The other thing I picked up listing usage was that it came from both Brits and Aussies, lots of those links are to Aussies. And some of those who are posting on this thread disapprovingly are there as previous users.
Yeah. I'm 99% sure that's the only time I've ever used the word on the Ship, new or old (and as I said, it was a quote, not directed at anyone). I thought it was on the Brexit thread - turns out it wasn't, but was Brexit related. It's hard to keep one's language sweet and proper when it comes to Brexit.
The ‘religious insults’ bit of your post is especially interesting @Golden Key.
I’m sure @Curiosity killed ‘s excellent detective work will prove me wrong, but I’ve never seen any religiously ‘inspired’ insults or curses on the Ship.
No real surprise there - but it does demonstrate how easy it is to filter our written words.
I sometimes let my self-perceived sectarian victimhood off the leash on the ship. I've tightened it recently though after I wasted a host's time suggesting I do a thread about how put-upon Irish Catholics are.
Something else is that the idea that cunt is of its nature misogynist is hotly contested by progressive and political women, not only here on the Ship but in America too. My mind turns to Samantha Bee in particular, not a woman to pull her punches. There was a whole thing about it last year, and I sit with her. I perceive her to be saying, "I want to use cunt in my TV show. But some women react against it as a rape word. I'm going to respect those women's wishes, but I don't like it."
Conversely, there are progressive and political women in Australia who think that cunt should not be used because it is a rape word and inherently misogynistic.
The status of the word as inherently misogynistic is in flux across the WEIRD culture, in my opinion. Its not fixed anywhere.
Ruth, people already don't say that word here. That's sort of the point I've been making. People don't use the "n" word, the "r" word, the "k" word, voluntarily. There's no rule against it, people just don't do it. All I'm asking is that they do the same with the "c" word.
So you want all posters to impose a ban on themselves from using this word? Does that work with a word that is proven to be (by the clear evidence of this thread) not equivocally of the same nature as your other examples?
We've already had Mousethief's post equating those, who don't feel sufficiently offended by every single use of the word across the entire English-speaking world, with racists, and therefore not entitled to have an opinion. It would be good to clarify the extent and rationale of the moral obligation everyone is being 'requested' to comply unquestionably to.
It's a bit like the Streisand effect, try to hide something or suppress it, and it use leaps upwards. I suppose Prohibition also. My English teacher talked to us about cunt in Eng Lit, sometimes spelled as quaint, and also "queynte", (found in Chaucer), and maybe connected with "cuneiform".
On the subject of reclaiming cunt, remember the "Cunt Coloring Book", by the late Tee Corinne.
Several comments recently on this thread say there is no religious use of swearing on this thread. You are either new, or have short memories. Erin, when dealing with serious examples of rule breaking, in her cams its of board editor no less, would start replies dealing with the miscreant with the phrase, "Jesus H Christ on a pogo-stick." (The mode of transport varied.)
It's a bit like the Streisand effect, try to hide something or suppress it, and it use leaps upwards. I suppose Prohibition also. My English teacher talked to us about cunt in Eng Lit, sometimes spelled as quaint, and also "queynte", (found in Chaucer), and maybe connected with "cuneiform".
On the subject of reclaiming cunt, remember the "Cunt Coloring Book", by the late Tee Corinne.
This.It should not need saying, but this is NSFW. As if anyone would be on this tread at work anyway.
So you want all posters to impose a ban on themselves from using this word?
That's the bit that gets my goat about this - the whole idea that there can be a ban without it technically being a ban. It feels dishonest to me.
It's like certain forms of Christianity that say God doesn't prohibit anything, but that "good Christians" shouldn't indulge in certain activities lest they "cause their weaker brethren to stumble". So ultimately, no member of their church should do those things even though they're not forbidden at all. And of course there's no official sanction for doing them, but you better believe there will be all kinds of unofficial sanctions that will make it very clear what's OK and what's not, and that will demand obedience as much as - if not more than - any official prohibition ever could. But they're not the sort of horrible rules-based religion that bans all sorts of things, no sir.
I'd prefer it if people here were asking for an outright ban. That would at least be honest and upfront. All this "you're free to say it if you want, but nobody should ever say it" stuff is just trying to have your cake and eat it.
It's a bit like the Streisand effect, try to hide something or suppress it, and it use leaps upwards. I suppose Prohibition also. My English teacher talked to us about cunt in Eng Lit, sometimes spelled as quaint, and also "queynte", (found in Chaucer), and maybe connected with "cuneiform".
On the subject of reclaiming cunt, remember the "Cunt Coloring Book", by the late Tee Corinne.
This.It should not need saying, but this is NSFW. As if anyone would be on this tread at work anyway.
Thanks for that link. I don't remember it, but I do remember a Brit comedian relating a story of her going to a doctor at university specifically to ask her if her vagina looked normal. She had worried about it for a long time, and took the opportunity to go to a new doctor who didn't know her parents. I believe vaginal surgery for the purpose of having a 'normal' or 'pretty' vagina is a thing, just like having a proper sized penis is a thing, I suppose.
