38 pm UTC

The stick figure on the right should have given his lovelorn friend a hug instead of being all cold and judgmental.

He thinks he's so enlightened, but in fact he's the one who is stuck in those OLD patterns that male friends must forever be trash-talking each other.

A lot of problems concerning unhappy single males would be alleviated if there was a little bit more tenderness between men.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9835
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby addams » Thu Apr 24, 2014 1:08 am UTC

Agreed.
Tenderness Not Sex, from men and women would ease some suffering.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Chibfirls
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:42 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Chibfirls » Tue Apr 29, 2014 8:49 pm UTC

Just adding myself as an example to give hope and/or tips for people that have trouble getting in a relationship. Fear not, even I eventually got paired up with my very fitting wife. Disclaimer: I'm rather dense, rather weird, and I come over as a bit aloof, so the situations I'm in might be weird for you. But I am most definitely nice. I've done all the nice guy things: been a shoulder to cry on for multiple females through multiple of their relationships, been there for them in the middle of the night (the one that thought she was pregnant and called me at 2am in tears), acted extremely chivalrous/dense (been in bed with the same female multiple times without ever taking advantage of the situation 'cause I figured she wasn't interested <- this seems really dense in retrospect, given some other hints I got dropped) and I was generally very willing to be of help (and yes, some females did try to abuse this and I even didn't really resist). And I never even expected anything back. I was obviously bound to be the typical nice guy that stays single forever.

Okay, somehow I got hooked. What the fuck happened?
I found a female that I really got a long with well. Personality fit was amazing (she still has never bored me and she's a very nice person <- my main criteria, a whole lot of people do not meet these). I kept on being a nice guy. Hell, I even gave her advice on getting date (which she took and then succeeded). At some point (after about 2 years of knowing her and 6 months of helping her date) I noticed that I didn't really like this thing of her dating someone else. Eventually it got through to my dense mind that I actually really liked this one (the being sad enough to feel too sick to eat anything but toast was a giveaway). After feeling really shitty for a few days (and probaby losing weight), I felt I couldnt really go on like that. Hence I told her straight up (over IM like a pussy :D) that I liked her, that her being with someone else made me feel really shitty and that if the feeling didn't let up very soon I'd have to take some time off seeing her (basically until the feeling subsided and I couldn't really put a date on that). She was rather devestated by this news ('cause she really liked talking with me) and we talked about it over the next few days. Eventually it turned out she had been kinda into me since the start, but she thought she didn't stand a chance and had already given up on me. Later it turned out that I'm just really dense and I never noticed any of the subtle hints she'd been sending me. Anyways, we got together after we realized that we both liked each other and now we live happily ever after (or at least we're happy with each other, other things in life might not all be that awesome, but being together helps a lot).

The important conclusion:
Be clear. Be very clear. On some people, subtle hints don't work. Not so subtle hints don't work either.
Sometimes, you just need to say: I like you and I want to be in a relationship with you.
That bluntly. Because if your love interest is like me, they won't get it otherwise. Yes, I am that dense
(and I also had some minor confidence issues thinking that no one would ever love me or something). This also helps in case the other person is afraid of getting rejected and isn't sure you're into them.
Being clear and honest is very important. Miscommunication is very common and you wouldn't want something silly like that stop you from finding that special person, now would you?
It's also ok to take some distance and time to recover after you've been rejected. It hurts and it makes things awkward, so it's okay.


Karilyn wrote:That's the general flowchart of how relationships go. People who are like "Oh we're going to be together for the rest of our lives" early on a relationship are fucking scary because it shows they have no grasp on realism and the actual stage of the relationship they are in. They are the reason why the divorce rate is so insanely fucking high. They are the reason the Twilight novels are bestsellers. Historically if I encountered someone say that, I'd lecture them about it once, and if they continued to do it, I'd wind up dumping them, because it's better to get out earlier rather than later.

