grum, I'm offended by the fact you accused me of trolling and since it's up to me what I find offensive I'm going to report your post.
Chat Forum
[closed]
Sexism on STW (a goodbye and some thanks :) )
-
Posted 6 months ago #
-
there's not much on this thread that's made me smile
The "judgypants" comment made me laugh. I think I might be a bit too judgypants sometimes.
On the contentious subject of backdoors - I've never used the phrase myself but also never read it as a reference to anal rape. I also don't believe it has been meant as one, otherwise I'd have flounced myself.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Good point TJ but...
# No posts which, in the Moderators opinion, are likely to cause offence to either an individual, or group, whatever their gender, sexual inclination or ethnicity.
"little englander" can be taken many different ways - I've regularly (in the real world) heard it used to refer to racist behaviour rather than the correct 'dictionary' definition so you'll now stop using it, right, knowing that it's perceived by others in that way...?
Posted 6 months ago # -
I'm sure you think you're making a clever point here druidh, but you're really not. Give over.
Posted 6 months ago # -
not sure re rape but I do know i have never heard it anywhere but here. I have never used it and never will.Its an awful phrase.
I can describe a woman I find as attractive in a way that would be fine to say in front of my mother or my children....why we use that phrase is lost on me.
Some things you can say privately if that is what you are like some you can say publicly - difference between telling your mates something and standing at the bar telling the entire pub.
I doubt you would get a great reception using that phrase to the entire bar and I very much doubt the target of this phrase would be flattered.EDIT: I reported that Hora post FWIW and they let it stand.
Posted 6 months ago # -
TJ - You can't just take a phrase, decide it means something it does not and get offended by your own interpretation.
I'm not suggesting that some comments here don't cross a line but once again common sense needs to prevail.
Posted 6 months ago # -
its not what you intend that matters - its how its perceived by others.
True, but if you are not aware of how others perceive something then you can't really be blamed for inadvertently offending them with a meaning you'd never considered.
You (TJ) and I both managed to offend someone on here last night by using the phrase "godbotherers" even though neither of us considered it offensive. Should we both be banned?
Posted 6 months ago # -
Its clear that to many of us on here it does mean rape.
No, not many, a minority including you. On this page of 14 posts (currently), only one is complaining (yours)and 4 are saying they've never felt it referenced rape. Give it up man, you're wrong...
Posted 6 months ago # -
its not what you intend that matters - its how its perceived by others.
Ah, right. That's cleared it up. Just in case someone makes a bizarre interpretation of anything anyone types, we'd better not type anything. In fact, just to be safe, lets get the forum closed, lest anyone be offended.
It's not a term that I've ever posted since it's unnecessarily crude IMO but I certainly never read it as unconsensual and I've never actally heard it used in that context in the real world either
+1
Posted 6 months ago # -
Has she gone yet? I really wanted to say goodbye.
Posted 6 months ago # -
500!
Posted 6 months ago # -
Give it up man, you're wrong...
Both of these things are impossible where dearest TJ is concerned
Posted 6 months ago # -
grum - I'm being serious about the use of those word and phrases. I find them as offensive as the words Paki and Nigger are.
Posted 6 months ago # -
You (TJ) and I both managed to offend someone on here last night by using the phrase "godbotherers" even though neither of us considered it offensive. Should we both be banned?
Great example.
Posted 6 months ago # -
This time last year, Andy Gray and Richard Keys were getting their jotters from a national broadcaster for indulging in dated locker-room "banter" when they thought no one was listening, despite being sat in front of a bank of cameras and recording equipment. It provoked a debate along the lines of this thread on a national scale.
I'd never heard the phrase until that fiasco
Posted 6 months ago # -
TandemJeremy - Member
Its clear
that to many of us on hereto me it does mean rape.
FTFYTJ If you are genuinely interpreting the "back doors" phrase in that way, it says more about your grubby little mind than it does about people who use the phrase.
FWIW Its not a phrase I'd consider meaning I'd like to rape someone, anyone using it in that context should quite rightly be given a time out for that sentiment.
I'd always interpreted the "back doors" phrase as a modern take on "i'd give her one". Not PC or respectful to women either I admit, but certainly not suggesting raping someone.Posted 6 months ago # -
joolsburger - Member
TJ - You can't just take a phrase, decide it means something it does not and get offended by your own interpretation.
1) its not just me who sees it as meaning rape - many of us do so its at best possible to misunderstand it / misinterpret it. At worst those who claim it means consensual sex are being disingenuous. "smash in" or "Kick in" implys force to me
Read the posts by Ernie or Orangina
2) I am not offended - this is another canard that people make up. where have I claimed to be offended?