So you want all posters to impose a ban on themselves from using this word?
That's the bit that gets my goat about this - the whole idea that there can be a ban without it technically being a ban. It feels dishonest to me.
Perhaps it is. If so, it's a fairly widespread form of dishonesty. Let's imagine that I am that male auto mechanic (let's assume single) mentioned earlier in this thread. Working alongside my mate on Friday afternoon (note, btw, that "mate" also has different cross-pond meanings), I spot a passerby -- a very attractive young lady -- and nudge my mate in the ribs with my elbow. "There goes one hot piece of ass," I say, but not loudly enough for the young lady to hear.
Move on to Sunday noonish after services at my local church, to which I've driven my mum (note the UK spelling) and am now hanging about (note that US shipmates are more likely to write "hanging around") waiting for Mum to get through her meet-and-greets with other parishioners. Suddenly, I spy that same attractive young lady standing not far off with a few others. I'm standing with the pastor/vicar's wife and get the bright idea that she might know the lady and even introduce us. Do I ask, "Who's that hot piece of ass over there?" I'm guessing not.
How dishonest is it of our auto mechanic friend to alter his phrasing to something like, "Who's that girl over there with the long black hair?"
How dishonest is it of me, writing this post, to include phrases more typical of UK posters than of US posters, in hopes that will make UK posters more receptive to this post?
Nobody is saying that we don't alter our language for circumstances and most of us vary our posting style within the Ship - between Heaven and the Circus and Purgatory, for example. But this attempt to force a ban on specific words on the Ship by challenging them when used (see above) is disingenuous as there is no policy to prevent the use of any words. And I found three examples of the use of cunt* being challenged when I looked early this morning out of a fairly small sample.
It's also unworkable as you may convince anyone currently posting, but, for example @goperryrevs wasn't around the last go around with the Swearing by Using Female Bodyparts thread, so hadn't realised that the North Americans find the use of cunt more offensive than to the Australians, British and Irish. Various other Shipmates with a busy real life will miss this discussion. New Shipmates won't be aware.
So are you proposing this sort of kerfuffle every time someone new uses the word? Or maybe, having looked at the fairly low level of usage (22) in the last 8 months versus the explosion in usage when challenged (226 and counting), you may conclude that the occasional use is worth ignoring rather than suffering being deluged with a word you reportedly hate when it is challenged?
* I have wasted far too much time dealing with incident reports using circumlocutions that had to be checked out to see whether the c word being elided referred to crap, cock, cunt or some other word that I hadn't thought of to have any time for euphemisms or elisions.
Let's imagine that I am that male auto mechanic (let's assume single) mentioned earlier in this thread. Working alongside my mate on Friday afternoon (note, btw, that "mate" also has different cross-pond meanings), I spot a passerby -- a very attractive young lady -- and nudge my mate in the ribs with my elbow. "There goes one hot piece of ass," I say, but not loudly enough for the young lady to hear.
Move on to Sunday noonish after services at my local church, to which I've driven my mum (note the UK spelling) and am now hanging about (note that US shipmates are more likely to write "hanging around") waiting for Mum to get through her meet-and-greets with other parishioners. Suddenly, I spy that same attractive young lady standing not far off with a few others. I'm standing with the pastor/vicar's wife and get the bright idea that she might know the lady and even introduce us. Do I ask, "Who's that hot piece of ass over there?" I'm guessing not.
How dishonest is it of our auto mechanic friend to alter his phrasing to something like, "Who's that girl over there with the long black hair?"
How dishonest is it of me, writing this post, to include phrases more typical of UK posters than of US posters, in hopes that will make UK posters more receptive to this post?
So, to your mate you would use enthusiastic, if rather disrespectful slang to demonstrate your earthy, if shallow, appreciation of a girl's attractions; and to the vicar's wife you appear merely to be asking in a neutral fashion for a young lady's identity.
You seem to be highlighting the fact that some uses of language are actually contextual and have different meanings depending on what is appropriate to a situation and the person being addressed, including those aspects of usage which vary across English-speaking peoples.
Thanks. It's a point I've been trying to make for several pages, but I keep getting informed that this constitutes an unworkable informal ban. I have already agreed that informal bans generally are unworkable (although the one we appear to have in place on "f***tard and a couple of others, as NicoleRMW points out, seems to have caught on anyway).
This may be utter misperception on my part, but at this point I feel as though I'm being painted as a big culturally-imperious meanie by depriving others of some deeply personal cherished liberty. (Srsly? About this one word? Is something else going on underneath this debate that I am completely ignorant of?)
All I'm actually suggesting is that, in the known presence of someone who objects (and we can only know this when that someone posts an objection), other posters might consider moderating our usage, just as we now do with "f***tard." Note that "consider" means there's a choice; some people will comply with the objector's wishes, others might not. C'est la vie/such is life. On threads where nobody's objecting, there's nothing to consider. Fire away.