Though I agree that this is generally the case (given the extra info you get about a person during the first few months/years of dating), I'm going to provide myself (and my wife) as a counterexample :D. We've been together for 7 years now, married for close to 4 of those. I basically told her I was gonna marry her and that we were gonna be together forever when we started dating (this was obviously repricocal). We still regularely reaffirm this :p. Just to add to the implausibility of it all, we were also each other's first sexual partners. And it's not like our life together has been all rainbows and sunshine... though maybe that makes it easier? (though I didn't think living in the house you're renovating together ever made anything easier :P)

That being said (I got the being contrary out of my system :P). I think you are an awesome person anyways for helping people feel happy.
Karilyn wrote:Spoilered for length
Spoiler:
Aliquid wrote:
Karilyn wrote:[It might sound hard to believe, because I'm dishing out tough love in this thread, and it's going to sound ironic in the context of this thread, but it's honestly because I'm too nice. In most cases it's a person who doesn't have a lot of experience with people being nice to them, especially with people of the opposite sex. Because they have never had someone treat them that nice before, they work up the delusion in their mind that I must be in love with them, or that I'm their soulmate. So they start to think of me as their future girlfriend or something, then get angry when they feel like I was leading them on by being nice to them.
I know that story... and it isn't always a romantic one.

I learned that lesson the hard way back when I was a teenager. There was a kid at school that was a bit of an “outcast” and had no friends. He seemed like a nice enough guy to me, so I chatted with him and was polite and friendly to him (just as I would be to anybody else). Suddenly I was his “best friend” and he followed me around everywhere. He smothered me and was obsessive. There were two options… always dismiss him and be rude to him, or spend 24/7 with him as his BFF. He wasn’t capable of accepting anything in-between.

So really this isn't about sex. This is about people who are (to put it bluntly) socially retarded. You are stuck with a difficult dilemma. Do you
(A) Treat this person with the same amount of friendliness and respect as you would any other person… and end up with a stalker, or do you
(B) Be rude and cold towards this person to make sure they don’t get the “wrong idea”. Which in turn perpetuates their social isolation.

Oh you're right. And I don't think I need to explain to you how much more frustrating it is when you're of the opposite sex and a person's doing that to you, but instead of thinking of you as their "best friend" they think you're their girlfriend or boyfriend.

Nowadays I take option C BTW. I sit them down and calmly lecture them on what healthy relationships should be like, because in most cases it's their first or second friendship (or not even necessarily friendship, could be someone I'm already dating for realz) that they've ever had. And I help teach them. And if they get worse, then I cut it off. If they get better, I spend time and work with them on building their self esteem.

I've had about a 2/3rds success rate with the lecture. Every one of them is doing much much better after a bit of time, and strove hard to try and not be obsessive and smothering, because they are /authentically good people/ who didn't realize what they were doing was problematic. And as a part of a mutual payback for them becoming an awesome friend or awesome boy/girlfriend, I take time to help them improve their self-esteem and learn how to make new friends. And thus far I've had 100% success rate with these people going on to make lots of awesome new friends, and most of them have even obtained relationships with people, and ones that, as far as I can tell, are happy, mutual and self-fulfilling.

The other 1/3rd were NOT authentically good people, they just put on the mask of being a good person, IE the "nice guy." And I'm entirely okay with dumping those people.

C seems to be the best option. It usually reveals pretty rapidly what the person's true colors are.

EDIT: Alright this is my last post for the day, gotta go hop a plane, head to the other side of the country. Hugs and kisses everyone, stay awesome, and I hope you have a totally radical life full of more love than you can imagine.

EDIT EDIT: I just know I'm going to have some typo in this post that tomorrow I'm going to some 5 different posts making fun of lol. That always happens.

EDIT EDIT EDIT: One last comment before I run out the door. That remaining 1/3rd people? Those are the people the comic are about. Not the former 2/3rds. Option C is very useful for me to reveal which type of person I'm dealing with. An innocent person who's just socially inept, and is willing to learn. Or an asshole would rather blame the world than realize their behavior might be /slightly/ out of line.