I think its an offensive phrase - ie has the ability to offend- and the attitudes that people have that allow them to see it as inoffensive are unacceptable
Its not about what offends me - its about what is acceptable on the forum. The mods position on this is quite clear.
Posted 6 months ago # -
its not what you intend that matters - its how its perceived by others
Seriously?
Every time I open my mouth I should consider what I'm about to say from 7 billion various perspectives? No. I'm not a politician or a brown noser. If you misinterpret what I say, it's your problem.Posted 6 months ago # -
Its clear that to many of us on here it does mean rape.
But, this is a misunderstanding on your / their part. This issue has been highlighted and corrected (which, I think, is another good thing to have come out of this discussion). Why would you continue to deliberately infer another meaning after it's been explained?
You might as well argue that I can't use the word "orange" because to you it means a lewd act with a badger.
t worst those who claim it means consensual sex are being disingenuous. "smash in" or "Kick in" implys force to me
Cos, of course, no-one's ever had rough consensual sex...
Posted 6 months ago # -
Its clear that to many of us on here it does mean rape.
Does it even matter though ? Why does anyone need to talk about anal sex in mixed company - irrespective of whether it's consensual or non-consensual?
I try to post on here as I would talk on a bike ride which includes mixed company. Anal sex isn't a topic which I encounter very much in that sort of situation.
Posted 6 months ago # -
TJ +1
The first time I heard that phrase I thought about what it meant as it seemed weird. The only explanation it could be is rape. What else could it mean? Rough consensual rumpy-pumpy? Breaking and entering her house?
Posted 6 months ago # -
Both of these things are impossible where dearest TJ is concerned
I tend to agree with that statement. Even when proved to be 100% categorically factually incorrect (complete with copied posts from over a year ago) with his claims on a post recently he still refused to accept he was wrong saying something like 'we just both remembered things differently'. Yes TJ, you remembered them incorrectly.He really does boil my piss.
Posted 6 months ago # -
I'm amazed that anyone could think
otherwisedifferently to myself and can't get my head round that concept.FIFY.
So, to summarise:
A female forum member expresses dislike over certain attitudes which are present on the forum, and in particular one oft-used phrase which she finds very offensive.
Several other women post that they too also find such attitudes and comments offensive.
Many people ask for a change in attitudes in some people, in order that the forum can be a nicer environment for all.
A few people simply don't understand any of this, and struggle to understand why other people think differently to themselves, and instead of actually trying to engage in intelligent discussion, uses this as an excuse to continue acting without empathy, understanding or respect for others. And probably think thay are ever so clever and funny...
That's about it really, is not it?
Ok so, here's two ways things can work:
Please don't use comments like that, I find them offensive'
'Oh, sorry, I haddunt considered that they might be, but I can see your point and I respect you for speaking out. I shall endeavour to consider such things in future, in order that we can all get along better'
= Positive outcome.
Or:
Please don't use comments like that, I find them offensive'
'Oh well you're just too sensitive why don't you go elsewhere then if you don't like it why should I change my behaviour in any way?'
= negative outcome.
It's not really rocket science, is it? Or even science for that matter. It's just about common courtesy and respect for others, is all.
How's that work then ?
Because I'm actually lovely and everybody here loves me and wants me to stay.
Posted 6 months ago # -
+1 Ernie.
(God, there really is a disturbance in the Force this morning)
Posted 6 months ago # -
At worst those who claim it means consensual sex are being disingenuous. "smash in" or "Kick in" implys force to me
Don't be an idiot TJ, plenty of us have heard the phrase, heard it only ever used one way and taken it to mean that. I'd never even considered that it means unconsensual.
In exactly the same way that once a phrase becomes known you don't actually think about the words themselves, hence the use of forceful words is irrelevant. Obviously I can see how people who weren't familiar with the term and heard it used could come up with the logic you suggest and come up with a different explanation.
All that said, either way, there's no need for it to be posted.
Posted 6 months ago # -
"smash in" or "Kick in" implys force to me
But saying 'open her back doors' instead would imply you'd like to have a look up the back passage rather than have anal intercourse.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Obviously I can see how people who weren't familiar with the term and heard it used could come up with the logic you suggest and come up with a different explanation.
As above, I found out on Google what it's supposed to mean in about five seconds.
It's not really rocket science, is it? Or even science for that matter. It's just about common courtesy and respect for others, is all.