I'm afraid, Ohher, I don't think you got the whole of my point! Not unless your post was also suggesting that we should be treating all posting on Ship threads as being addressed to the vicar's wife?!
And what you're suggesting is not what other posters have suggested when they've said pretty much as an absolute, this word should not be used by anyone at any time. And if it is then that's because the user must be some kind of insensitive thicko or evil maniac.
Anyway, I'm on the 'wrong' side of this debate, apparently, so I'll shut up now!
Apparently the broadcast regulator for Britain or England made a list and ranked bad language. Some of these words are not used in some other places. I've never hear of minger, bint, punani. Fanny isn't a swear word. Perhaps the list is wrong or incomplete.
Let's imagine that I am that male auto mechanic (let's assume single) mentioned earlier in this thread. Working alongside my mate on Friday afternoon (note, btw, that "mate" also has different cross-pond meanings), I spot a passerby -- a very attractive young lady -- and nudge my mate in the ribs with my elbow. "There goes one hot piece of ass," I say, but not loudly enough for the young lady to hear.
Move on to Sunday noonish after services at my local church, to which I've driven my mum (note the UK spelling) and am now hanging about (note that US shipmates are more likely to write "hanging around") waiting for Mum to get through her meet-and-greets with other parishioners. Suddenly, I spy that same attractive young lady standing not far off with a few others. I'm standing with the pastor/vicar's wife and get the bright idea that she might know the lady and even introduce us. Do I ask, "Who's that hot piece of ass over there?" I'm guessing not.
How dishonest is it of our auto mechanic friend to alter his phrasing to something like, "Who's that girl over there with the long black hair?"
How dishonest is it of me, writing this post, to include phrases more typical of UK posters than of US posters, in hopes that will make UK posters more receptive to this post?
So, to your mate you would use enthusiastic, if rather disrespectful slang to demonstrate your earthy, if shallow, appreciation of a girl's attractions; and to the vicar's wife you appear merely to be asking in a neutral fashion for a young lady's identity.
You seem to be highlighting the fact that some uses of language are actually contextual and have different meanings depending on what is appropriate to a situation and the person being addressed, including those aspects of usage which vary across English-speaking peoples.
I couldn't agree more.
Let me Brit-pick that for you.
Soren Lorenson is a mechanic or motor mechanic. He would never use the phrase ‘Hot piece of ass’. He may whisper ‘Look at the arse on that’ to his mate. (The that is the bad bit. She’s not a person, she is a thing)
His mate will either agree or roll his eyes and mutter. The eye roll is the equivalent of a 20 minute lecture on the need to come out of his cave.
As the young lady didn’t hear then it’s unpleasant and ignorant, but no more. Him shouting, “Look at the arse on that!!’ at her would be completely unacceptable. But it happens.
The response he gets would depend on the lady. Some would shrink into themselves and hurry away. Others may shout back. Possibly using a C-bomb and some hand gestures.
As @sionisais has said, what you do is more important than the words you use.
Fanny can be a swear word in British English - it’s a regular source of amusement if an American talks about a fanny pack, or falling on their fanny etc. etc.
Fanny can be a swear word in British English - it’s a regular source of amusement if an American talks about a fanny pack, or falling on their fanny etc. etc.
It makes a good verb. "Oh, we spent the morning fannying around trying to find a duvet cover Mother liked but couldn't find one."
Interestingly, the main effect is to get me to the point where I almost don't look at the recent discussions screen, because I'm fucked off with being told to fuck myself.
Otherwise, I have a clear idea of North American culture's view of this word. Educative.
Thanks. It's a point I've been trying to make for several pages, but I keep getting informed that this constitutes an unworkable informal ban. I have already agreed that informal bans generally are unworkable (although the one we appear to have in place on "f***tard and a couple of others, as NicoleRMW points out, seems to have caught on anyway).
This may be utter misperception on my part, but at this point I feel as though I'm being painted as a big culturally-imperious meanie by depriving others of some deeply personal cherished liberty. (Srsly? About this one word? Is something else going on underneath this debate that I am completely ignorant of?)
All I'm actually suggesting is that, in the known presence of someone who objects (and we can only know this when that someone posts an objection), other posters might consider moderating our usage, just as we now do with "f***tard." Note that "consider" means there's a choice; some people will comply with the objector's wishes, others might not. C'est la vie/such is life. On threads where nobody's objecting, there's nothing to consider. Fire away.
How would each and every poster know who objects to a particular word and who doesn’t care? No one reads all the threads.
Any attempts by poster A to remind Poster B they can’t say that on threads they’re participating in is bound to end well. (Not)
Just as a random aside, as there are several people here who apparently dislike reading some words can I ask if any of them have enabled the profanity filters available for most (if not all) browsers?
Fanny is ridiculous as a swear word, words that children use. But "sod" is even more ridiculous. Sod means this, and a sod house is made of sod all stacked up.
