![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 10 to 34 of 34. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on December 27, 2004, at 16:23:49
In reply to Re: Do you mean a BD? » Susan47, posted by gnepig2 on December 26, 2004, at 10:34:33
Posted by Dave001 on December 27, 2004, at 16:40:52
In reply to Re: I need a FB » Susan47, posted by verne on December 25, 2004, at 23:02:53
> If a guy said that he would be accused of being a sexist who objectifies women. There's no way a guy would get away with talking about women that way.
>
> verneI guess it's a good thing she's a woman, then. ;-)
I prefer the candor with which she expressed her feelings over coy, euphemistic language, that serves only to obscure its meaning.
Dave
Posted by alexandra_k on December 27, 2004, at 21:15:43
In reply to Re: I need a FB, posted by Dave001 on December 27, 2004, at 16:40:52
This thread reminded me of a poem by Sharon Olds.
'When I was a connoisseuse of slugs
I would part the ivy leaves, and look for the
naked jelly of those gold bodies,
translucent strangers glistening along
the stones, slowly, their gelatinous bodies
at my mercy. Made mostly of water, they would shrivel
to nothing if they were sprinkled with salt,
but I was not interested in that. What I liked
was to draw aside the ivy, breathe the
odour of the wall, and stand there in silence
until the slug forgot I was there
and sent its antennae up out of its
head, the glimmering umber horns
rising like telescopes, until finally the
sensitive knobs would pop out the ends,
delicate and intimate. Years later,
when I first saw a naked man,
I gasped with pleasure to see that quiet
mystery re-enacted, the slow
elegant being coming out of hiding and
gleaming in the dark air, eager and so
trusting you could weep.'
Posted by Toph on December 28, 2004, at 12:35:21
In reply to The Connoisseuse of Slugs, posted by alexandra_k on December 27, 2004, at 21:15:43
If only Susan had longed for a guy with brains and a big slug!
Posted by alexandra_k on December 28, 2004, at 15:11:53
In reply to Re: The Connoisseuse of Slugs » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on December 28, 2004, at 12:35:21
> If only Susan had longed for a guy with brains and a big slug!
Consider
All I want is a girl with brains and a tight c*nt.
IMO it is vulgar. That is the point.
Some things are better not said.
Posted by Toph on December 28, 2004, at 20:45:21
In reply to The Connoisseuse of Slugs, posted by alexandra_k on December 27, 2004, at 21:15:43
>Consider
All I want is a girl with brains and a tight c*nt.
IMO it is vulgar. That is the point.
Some things are better not said.
>
IMO this speech makes me uncomfortable and I would agree that it is vulgar. Some things are better not said in church or in a job interview, but if Susan is anguished about a lack of intimacy in her life and she expresses it in a dramatic way on a site designed for support of people struggling with emotional issues, well, I would try to discuss it with her, not refuse to talk with her for two weeks.
-Toph
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 29, 2004, at 13:26:06
In reply to Re: The Connoisseuse of Slugs » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on December 28, 2004, at 15:11:53
> > If only Susan had longed for a guy with brains and a big slug!
>
> Consider
>
> All I want is a girl with brains and a tight c*nt.
>
> IMO it is vulgar. That is the point.
> Some things are better not said.
>
I agree with you.
Posted by TofuEmmy on December 29, 2004, at 16:24:54
In reply to Re: The Connoisseuse of Slugs, posted by Gabbix2 on December 29, 2004, at 13:26:06
I wonder if now that the auto-dirty-word-filter is in place, does that mean we can be as "vulgar" as possible - since the words themselves will be censored?
So, if someone was is Susan's emotional state, and felt the need to write a 3-page essay on urges and desires in graphic detail, but all the naughty words were *'d - would that be OK?
Maybe Bob should open a new erotica board? ;-)
curious emmy
Posted by just plain jane on December 29, 2004, at 17:19:19
In reply to Re: I need a FB, posted by Dave001 on December 27, 2004, at 16:40:52
Now, verne, it depends entirely upon who is in the vicinity of the comment.
I, for one, can, as Dave says, speak in "coy, euphemistic language, that serves only to obscure its meaning", but usually choose not to, because when I am in company, it is usually that of like minded people, either/both genders. Dispense with the bullpucky and say what's on your mind.
But, I must say that in the general society, at least of where I live, gender bashing is still rampant and reciprocal. So sad.
I refuse to defend the entire female gender. I'm not that fond of most of them myself. :O OR men.