Well said.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Incidentally,
Another good thing to come out of this thread is, it's pulled all the weevils out of the woodwork. I've now got a nice, healthy list of complete nobbers who I know to avoid in future.
Posted 6 months ago # -
its not just me who sees it as meaning rape - many of us do so its at best possible to misunderstand it / misinterpret it. At worst those who claim it means consensual sex are being disingenuous. "smash in" or "Kick in" implys force to me
Read the posts by Ernie or Orangina
yes do that
completely ignore a post highlighting where the the phrase has been used in front of 40,000 women and universally accepted as being consensual.
Posted 6 months ago # -
oldnpastit
I've always read it as being a reference to rape. I'm amazed anyone could think otherwise.
ernie_lynch
I've always taken it as meaning non-consensual sex, or at the very least, some degree of resistance.Otherwise it would be something along the lines of "using the back door/trademen's entrance". Why would anyone talk about 'kicking doors in', if they are being 'welcomed' ?
orangina - Member
BUT - and this is a firm and big BUT - 'Kicking in the back door' - I didn't know the expression til I came to this thread - is outrageous and wrong on so many levels.
You CANNOT give rape a pet name, rape is always rape and has to be called that. You cannot use this in any way to describe it, you're making the act less severe and mock it. If your partner was raped, would you use this expression to describe the crime ?StefMcDe
I'm with TJ and the handwringing do-gooders on this one. I'm no prude but "banter" which implies, jokes about or normalises violent, unconsensual sex is bad form. So "kicking back doors in", "would you smash it", "that winger's raped the full-back all day long" - I would think less of anyone, mates included, who use this terminology.
Karinofnine - The remark which put me off being here is the back doors remark. Sorry, but it isn't funny, flippant, lighthearted, a parody, analogy or a joke. It is a reference to unconsensual sex - ie rape, and rape simply ain't funny (from either a male or female perspective).
Just going back a couple of pages.
so its not just me who sees it in this way.
Posted 6 months ago # -
druidh - Member
grum - I'm being serious about the use of those word and phrases. I find them as offensive as the words Paki and NiggerHonestly? Do Scottish people really suffer from genuine serious discrimination/racism then? Shall we ban sassenach too then? I don't much like Jock or 'Sweaty' either tbh though...
Posted 6 months ago # -
completely ignore a post where the the phrase has been used in front of 40,000 women and accepted as being consensual.
Trailmonkey; something for you to think about:
Who, in that situation, was using the comment?
(Thinking about the use of the 'N' word by Black music artists my help in this context...)
grum - I'm being serious about the use of those word and phrases. I find them as offensive as the words Paki and Nigger
As the subject of the comment, Onion has every right to express his dislike for it, if he finds it offensive. I think he makes a very good point actually.
A Scottish mate of ours was jokingly called 'Jock' by a couple of our group. Not to be ofensive, more affectionately really. He turned round one day and sed 'dinnae call me Jock, eh? I dinnae like it. Call me 'Scottish Bastard' if ye like, but no' Jock'.
So, they listened to what he sed, and respected his wishes by not using that word again.
Mind you, they are reasonably intelligent Human Beings...
Posted 6 months ago # -
Just so I can set the record straight, I don't and I won't use that phrase. Have a look through my posts TJ should you wish (and I'm sure you're 'anal' enough). For reference, I also don't use the 'C' word - I find that offensive and overuse of any swearwords i find unnecessary as well.
However, you misquoted me to start with and you've continued to argue that its a reference to rape even when it isn't ever since.
Apply some common sense to the situation. Those that think its rape related are in the minority, many have stated that although it doesn't they do find it offensive. THerefore the feeling is that we shouldn't use the term. Simple.
Now for the love of God, please stop....
Posted 6 months ago # -
its not what you intend that matters - its how its perceived by others
TJ - aside from the observation that your assertion rather flies in the face of trends in linguistic theory, typing it on here does leave you with a fairly massive hostage to fortune in the future with future contributions to this or any other debate.
For my own part, I've always thought the "smashing back doors in" terminology had rather abusive overtones, even if it's not intended to imply non-consensual sex. As such, I had it mentally filed under 'knuckle dragger' alongside a little picture of Richard Keys and Andy Gray.
Posted 6 months ago # -
At worst those who claim it means consensual sex are being disingenuous. "smash in" or "Kick in" implys force to me
Not force, just consensual passion, enthusiasm and vigour.
I've never yet met a woman who, in the throes of ecstatic passion, has cried out "Softer, softer, slower, slower".
But still, +1 Elf.
Posted 6 months ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