Fanny is ridiculous as a swear word, words that children use. But "sod" is even more ridiculous. Sod means this, and a sod house is made of sod all stacked up.
Children wouldn't generally use Fanny in the UK, at least not in adult hearing. Sod comes from Sodomy.
Many participants said there is a clear divide between the emotional impact of discriminatory and racist words compared to ‘general’ swear words. People draw the line at racist and discriminatory language – participants felt this was the most unacceptable of all. Most people see these words as derogatory and insulting.
Participants recognised that assessing potentially offensive language on TV and radio was not always straightforward. Case-by-case judgements were required. Participants took into account a number of contextual factors, which were grounded in some key concerns around language and gestures. The most important of these concerns were to protect children and not to offend or hurt, particularly minority groups. Avoiding personal social discomfort and personal offence were also important concerns, but seen as less relevant or significant in many of the circumstances considered.
Whether or not they were personally offended by specific offensive language or gestures was not usually participants’ starting point. Instead, they were more likely to reflect on the acceptability of language or gestures in a particular context, including whether others would be offended or harmed. Participants considered the following contextual factors particularly important when making judgements about the acceptability of potentially offensive language
And from page 47, cunt is listed as one of the strongest non-discriminatory language words that are "highly unacceptable pre-watershed but generally acceptable post-watershed".
Fanny is ridiculous as a swear word, words that children use. But "sod" is even more ridiculous. Sod means this, and a sod house is made of sod all stacked up.
Children wouldn't generally use Fanny in the UK, at least not in adult hearing. Sod comes from Sodomy.
(Unless you sang in a church choir, in which case 'sod' meant lumps of soil. Much cause for giggling during choir practice.)
I feel I do my little British part of Ireland a great disservice when I go on to say that 'fanny' was a fairly common word used amongst the naughty kids, during my growing up. And quite rightly, as KarlLB says, not used in front of the grown ups! I expect, today, kids wouldn't even bother with it now. Maybe it's why so many of us graduated with little difficulty to the C word. Because, of course, fanny, as said above, was the more childish version. Though in those early days I wouldn't have sworn or blasphemed to save my life.
I still remember the gasps of disbelieving astonishment from my parents when during the 70's, we were watching an American film, intended for family viewing I'm sure, and a character, after giving his wife a playful smack on the bottom in front of their child, said cheerfully: 'Hey, there's nothing wrong with a boy seeing his dad smack his wife on the fanny!' Up to that point I'd never heard anything that was both so egregiously filthy and hilarious at the same time.
I'm trying to understand "sod(omy) off". Makes no sense. You folks say "sodomy"? I don't expect many of us here code what it means. Bugger has no potency here either. People say "I'd better bugger off" if they're in a hurry and things that are fritzed are "buggered up", both as bad as saying damn.
How would each and every poster know who objects to a particular word and who doesn’t care? No one reads all the threads.
Any attempts by poster A to remind Poster B they can’t say that on threads they’re participating in is bound to end well. (Not)
For the life of me I do not grasp what in bloody hell is going on here.
I'll try once more, and then I think I must sign up somewhere for British cultural lessons, because it's clear that I am unable to make myself understood, or I am unable to understand something excruciatingly obvious to others on this thread, or all of the above. Here is what I envision happening:
1. A shipmate starts a thread on galoshes. Other shipmates post responses. All goes well.
2. A page or 3 in, Shipmate A uses, for whatever reason, the c-word as part of a post.
3. Reading this, Shipmate B posts a polite request (NOT demand! Request!) to Shipmate A: "Please, could you not use that word on this thread? I'd like to join in, but that word distresses me so intensely it makes participating difficult."
4. Shipmate A could now do any of the following:
(a) Apologize and move on, quietly complying with B's request, or
(b) Ignore the request because it makes no sense to A, or
(c) Tell B no offense meant, but as it's habitual with A it might re-occur, or
(d) Tell B, "Suck it up, B; this is the grown-ups' table, or
(e) Ask B what on earth is wrong with the c-word, or
(f) Something else entirely; who the hell knows?
Now, before we move on to B, let's acknowledge that there are other posters -- C, D,E, F, G and so on -- also participating in this thread. Because B made the request on the thread, other posters notice B's reaction. Any of them might likewise choose one of responses (a) though (f), except that (not having used the c-word) there's no need for apologies.
There's also another group: shipmates and lurkers who've been reading but not participating. It's possible that B's request, and/or A's response, encourages some of them to join in, with all the same options A has to B's request.
Now on to Shipmate B: Like A, B has a range of possible options to A's response. B can accept A's apology, and things move on. B can explain the reason for the reaction or say that's too painful. B can "Suck it up" as suggested; B can leave the thread instead; B can call A to Hell for refusing to comply with the request, and so on.
All normal, routine stuff which already goes on aboard Ship.
I am suggesting the following additional practice(s):
1. Offended poster must make a request on a thread where s/he is participating.
2. The request is not a ban; other posters are free to comply with or ignore such requests.
3. Requests apply only to the specific threads where they've been posted.
4. Requests can be made only after an offending issue has arisen. No pre-emptive requests.
5. Requesting poster is free to re-post the request once per subsequent thread-page to where the original request was made.