Dogs are so much more honest and fair.
just plain doglady jane
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 29, 2004, at 17:35:27
In reply to Re: Vulgarosity, posted by TofuEmmy on December 29, 2004, at 16:24:54
> I wonder if now that the auto-dirty-word-filter is in place, does that mean we can be as "vulgar" as possible - since the words themselves will be censored?
No, it lets some words through because they have more than one meaning. For example, Dick can be a name...
Hmm, so people still could be offended. Maybe they should be filtered, too, after all?
> Maybe Bob should open a new erotica board? ;-)
There's room already at Writing... :-)
Bob
Posted by Toph on December 29, 2004, at 21:52:30
In reply to Re: Vulgarosity, posted by TofuEmmy on December 29, 2004, at 16:24:54
>
> So, if someone was is Susan's emotional state, and felt the need to write a 3-page essay on urges and desires in graphic detail, but all the naughty words were *'d - would that be OK?
>I've already said that I view Susan's graphic statement vulgar. My point is that this place purports to be a supportive environmaent for people with emotional issues. I may not want to read about someone's sexual needs and experiences, but surely sexuality and sexual dysfunction are an integral part of mental health/illness. At least as much if not more than politics which I also find to be vulgar.
-Toph
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 29, 2004, at 22:03:02
In reply to Re: Vulgarosity » TofuEmmy, posted by Toph on December 29, 2004, at 21:52:30
I like Susan and have emailed with her in the past... but even I ...as wild as I am was stunned by HOW and WHAT words she used to express what she wanted and needed. I think she could have said it without the terms used and that would have been fine. I was sad to see her use the terms she did KNOWING that those words and all could get her into trouble with Dr Bob. Anyhow I miss her and hope she watches the civility rules more in the future to keep her around Babble
> >
> > So, if someone was is Susan's emotional state, and felt the need to write a 3-page essay on urges and desires in graphic detail, but all the naughty words were *'d - would that be OK?
> >
>
> I've already said that I view Susan's graphic statement vulgar. My point is that this place purports to be a supportive environmaent for people with emotional issues. I may not want to read about someone's sexual needs and experiences, but surely sexuality and sexual dysfunction are an integral part of mental health/illness. At least as much if not more than politics which I also find to be vulgar.
> -Toph
>
Posted by verne on December 29, 2004, at 23:21:45
In reply to Re: I need a FB verne » Dave001, posted by just plain jane on December 29, 2004, at 17:19:19
My problem with the statement "I'm looking for a big brain with a big gulliver" is the double standard. This wouldn't fly if coming from the gender of the other persuasion.
Having been a part of the feminist revolution - I was too feminist for my girlfriend - I saw sexism on both sides. I never cared for the gender games such as romance.
Romance is steeped in deception. "How may I deceive you?", is the first order of business. Flirtation, being coy, leading on, and seducing, are all part of the game.
I never found "locker room" talk any more authentic than romantic.
verne
Posted by AdaGrace on December 30, 2004, at 7:41:38
In reply to Re: The Connoisseuse of Slugs, posted by Gabbix2 on December 29, 2004, at 13:26:06
Sometimes people, myself included, talk without thinking and therefore post without thinking. It would seem to me that if we were friends, and I think some of us are (as best you can be friends with the typed word)....then I would think that we who are talking to ourselves, our friends or whoever will listen can say or type whatever we like. If I am offended by something someone says or types, I chose to ignore it. That's the beauty of the human mind. We can spend the rest of our lives (mine is going to be short) trying to tell everyone how bad they talk, when perhaps what we should really be concentrating on is being there for each other when we need comfort, support, and love. I don't like the word n*gger. I don't use it. I never will. But I have friends who do. I tell them it is offensive and we go on our merry way. I don't ostracize them because of their poor choice of words or ignorance of political correctness. In the same sense I absolutely hate the "c" word. I cannot tollerate it in conversation, but I let it roll off my back. I do not understand the reasoning behind this entire tirade about something Susan said in the context of her statements about her needs and wants. If anyone is offended, they can ignore. Why is that not good enough? Susan is a very interesting being who has a brain and uses it. Occassionaly she states things that may be percieved as vulgar, and for that she gets blocked. Whatever. Those are Bob's rules and this is his site. I can live with rules. I can even sometimes abide by them. But to continue to rehash and rehash the civility of the issue seems a moot point to me.
Posted by TofuEmmy on December 30, 2004, at 9:50:27
In reply to Re: Vulgarosity » TofuEmmy, posted by Toph on December 29, 2004, at 21:52:30
Toph - Just to clarify, my post probably should have been on Admin. I really wanted to know Bob's opinion on content vs. word selection. It seems that with his reply, he has answered. Her content seems to have been ok, it was her word choice, uncensored, that was the problem.
