we have expletive deleted?
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:13 am
wtf? i thought open words were okay?
Dargon wrote:With regards to the filter being in place, I see valid points on both sides, and I tend to lean with side opposed to the filter, but it's not my call. Also, the filter ruins the joke about American beer and sex in a canoe.
However, with regards to people who get around via intentional typos like "fuuck" and the like; it really says something about one's maturity level if one takes the time and effort to intentionally get around the word filter list in such a manner.
fridayoak wrote:I wouldn't say it's about maturity levels most of the time, I mean it only takes a split-second to put an extra "u" in so it's more just a habit people get used to (on busier forums anyway). One site had "sausages" come up if a certain word was used so in my opinion getting round that filter was a way more mature thing to do than have "sausages" in the text.
spin wrote:Here's one for everybody. What is or would theoretically be important for you to talk about with a partner before starting to have sex? (define "sex" however you choose). For me, besides a good talk about consent and limits the basics include disclosing sexual history and health, discussing forms of protection we're planning to use, and making positive they're pro-choice (reproductive rights: don't [expletive deleted] with 'em, don't [expletive deleted] without 'em ). I think it's critical to have an explicit conversation about these things, even if I know or could guess what the answers will be.
ghosts wrote:All of the anti-sex(ual) content can really get to me, as someone who cares for sexuals & who has sex. Yet, I'm told that I shouldn't speak up, that I should let people rant and vent.
I can kind of understand that... Some people coming into AVEN have had some pretty negative experiences, it seems. I can't really say that I have - I know a lot of [expletive deleted] awesome people that just so happen to enjoy sex & do so responsibly & respectfully (and hey, I'm one of them). But sure enough, there are a lot of assholes out there. Sexual abuse is not just an asexual issue, as we all know. & a lot of people can't seem to wrap their heads around the concept of asexuality, so coming out can often bring a lot of frustrations to an asexual who is not being accepted by the people around them.
spin wrote:I do feel like I overanalyze everything, in part because that's just how I am and in part because I've spent so much time thinking about all this stuff in hammering out my (a)sexual identity. I find myself breaking down my attraction to him on various axes, and then I realize what I'm doing and think, "[expletive deleted] it! I love him, who cares." 'cause really, what does it matter if I'm attracted to him physically vs aesthetically or if I can define "romantic" attraction? I do like describing things, though. I feel good about having worked out I'm sexually interested but not sexually attracted. It makes sense in my head.
Olivier wrote:The most obvious compromises involve a compromise on frequency (the couple agree on a something between the sexual partner's preferred frequency and zero) or a compromise on the source of sex (mistress/[expletive deleted] arrangements, or polyamory). But what I'd be interested to hear about are compromises on the type of sexual activity in the relationship.
spin wrote:A word--relationship, Relationship, friend, girlfriend, lover, cuddlebuddy, [expletive deleted], partner heterosexual life partner, neighbor, grandmother, brother, whatever--is never going to encompass what that relationship is. Kez, I know you were talking about the nature of relationships more than semantics, but I think the semantics here are just semantics. I think relationships in general have lots of capacity for growth and change, and that those changes can indeed go unspoken.
Dargon wrote:I see no reason physical intimacy is the defining element between a relationship and a Relationship. It is true society places a lot of value on it, but if it did truely and universally carry the value society wants us to believe it does, then "[expletive deleted]," and other no-strings-attached sex wouldn't exist. Additionally, most "[expletive deleted]," while they do share the physical intimacy that apparently defines a Relationship, will insist they are "just friends."
Dargon wrote:So, by "harm no one" standards, things like polyamory, premarital sex. no-strings-attached sex (ie the [expletive deleted] or the one-night-stand) really aren't "wrong" (so long as all parties involved are ok with it).
Placebo wrote:Ok, so the stuff above can probably go for both sexual and asexual relationships, I think. I guess sex could also fit into it at any of the levels. So the bottom level, the non-priority friends, would be where friends with benefits/expletive deleted would probably fall.
SpirallingSnowy wrote:sorry guys, its turned into an essay..... any idea where i could possibly start in trying to make this not so complicated without him thinking me trying to sort it out means im about to call it a relationship? Im not in the rel with him for reasons not related to my asexuality. And im putting off the rel till im certain about it. because otherwise im repeating old patterns and it will all [expletive deleted] up again..... lol
Emmarainbow wrote:If there was more open discussion and so forth about sex and its ability to *not* happen as well as people being expected to [expletive deleted] like rabbits at the slightest provocation, being asexual would be so much less of a big deal, and people wouldn't have so much pressure on the whole 'losing virginity' thing. And we could talk about things sensibly.
