Isn't it strange how that two words or phrases -- both meaning the same thing -- can elicit such wildly different responses?
For example, calling Sandra Fluke a 'slut' (*) is a big no-no and elicits howls of disapproval all across the land (**), including from so-called conservatives and Christians. However, calling her 'sexually liberated' or 'sexually adventurous', is a “good” thing; it’s a compliment!
For example, calling a person a ‘whore’ is a big no-no: How dare one use such insulting language! Yet, calling that same person a ‘prostitute’ is mildly complimentary (***).
I wonder, is it a matter so simple as the bluntness of the language employed? Is it a function of the shortness of the words used? Simple, direct, “Anglo-Saxon” words are insulting, but Latinate words or convoluted terms are complimentary?
(*) as she clearly is, by her own word.
(**) unless it's done approvingly, such as if she were the keynote speaker at one of those 'SlutWalks' all the “liberals”, and not a few pseudo-conservatives, were into last year.
(***) myself, I’d have more respect for a whore than for a slut, for a whore at least has the self-respect to demand something-of-value in return for self-abasement, whereas the slut just self-abases.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
For example, calling Sandra Fluke a 'slut' (*) is a big no-no and elicits howls of disapproval all across the land (**), including from so-called conservatives and Christians. However, calling her 'sexually liberated' or 'sexually adventurous', is a “good” thing; it’s a compliment!
No and no. The only reason I, and I think a sizable number of others, disapprove of calling Fluke a 'slut' is because it's a tactical mistake. It's certainly not "because that's an offensive word". I encouraged calling her a slut indirectly - it's a matter of style and effectiveness.
On the flipside, calling a woman "sexually adventurous" is not necessarily a real compliment. It can be delivered as - and taken as - a *backhanded* compliment, or an outright insult. Remark that at 1k/annual, Fluke must have tremendous sexual experience, and I can guarantee you the message will come across loud and clear given the context.
For example, calling a person a ‘whore’ is a big no-no: How dare one use such insulting language! Yet, calling that same person a ‘prostitute’ is mildly complimentary (***).
Since when is "prostitute" mildly complimentary? Maybe in comparison to "whore" in some way. But if I call someone a fool instead of a shithead, "fool" doesn't become a compliment by virtue of it not being as vulgar as "shithead".
I wonder, is it a matter so simple as the bluntness of the language employed? Is it a function of the shortness of the words used?
It's a number of things, but it adds up to communication being a skill. It is something you can do poorly or do well, and there's not a 1:1 correspondence between 'being a good thinker' and 'being a good communicator'. Someone could be intellectually brilliant and verbally inept. Or vice versa (which a lot of people forget, hence everyone talking about how smart our president is, on the grounds that he's a decent public speaker when he has a teleprompter going.)
The difference is just a historical, built-up emotional connotation. If the phrase "sexually adventurous" came to be applied to all sluts, they would eventually start to hate it just as much. Euphemisms offer a temporary cover. But eventually the real meaning starts to bleed through. That's why new euphemisms always get created.
The difference is just a historical, built-up emotional connotation. If the phrase "sexually adventurous" came to be applied to all sluts, they would eventually start to hate it just as much.
And if you tell the same joke twenty times, it starts to no longer be funny.
So?
Results of conversation trends a decade from now don't matter to a conversation at the moment. And as ever, the issue is not "will some group of hardened people who will never change their mind be offended".
You're assuming that it's good to evade the emotional impact of the truth.
You're assuming that it's good to evade the emotional impact of the truth.
No, I'm not. I don't need to make an "assumption" about this insofar as effectiveness goes, because I can call on a monstrous amount of scientific data which at least generally supports my claims about persuasiveness.
And the "emotional impact of the truth" makes no impact on a person if they don't think it's true. Which is why you can call an idiot an idiot, and he'll merrily go about his day: idiots tend to be oblivious. On the flipside, they can be affected if you say something true, obnoxiously. The effect will be "this guy is a loudmouth ass, to hell with whatever he's going on about".
Need a biblical example? Check out 1 Corinthians 8. Pay attention to what Paul is suggesting Christians do, and avoid doing.
1 Corinthians 8 cannot negate other clear biblical commands, such as to preach the word of God. And the word of God uses stronger language than "slut" to describe sexually adventurous girls.
1 Corinthians 8 cannot negate other clear biblical commands, such as to preach the word of God. And the word of God uses stronger language than "slut" to describe sexually adventurous girls.
It doesn't need to negate them - it suffices to show one way in which God's word was preached. It works both as a theological and a practical example. I don't need to argue, nor do I intend to, that it's never appropriate to call someone a slut. All I need to argue is that sometimes it's a stupid move, and other approaches are better. Between Christ and Paul, I have examples all over the place.
"Yet, calling that same person a ‘prostitute’ is mildly complimentary..."
Not in Britain it's not. It's fast on it's way to being unacceptable because of perceived connotations of judgmentalism.
The Newspeak-approved term - and the only one you'll hear on the BBC or read in The Guardian - is "sex worker".
Sex workers work in "the sex industry", and make moral judgement of either concept at your peril.
Post a Comment