This means that nobody's required either to remember or comply with somebody else's hot-button sensitivities.
Posters requesting accommodation for such sensitivities must understand that such requests render them vulnerable. Posters should be prepared for possible negative reactions, and should avoid making such requests lightly or casually.
All that said, it may be worth mentioning that I have a hearing impairment. There are people in my life who must be reminded with EVERY SINGLE UTTERANCE that they MUST speak up if they're addressing me. I used to be married to such a person; after 7 years, nearly MAD with frustration, I sued for divorce. Posters with sensitivities should be prepared to expect this sort of thing. That's life.
... KarlBS is hardly anyone's favourite poster; he's a crusty unnecessary genital of a person. And I recognize that you guys have history making things feel polarizing. But in this case, @Rossweisse, you are both the instigator and in the wrong.
You are right, and I was wrong. I am sorry. My plan is to return to ignoring him.
I have tried to be. This time I failed. Again, I am sorry.
I'm going to step away from this thread; I'm going through some difficult physical and emotional stuff at the moment, and the way this has blown up has not been good for me. I do recognize that much of it was of my own doing.
Before I go, I will simply reiterate what others have already noted: There are words widely recognized as racist, or homophobic, or cruel to the mentally or physically challenged that are not banned, but are simply not ever used aboard the Ship. There are assorted equivalent misogynistic words (not just the one in question) that are used routinely. It would be good if that could be kept in mind, and, perhaps, questioned.
As has already been said, Commandment 5 already covers this. It is very simple and wise:
Don’t easily offend, don’t be easily offended
There are a million ways of offending and many of them do not include, or require, the use of particular words. There are also a million ways of using fake offence being taken to be offensive in return.
With this in mind, deciding when posters should be reminded of Commandment 5 - either half of it - is the prerogative of the hosts. Enforcing Commandment 5 is, ultimately, the prerogative of the admins, and usually occurs in the face of repeat breaches. Don't expect intervention every single time.
If people don't like how hosting and adminning is being done, the Styx is there to discuss that. Junior hosting, and that would include self-appointed language police, is not appreciated. Ultimately, it is a breach of Commandment 6.
I still remember the gasps of disbelieving astonishment from my parents when during the 70's, we were watching an American film, intended for family viewing I'm sure, and a character, after giving his wife a playful smack on the bottom in front of their child, said cheerfully: 'Hey, there's nothing wrong with a boy seeing his dad smack his wife on the fanny!' Up to that point I'd never heard anything that was both so egregiously filthy and hilarious at the same time.
When my daughter was very little, I wasn’t so keen on any of the words that existed for her bits, so I coined ‘Lady Gaga’. Which was great, until she reached 6 or so, and discovered there was a pop star with the same name, which she thought was the funniest thing ever.
There is a Pond difference in the way this word is perceived. In the UK, OFCOM puts it in a category with fuck and motherfucker as the strongest non-discriminatory language words that are "highly unacceptable pre-watershed but generally acceptable post-watershed" (see previous post). It is not categorised as discriminatory in the UK by the organisation that monitors and gives guidelines for the use of offensive language in broadcasting.
@Ohher - your suggested challenges are what has been happening, I've evidenced it on the posts where I looked at usage; those challenges just triggered thread upon thread to discuss the issue.
I'm trying to understand "sod(omy) off". Makes no sense. You folks say "sodomy"? I don't expect many of us here code what it means. Bugger has no potency here either. People say "I'd better bugger off" if they're in a hurry and things that are fritzed are "buggered up", both as bad as saying damn.
I refer you to sod2. Sodomy is a word rarely used (IME) in current English, although I think it was used in older statutes.
There’s a famous quotation attributed to Winston Churchill (but denied by him) where, on being told that something couldn’t be done because it was contrary to the traditions of the Navy, retorted that the traditions of the Navy were “rum, sodomy and the lash”.
May I respectfully ask a question of those Shipmates who either think this is no big deal, or think that those of us who think it is a big deal are being precious, Puritanical, puffed up, etc.:
Are there words that *you, personally* purposely don't use, whether on the Ship or elsewhere?
Do you use--here on the Ship--words like the n-word, k-word, the 3-letter f-word for gay men, the p-word for Pakistanis, etc.? If you don't use them, what is the difference about the c-word?
If you used--here or elsewhere--any of the words I just mentioned, not understanding that they're hurtful, and found they were hurtful for someone who was actually present, would you continue to use them when that person or similar people were present? Why or why not?
It is the difference between personal restraint and collective constraint. I refuse to be constrained; I am perfectly happy, personally, to restrain myself.
Yes, I do keep an eye on this thread. Somehow I feel compelled to.
It's interesting that I have used said word a few times here, and nobody raised a peep. I think my cunts arrive with an extra dollop of bonhomie and well, charm.