User avatar
Znirk
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:47 am UTC
Location: ZZ9 plural Z α

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby Znirk » Sat May 10, 2014 9:11 am UTC

Karilyn wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:Likewise approaching a woman I don't know seems equally likely to be taken as creepy because in that situation it's obvious the only attraction possible is physical. Between those two things any advance seems to have a high probability of being portrayed as an inappropriate advance, unless by some chance the woman was already into me too and so would welcome it, so the overall vibe I feel from women(*) in general is "if you're not someone I'm attracted to, it's not appropriate to approach me", but how is anyone supposed to know who you're attracted to without approaching you?


FYI testing the waters is a useful tool, and I recommend doing it shortly after discovering you're attracted to someone. If they respond favorably, go ahead and ask them out, if they don't respond or respond negatively don't try harder. It's when you try harder that it becomes an unwanted advance. But "being their friend" is NOT testing the waters. Being their friend is being their friend.

So out of curiosity, what form does "testing the waters" take (since the term seems to exclude instances of actually asking them out)?

For background: I'm male, happily single for most of my life, fascinated by this thread and its wild loops, and increasingly wondering how People ever manage to pair-bond.

azaethral
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:22 pm UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby azaethral » Sat May 24, 2014 12:57 am UTC

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:
drazen wrote:Randall has left out one very important element: the girl who rejects a guy, says "let's just be friends," then proceeds to endlessly complain to the guy who was interested in her about how the bad boy is constantly mistreating her. THAT'S probably the thing the "Nice Guy" movement is complaining about, and really, can you blame them? Oh, let's be friends, you get to listen to me complain about my problems and get pretty much nothing in return (except misguided false hope, if you're not experienced enough to recognize the situation). Who's the jerk in THAT scenario, eh? I'd say it's the girl, although I'd also say both people are being idiots about it.

Dude, you get a friend. Do you expect to fuck your male friends? If not, why do you expect to fuck your female friends?


I think it's something that you can't really generalize. Yes, there certainly women who are fair with their LJBFs. But there are also women who use it as a tool of degradation, where sex isn't really an issue, and where there's no genuine intent of friendship to back it up. This isn't a double-standard - just like there are men who are decent and men who are assholes (which are which probably depends on who you ask!), there are women who are nice and women who aren't quite as nice.

The question "why are women attracted to assholes?" is an enigma, but I tend to believe that the only reason it's an enigma is because the answer is multi-pronged. For example, depending on circumstances, the answer could be, "they're not, but they're not necessarily fond of guys who whine," or "the ones who are attracted to assholes might not exactly be such wonderful people themselves," or "who's an asshole and who isn't is more a question of politics than anything else."

YTPrenewed
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:09 am UTC

Re: 1325: "Rejection"

Postby YTPrenewed » Tue May 01, 2018 10:52 pm UTC

poxic wrote:Image

Title text: "Perhaps you need a crash course in taking hints. Here's your first lesson: We're not actually walking somewhere together; I'm trying to leave this conversation and you're following me."

I was recently thinking about this old comic.

It's a bit of a strawman to assume the guy in question is even referring to any specific girl who rejected him in the first place. I've been rejected and it didn't feel like a big deal, long before I entertained the notion of a kernel of truth (though not much more) to this narrative of relationships based on the nature of online debates about it. One side has evolutionary reasoning that is presented as such (I wouldn't put it past evolution to put quantity over quality of life either) but the other side has nothing but speculation on the author's personal life, presented with a baseless level of certainty. You could argue evolutionary psychology is itself speculative; though where the alternatives are surveys that can be lied to, it's speculative either way; but the lion's share of the hypocrisy is on the part of those who pretend to value evidence while speculating about something they couldn't possibly know.

It isn't always the case, but it is often enough to not come across as a coincidence. And it's enough to make me wonder, if they were wrong about me, (see also here) who else could they be wrong about?

As for this supposedly not making him nice... would it really have been nicer to hold anyone's judgment and self-awareness, male or female, immune from being questioned? That's not entirely harmless.

Also, "hints" are too open to interpretation. If you've got something to say, you say it outright.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Archgeek and 30 guests