Olivier wrote:No, Ms Roy says that if you claim to be asexual, but have sex, then the asexual claim is just a pose, and your sexual behaviour "proves who you really are". Exactly the same. "If you're a man [expletive deleted] a man, you're homosexual. Own it! -- that's who you really are -- no bisexuality cake for you". Exactly the same.
I mean, surely the celibate themselves has an interest in understanding their own sexuality. And so why shouldn't that knowledge be part of our communal understanding of how sexuality works? How it IS? Why should our understanding of sexuality be limited to understanding the sexualities those we may potentially expletive deleted?
Emmarainbow wrote:Hell yes! - it's a big topic of discussion at my LGBetc, about dropping all the bloomin' labels. That's why it's called Aberpride. I have heard an individual complaining about how it should be like the old days, just an LGB; (the actual phrasing was 'now any [expletive deleted]' misfit can join...' I thought that was the point! He mentioned asexuals and I was right there... anyway...) the exclusion stung. I am the midway point between so many different modes of sexuality - it's very frustrating! However, he was the only person to dissent in any way to my inclusion to the society, everyone else was very accepting, and most of them understood at least the basics.
ghosts wrote:I admittedly get really into these kinds of discussions, but at the end of the day, I don't let it bother me about whether or not one or more of my relationships are "technically" romantic or not, whether I experience romantic attraction, how I should label my relationships, etc. It's cool to think about, but I really just like [expletive deleted] with peoples' concepts of these terms and relationships in general rather than going through some sort of personal identity crisis, if that makes any sense.
spin wrote:Freud is crap.
Thing about Freud is he started out in psychology by analyzing himself (dude had some [expletive deleted] issues) and why he didn't mourn his father's death (parent issues!). Then he went on to develop theories using "hysterical" women, which is not terribly applicable to general populations. Trouble is he had some valid and revolutionary points--like the very idea of subconscious emotions or thought processes--which took off, but his "research" was all so convoluted and poorly executed that we're still fighting the stupid misogynist phallocentric drivel, which far outnumbered those valid points.
chlirissa wrote:With coming out I eventually realized that all those torturous conversations where people sit around and point out hotties or ask you who you'd rather [expletive deleted] are educational opportunities. They used to make incredibly uncomfortable (I still have a residual anxiety especially around people I don't know well), but now I try to be as open as I can about how I don't actually feel sexual attraction. I think it can be easy to turn off people who are interested in you if you only talk about the negative definition of asexual, so I'd recommend being sure to talk about what you do experience as much as what you don't.
lightningbug wrote:All I know is, sex for me seemed the least important thing in a relationship. I wanted something more. Conversation even! And for many years, sex seemed passionless. Especially right now at my age, 24. It just seems expected that someone my age has sex for the [expletive deleted] sake of having sex. Making the dating scene even more nauseating.
hypnotoad, quoting an AVEN post wrote:However, I still have never been attracted to another human being. I used to have no attraction AT ALL, but more recently I've started to be somewhat attracted to females. Not actual ones though, just pictures on the internet. And it's not really a "OMG I WANT TO [expletive deleted] THAT" reaction, it's more of a "wow, she's hot" type thing. I still get no reaction from males though. I don't get turned on at all by the thought of naked guys, but do when I'm thinking about naked girls.
flergalwit, quoting an AVEN post wrote:you know what, I just... WHAT THE [expletive deleted], AVEN, REALLY? I don't even have words for this shit any more.
ghosts wrote:I suppose that's a really weird way of thinking about it, but I think it's sort of related to DJ's idea of community-based intimacy in a way. Alas, while the bands I'm in are generally big commitments, I think there's an understanding that it might not last forever because that's the way bands often operate, unfortunately.