Those may have been some of the times we didn't call attention to the word, because we were weary from other times we'd asked Shipmates not to use it, and those discussions went like this thread--or worse.
The difference between the other words that people are suggesting aren't used as they are too offensive and this one is that they are regarded as too offensive for use this side of the Atlantic too. The Ofcom research found that strong discriminatory words were unacceptable at all times, and needed contextualisation and warnings to be used at all, unlike the strong non-discriminatory words which were seen as unacceptable before the watershed and broadly acceptable post-watershed.
The reason that the expectation that certain words should not be used as participants will restrain themselves is being argued is that you can only expect that it applies to the people involved on the threads now. You cannot expect that restraint of new people or those who were not around for this debate. So we cannot commit to collective restraint.
Comments
By the way pssst
The other thing I picked up listing usage was that it came from both Brits and Aussies, lots of those links are to Aussies. And some of those who are posting on this thread disapprovingly are there as previous users.
Yeah. I'm 99% sure that's the only time I've ever used the word on the Ship, new or old (and as I said, it was a quote, not directed at anyone). I thought it was on the Brexit thread - turns out it wasn't, but was Brexit related. It's hard to keep one's language sweet and proper when it comes to Brexit.
I sometimes let my self-perceived sectarian victimhood off the leash on the ship. I've tightened it recently though after I wasted a host's time suggesting I do a thread about how put-upon Irish Catholics are.
Something else is that the idea that cunt is of its nature misogynist is hotly contested by progressive and political women, not only here on the Ship but in America too. My mind turns to Samantha Bee in particular, not a woman to pull her punches. There was a whole thing about it last year, and I sit with her. I perceive her to be saying, "I want to use cunt in my TV show. But some women react against it as a rape word. I'm going to respect those women's wishes, but I don't like it."
Conversely, there are progressive and political women in Australia who think that cunt should not be used because it is a rape word and inherently misogynistic.
The status of the word as inherently misogynistic is in flux across the WEIRD culture, in my opinion. Its not fixed anywhere.
So you want all posters to impose a ban on themselves from using this word? Does that work with a word that is proven to be (by the clear evidence of this thread) not equivocally of the same nature as your other examples?
We've already had Mousethief's post equating those, who don't feel sufficiently offended by every single use of the word across the entire English-speaking world, with racists, and therefore not entitled to have an opinion. It would be good to clarify the extent and rationale of the moral obligation everyone is being 'requested' to comply unquestionably to.
On the subject of reclaiming cunt, remember the "Cunt Coloring Book", by the late Tee Corinne.
Several comments recently on this thread say there is no religious use of swearing on this thread. You are either new, or have short memories. Erin, when dealing with serious examples of rule breaking, in her cams its of board editor no less, would start replies dealing with the miscreant with the phrase, "Jesus H Christ on a pogo-stick." (The mode of transport varied.)
I cannot remember it ever being challenged.
This.It should not need saying, but this is NSFW. As if anyone would be on this tread at work anyway.
That's the bit that gets my goat about this - the whole idea that there can be a ban without it technically being a ban. It feels dishonest to me.
It's like certain forms of Christianity that say God doesn't prohibit anything, but that "good Christians" shouldn't indulge in certain activities lest they "cause their weaker brethren to stumble". So ultimately, no member of their church should do those things even though they're not forbidden at all. And of course there's no official sanction for doing them, but you better believe there will be all kinds of unofficial sanctions that will make it very clear what's OK and what's not, and that will demand obedience as much as - if not more than - any official prohibition ever could. But they're not the sort of horrible rules-based religion that bans all sorts of things, no sir.
I'd prefer it if people here were asking for an outright ban. That would at least be honest and upfront. All this "you're free to say it if you want, but nobody should ever say it" stuff is just trying to have your cake and eat it.
Trying not to laugh in the office hurts even more!
Thanks for that link. I don't remember it, but I do remember a Brit comedian relating a story of her going to a doctor at university specifically to ask her if her vagina looked normal. She had worried about it for a long time, and took the opportunity to go to a new doctor who didn't know her parents. I believe vaginal surgery for the purpose of having a 'normal' or 'pretty' vagina is a thing, just like having a proper sized penis is a thing, I suppose.
Evil festers in the dark. Let their be light.
It's also unworkable as you may convince anyone currently posting, but, for example @goperryrevs wasn't around the last go around with the Swearing by Using Female Bodyparts thread, so hadn't realised that the North Americans find the use of cunt more offensive than to the Australians, British and Irish. Various other Shipmates with a busy real life will miss this discussion. New Shipmates won't be aware.
So are you proposing this sort of kerfuffle every time someone new uses the word? Or maybe, having looked at the fairly low level of usage (22) in the last 8 months versus the explosion in usage when challenged (226 and counting), you may conclude that the occasional use is worth ignoring rather than suffering being deluged with a word you reportedly hate when it is challenged?