So I COULD write a steamy XXX short story, and post it on Writing, as long as all the XXX words were censored with *'s. At least that's the way I am interpreting Bob's reply.
I tried hard not to make any judgements in that post (for instance, by quoting someone else's use of the word "vulgar"). I guess I didn't succeed! The truth snuck out.
I'm not a hot babe, and I felt badly for all the unhot guys who read that post. I winced.
em
Posted by Toph on December 30, 2004, at 14:21:17
In reply to Re: Vulgarosity » Toph, posted by TofuEmmy on December 30, 2004, at 9:50:27
My reply should have been on Admin as well. One can adequately communicate one's hunger without describing in detail all the food one would desire on one's plate. Oh, and at my age, I'd settle for being called tepid.
-Toph
Posted by Shortelise on December 31, 2004, at 12:50:38
In reply to The Connoisseuse of Slugs, posted by alexandra_k on December 27, 2004, at 21:15:43
Alexandra K
That is so beautiful! I am blown away. Thank you.
ShortE
Posted by Dave001 on December 31, 2004, at 19:16:07
In reply to Re: Interestingly So, posted by AdaGrace on December 30, 2004, at 7:41:38
Surely, I am not the only one here whom is conscious of the fact that we are not offended by words, per se, but the *meaning* of them in their context. For that reason, I find the concept of censorship by means of transposing a couple of letters in a word to be completely pointless. If I were to write to one of you (for purposes of example only), "f*ck off," how on Earth would that be any less offensive than if I were to use the term in its unadulterated form? I'm quite confident that most of you are capable of interpolating the censored letters in the example above, and would do so subconsciously as you read anyway. So would someone *please* explain to me the point of blipping a couple of letters from common "vulgarities," at least to the extent that it is supposed to reduce the offensiveness of a sentence, phrase, or string of words? ;-) The answer is of course that there is no point; one would have to carefully reconstruct the offensive (which has no real objective value in this sense) context in order to change the meaning.
Just my humble opinion, which is of course the only correct opinion. :-)
Dave
Posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2005, at 0:57:19
In reply to Language, context, and civility, posted by Dave001 on December 31, 2004, at 19:16:07
>I find the concept of censorship by means of transposing a couple of letters in a word to be completely pointless. If I were to write to one of you (for purposes of example only), "f*ck off," how on Earth would that be any less offensive than if I were to use the term in its unadulterated form? I'm quite confident that most of you are capable of interpolating the censored letters in the example above, and would do so subconsciously as you read anyway. So would someone *please* explain to me the point of blipping a couple of letters from common "vulgarities," at least to the extent that it is supposed to reduce the offensiveness of a sentence, phrase, or string of words? ;-)
There is an answer here:
http://dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/432337.html
Posted by lydia on January 1, 2005, at 17:44:44
In reply to Re: Vulgarosity, posted by Dr. Bob on December 29, 2004, at 17:35:27
yeah-YU.
Posted by lydia on January 1, 2005, at 17:55:27
In reply to The Connoisseuse of Slugs, posted by alexandra_k on December 27, 2004, at 21:15:43
andrea_k, this is staggeringly beautiful <3
nicely done:)
Posted by lydia on January 1, 2005, at 17:56:57
In reply to Re: The Connoisseuse of Slugs, posted by lydia on January 1, 2005, at 17:55:27
ALEXANDREA_K* oooops/sorry!
Posted by lydia on January 1, 2005, at 18:00:51
In reply to Re: The Connoisseuse of Slugs, posted by lydia on January 1, 2005, at 17:56:57
alexandrA_k* dear Lord, i just dont know...sorry.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2005, at 18:14:29
In reply to Re: The Connoisseuse of Slugs, posted by lydia on January 1, 2005, at 18:00:51
Aw, thats ok.
Have another drink for me :-)
Posted by Atticus on January 7, 2005, at 22:41:02
In reply to The Connoisseuse of Slugs, posted by alexandra_k on December 27, 2004, at 21:15:43
Right, then. I've read alex's poem. If only everyone put that kind of effort into talking dirty around here. PB would be an oasis of smutty grooviness (or, if you prefer, groovy smuttiness) in a Homeland Security -- Code Level Orange world. And yet a cruel fate puts alex on the far side of the planet, surrounded by cruel ducks. C'est triste, n'est-ce pas? Atticus
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.