Now, what would that mean with the big R little r system (or am I just hopelessly expletive deleted up?)? Band = Relationship, individual bandmembers = relationships - or maybe Relationships, I'd have to think on that, grandmother = Relationship, that one individual bandmember = Relationship
fisharmy wrote:Recently, i've had more and more girls trying it on and basically if I wanted it, it's there on a plate. The thing is, i'm absolutly shitting myself at this! I mean, I dont want to go to certain parties/ nights out currently as I know there's gonna be girls who want me and will try it on, and I just dont wanna end up in a situation where I have to make my excuses and get the [expletive deleted] outta there! I've never really been THAT bothered about sex, and haven't even masterbated bizarelly enough, as the thought makes me feel.....odd! Kind of, lets say....dirty/ wrong? [expletive deleted] knows!
disjointed/PiF wrote:for many the short term dating..or [expletive deleted] buddies is normally for yhe buzz and the chase along with a guaranteed shag at the end
PiF wrote:I personally don't hold with this asexual till "you meet someone special then you feel sexual" because it gives the impression that all sexuals just want to [expletive deleted] all the time which i''m pretty sure isn't the case..it also gives the impression that asexuality is a flick of the switch kinda fickle thing
Dargon wrote:fridayoak wrote:
Since we're having a fun discussion, I think I'll bring in another idea into the mix. In settings such as web forums, cussing is typically something I do not do often. Part of this is because my words are the only basis for my entire character on forums, part is simply not to make waves (I'll make those with the content of my posts, not the individual words). One of the nifty advantages of this is that when you do cuss, people notice and it makes an impact. Frequent use of a word deadens its significance. Conversely, infrequent use of a word gives it power.
PiF wrote:to be fair the use of C and N I knew was frowned upon in aven although certianly the N word when used in situations like..why is it okay to say it if your one skin colour and not the other kinda discussions but never as a direct abuse at an individual
KAGU143 wrote:Olivier, your objections are noted, as is the fact that all of the examples which you quoted date back to when the site was under different ownership, as is the fact that all of those posts could have been worded in other ways without losing any of their meaning.
KAGU143 wrote:Your use of the term "... now censored, schoolmarm-style" is interesting. Are you trying to shame me, somehow, by comparing me to a benevolent classroom authority?
KAGU143 wrote: Do you think that classrooms are more effective when they are unsupervised?
KAGU143 wrote:You, Pif and Friday seem like very articulate speakers, and I am having a hard time imagining how the loss of one low-class slang term could be such a hindrance to your ability to communicate. People seem to use the "f" word most often as a lazy speaker's shortcut in place of any number of other verbs or adjectives which have actual, specific meanings.
KAGU143 wrote:As such, it actually detracts from the meaning of spoken language and becomes nothing more than an expletive.
KAGU143 wrote:By the way, when the topic really is meant to concern meaningless sex that benefits one partner at the expense of another, the terms "rape" and "screw" are not restricted.
KAGU143 wrote:You, Pif and Friday seem like very articulate speakers,
KAGU143 wrote:It is easier to prevent a message board from being cluttered up with profanity than it is to go back, after the fact, and try to clean it up. Verbal swearing is one thing, but when it is in print it becomes a permanent comment on the quality and standards of whatever publication it is associated with.
KAGU143 wrote:Think what you want, Olivier. If you are reading profanity to your children then you are already part of the problem, mainly because you are denying that the problem exists, so there is no point in seeking your assistance in solving it. A person's pattern of speech reveals a great deal about their education, their social status, their self-respect and their respect for others. If you think otherwise then you are truly beyond hope.
flergalwit wrote:I doubt Olivier is teaching his kids it's ok to swear like sailors. Using the f word in highly specialized circumstances, such as reading the book, probably has the opposite effect, as it demystifies their use. It's no longer something exciting, new and rebellious if even the parents allow it to be said, albeit only very occasionally.
KAGU143 wrote:So - swear all you want, and teach your children that it's perfectly all right to swear like sailors, too. That is your decision as a parent, and I can respect it.
KAGU143 wrote:I don't insist that you agree with my decision as the administrator of this board. I would prefer that you respect it whether you agree with it or not, but if that isn't possible then I'm not going to worry about what you think - as long as you are willing to try to comply.
KAGU143 wrote:In the overall scheme of things, there is nothing that I can do about the deterioration of the English language, but I CAN make a difference in this one small part of the world, and I fully intend to do so. I sincerely wish that my own language skills were more polished, because in a text-only format there is no tone of voice or body language to help convey the precise, intended meaning of any given statement. Carefully chosen and arranged words are the only tools that we have.