* I have wasted far too much time dealing with incident reports using circumlocutions that had to be checked out to see whether the c word being elided referred to crap, cock, cunt or some other word that I hadn't thought of to have any time for euphemisms or elisions.
So, to your mate you would use enthusiastic, if rather disrespectful slang to demonstrate your earthy, if shallow, appreciation of a girl's attractions; and to the vicar's wife you appear merely to be asking in a neutral fashion for a young lady's identity.
You seem to be highlighting the fact that some uses of language are actually contextual and have different meanings depending on what is appropriate to a situation and the person being addressed, including those aspects of usage which vary across English-speaking peoples.
I couldn't agree more.
This may be utter misperception on my part, but at this point I feel as though I'm being painted as a big culturally-imperious meanie by depriving others of some deeply personal cherished liberty. (Srsly? About this one word? Is something else going on underneath this debate that I am completely ignorant of?)
All I'm actually suggesting is that, in the known presence of someone who objects (and we can only know this when that someone posts an objection), other posters might consider moderating our usage, just as we now do with "f***tard." Note that "consider" means there's a choice; some people will comply with the objector's wishes, others might not. C'est la vie/such is life. On threads where nobody's objecting, there's nothing to consider. Fire away.
And what you're suggesting is not what other posters have suggested when they've said pretty much as an absolute, this word should not be used by anyone at any time. And if it is then that's because the user must be some kind of insensitive thicko or evil maniac.
Anyway, I'm on the 'wrong' side of this debate, apparently, so I'll shut up now!
Again, what Ohher said immediately above.
Let me Brit-pick that for you.
Soren Lorenson is a mechanic or motor mechanic. He would never use the phrase ‘Hot piece of ass’. He may whisper ‘Look at the arse on that’ to his mate. (The that is the bad bit. She’s not a person, she is a thing)
His mate will either agree or roll his eyes and mutter. The eye roll is the equivalent of a 20 minute lecture on the need to come out of his cave.
As the young lady didn’t hear then it’s unpleasant and ignorant, but no more. Him shouting, “Look at the arse on that!!’ at her would be completely unacceptable. But it happens.
The response he gets would depend on the lady. Some would shrink into themselves and hurry away. Others may shout back. Possibly using a C-bomb and some hand gestures.
As @sionisais has said, what you do is more important than the words you use.
It makes a good verb. "Oh, we spent the morning fannying around trying to find a duvet cover Mother liked but couldn't find one."
Interestingly, the main effect is to get me to the point where I almost don't look at the recent discussions screen, because I'm fucked off with being told to fuck myself.
Otherwise, I have a clear idea of North American culture's view of this word. Educative.
How would each and every poster know who objects to a particular word and who doesn’t care? No one reads all the threads.
Any attempts by poster A to remind Poster B they can’t say that on threads they’re participating in is bound to end well. (Not)
Children wouldn't generally use Fanny in the UK, at least not in adult hearing. Sod comes from Sodomy.
And from page 47, cunt is listed as one of the strongest non-discriminatory language words that are "highly unacceptable pre-watershed but generally acceptable post-watershed".
(Unless you sang in a church choir, in which case 'sod' meant lumps of soil. Much cause for giggling during choir practice.)
I feel I do my little British part of Ireland a great disservice when I go on to say that 'fanny' was a fairly common word used amongst the naughty kids, during my growing up. And quite rightly, as KarlLB says, not used in front of the grown ups! I expect, today, kids wouldn't even bother with it now. Maybe it's why so many of us graduated with little difficulty to the C word. Because, of course, fanny, as said above, was the more childish version. Though in those early days I wouldn't have sworn or blasphemed to save my life.
I still remember the gasps of disbelieving astonishment from my parents when during the 70's, we were watching an American film, intended for family viewing I'm sure, and a character, after giving his wife a playful smack on the bottom in front of their child, said cheerfully: 'Hey, there's nothing wrong with a boy seeing his dad smack his wife on the fanny!' Up to that point I'd never heard anything that was both so egregiously filthy and hilarious at the same time.
@Anselmina
Who was a real person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_Adams (it's pretty gruesome - reader beware... DT)
Perhaps it will cheer us all up.
For the life of me I do not grasp what in bloody hell is going on here.
I'll try once more, and then I think I must sign up somewhere for British cultural lessons, because it's clear that I am unable to make myself understood, or I am unable to understand something excruciatingly obvious to others on this thread, or all of the above. Here is what I envision happening:
1. A shipmate starts a thread on galoshes. Other shipmates post responses. All goes well.
2. A page or 3 in, Shipmate A uses, for whatever reason, the c-word as part of a post.
3. Reading this, Shipmate B posts a polite request (NOT demand! Request!) to Shipmate A: "Please, could you not use that word on this thread? I'd like to join in, but that word distresses me so intensely it makes participating difficult."
4. Shipmate A could now do any of the following:
(a) Apologize and move on, quietly complying with B's request, or
(b) Ignore the request because it makes no sense to A, or
(c) Tell B no offense meant, but as it's habitual with A it might re-occur, or
(d) Tell B, "Suck it up, B; this is the grown-ups' table, or
(e) Ask B what on earth is wrong with the c-word, or
(f) Something else entirely; who the hell knows?
Now, before we move on to B, let's acknowledge that there are other posters -- C, D,E, F, G and so on -- also participating in this thread. Because B made the request on the thread, other posters notice B's reaction. Any of them might likewise choose one of responses (a) though (f), except that (not having used the c-word) there's no need for apologies.
There's also another group: shipmates and lurkers who've been reading but not participating. It's possible that B's request, and/or A's response, encourages some of them to join in, with all the same options A has to B's request.
Now on to Shipmate B: Like A, B has a range of possible options to A's response. B can accept A's apology, and things move on. B can explain the reason for the reaction or say that's too painful. B can "Suck it up" as suggested; B can leave the thread instead; B can call A to Hell for refusing to comply with the request, and so on.
All normal, routine stuff which already goes on aboard Ship.
I am suggesting the following additional practice(s):
1. Offended poster must make a request on a thread where s/he is participating.
2. The request is not a ban; other posters are free to comply with or ignore such requests.
3. Requests apply only to the specific threads where they've been posted.
4. Requests can be made only after an offending issue has arisen. No pre-emptive requests.
5. Requesting poster is free to re-post the request once per subsequent thread-page to where the original request was made.
This means that nobody's required either to remember or comply with somebody else's hot-button sensitivities.
Posters requesting accommodation for such sensitivities must understand that such requests render them vulnerable. Posters should be prepared for possible negative reactions, and should avoid making such requests lightly or casually.
All that said, it may be worth mentioning that I have a hearing impairment. There are people in my life who must be reminded with EVERY SINGLE UTTERANCE that they MUST speak up if they're addressing me. I used to be married to such a person; after 7 years, nearly MAD with frustration, I sued for divorce. Posters with sensitivities should be prepared to expect this sort of thing. That's life.
I am done (probably) with this thread.
I have tried to be. This time I failed. Again, I am sorry.
I'm going to step away from this thread; I'm going through some difficult physical and emotional stuff at the moment, and the way this has blown up has not been good for me. I do recognize that much of it was of my own doing.
Before I go, I will simply reiterate what others have already noted: There are words widely recognized as racist, or homophobic, or cruel to the mentally or physically challenged that are not banned, but are simply not ever used aboard the Ship. There are assorted equivalent misogynistic words (not just the one in question) that are used routinely. It would be good if that could be kept in mind, and, perhaps, questioned.
As has already been said, Commandment 5 already covers this. It is very simple and wise:
Don’t easily offend, don’t be easily offended
There are a million ways of offending and many of them do not include, or require, the use of particular words. There are also a million ways of using fake offence being taken to be offensive in return.
With this in mind, deciding when posters should be reminded of Commandment 5 - either half of it - is the prerogative of the hosts. Enforcing Commandment 5 is, ultimately, the prerogative of the admins, and usually occurs in the face of repeat breaches. Don't expect intervention every single time.
If people don't like how hosting and adminning is being done, the Styx is there to discuss that. Junior hosting, and that would include self-appointed language police, is not appreciated. Ultimately, it is a breach of Commandment 6.
I not infrequently wish you would sodomize/fuck off with your Jowettian* attitude.
*If I don’t know it/It isn’t knowledge
When my daughter was very little, I wasn’t so keen on any of the words that existed for her bits, so I coined ‘Lady Gaga’. Which was great, until she reached 6 or so, and discovered there was a pop star with the same name, which she thought was the funniest thing ever.
@Ohher - your suggested challenges are what has been happening, I've evidenced it on the posts where I looked at usage; those challenges just triggered thread upon thread to discuss the issue.
There’s a famous quotation attributed to Winston Churchill (but denied by him) where, on being told that something couldn’t be done because it was contrary to the traditions of the Navy, retorted that the traditions of the Navy were “rum, sodomy and the lash”.
Are there words that *you, personally* purposely don't use, whether on the Ship or elsewhere?
Do you use--here on the Ship--words like the n-word, k-word, the 3-letter f-word for gay men, the p-word for Pakistanis, etc.? If you don't use them, what is the difference about the c-word?
If you used--here or elsewhere--any of the words I just mentioned, not understanding that they're hurtful, and found they were hurtful for someone who was actually present, would you continue to use them when that person or similar people were present? Why or why not?
Thx.
Yes, I do keep an eye on this thread. Somehow I feel compelled to.
Like a couple of other people said upthread, it didn't read to me as an actual quote. More like a made-up example.
FWIW.
Those may have been some of the times we didn't call attention to the word, because we were weary from other times we'd asked Shipmates not to use it, and those discussions went like this thread--or worse.
The reason that the expectation that certain words should not be used as participants will restrain themselves is being argued is that you can only expect that it applies to the people involved on the threads now. You cannot expect that restraint of new people or those who were not around for this debate. So we cannot commit to collective restraint.