How the hell is that (not) acceptable?

[Lt._nefarious]

Vagina... The word, that is... I don't get why people (in my area anyway) just can't say it... They can say dick, ****, tits and so forth but if I say vagina the guys sort of blush and turn away... I don't get it... I've said it around women and they don't seem to mind but the guys I know consider it taboo and flatout pretend to not know me if I say it in earshot of a woman...

(sorry if my ramblings are incomprehensible)

 

[GiglameshSoulEater]

I think there would be far, far less trouble if it was determined on a case-by-case basis, since there are plenty of 16 year olds that are far more mature and able to give consent than many 18 or 19 year olds.

Additionally, not just are some kids more emotionally mature (as in, they don't ACT immature), brain development is significantly different for everyone, to the point where comparing two 16-year olds and putting them on the same legal level is just...illogical and counterproductive.

Edit: But that's just me. I think that arbitrary cut-off points are horribly, horribly wrong for something like sexuality, and really only make sense for stuff like politics, where maturity is not that large of a factor compared to just basic intelligence.

But then you would have to set up a organisation or something to determine it. How would you even do it? Have them go in for an interview? Would you have to apply to have sex for the first time? What and how would you set an acceptable level of 'maturity' (something that has no direct scale) and even then it would have to have a cut off level of maturity, otherwise some people would be in limbo whether they could or not.

There's no practical way to set up such a system. And surely you can't ask parents whether they think their child is mature enough. It would be embarrassing for the parents and humiliating for the poor little bastards. And what if someone always acts immature? Would they be banned from sex for life? Quite simply, such a case-by-case basis would be impossible to implement.

The only practical, reasonably effective way is to have it set at an age they have physically and thus mentally matured enough to be able to give informed consent. And even this is of a variable nature - in Britain, its 16, while in America its 18.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

*Points at the vast majority of things the Catholic Church has ever said* <-- all of that shit.

Also arbitrary age limits on things. Grr. Why is it cool for me to get with a 17 year old here but in america I'd have to wait? Why did I have to wait until I was 18 to legally buy alcohol?

Surely it makes more sense for people to be allowed to buy alcohol legally before they can drive legally. That would give them time to get to know their limits and get the whole 'binge drinking' phase out of the way before they begin to drive. Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid STUPID, GRAAARH.

Also, someone tell me what the fuck makes weed worse than tobacco and alcohol?

 

[Easton Dark]

That makes 0 sense to me. For one, if the point of the AoC is give a specific age where you can consent to an act legally, what's the difference between saying "Stick it in the front" and "Stick it in the back"?

And if the alternative motive for the AoC is to ensure you're at an age to get a job in case baby making does happen, Vaginal should be 18 with the other 2 at 16. Those 2 kind of go together anyway.

Queensland, you're weird.

Nothing to do with logic. It's because Queensland is very homophobic.

I guess my critique still stands.

They would definitely not appreciate my sentiments on this matter, no sir. I'd campaign for early anal!

Also arbitrary age limits on things. Grr. Why is it cool for me to get with a 17 year old here but in america I'd have to wait?

The age is not the same in every state. Some states it's 14. Some 18. Others in the middle.

Mexico is 12, so the lower aged states can say "See, we're still not as pedophilic as those people."

 

[Yoshemo]

For everyone saying why they don't understand why people don't like swearing, why do you swear then?

Swearing exists in every language and every culture, and even different age groups. The words are different, but all of them use the words for emphasis or to express displeasure. Swearing actually helps relieve stress. Whether you say "oh shit" or "oh sugar," the usage is the same and it'll have the same effect

 

[Marcus McLean]

It seems when people become bronies they completely lose all sense of perspective on how other non-fans view them and why.

Most people who don't use the internet a lot don't even know that a new MLP show even exists and have no idea why there would be a massive fandom for it.

Two years ago, if you saw a guy walking around in public or in school with a beard and a MLP shirt you'd think he shat his brains out, now you can't comprehend why announcing your love of the show to everyone around would make people think you're a weirdo.


Now some of these other things:
Showing remale nipples in public is not okay cause breasts are sexualised, and a lot of places especially the US are still very conservative and the majority are religious.
It would totally desensitise all of us to boobs anyway, so it's not even that bad of a thing.

If we had the option to walk around naked then people would have boners all over the place, sexual assaults would go right up and keeping seats hygienic would be a nightmare.

Swearing in public is tabboo because a lot of people just don't like to hear swearing, particularly if they have kids. It's that simple. Go to a place where most of the patrons would be okay with swearing like a comic store or even a Blockbuster and you can swear all you want.

 

[Frozen Fox]

Yeah i am just going to be a patriot and say swears. It is just kind of dumbfounding to me a word can some how do emotional harm. Phrases okay but that guy is a moron and that guy is a fucking moron are identical in the level of offensiveness.

Honking, in small cities or towns if i hone at someone because they are in the way they act like i am being rude. Okay fine I can hit you with my care if you would rather.

Your room being a mess, I get it when you are at you parents house but my friends ***** about it if we watch movies in my room. To be honest a clean room piss me off, it is so clean and I feel i must keep it that way to the point of stressing me out.

 

[him over there]

Why is it acceptable to wear a Sesame Street shirt, but, not a My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic shirt?

Because MLPFM is "targeted" at little girls. It's the same reason people would look at you funny if you played with barbie dolls.

Sesame Street is gender neutral with regards to its target audience.

MLPFiM has more violence than...I actually don't know of any boy-oriented shows for younger kids. Most stuff on Cartoon Network is pretty gender-neutral, as far as I know.

Point is, MLP is full of violence that a boy could enjoy, and keeps out the frilly foo-foo stuff. Its intended target audience is NOT what the show itself is geared towards (which is pretty gender-neutral, in my opinion).

The thing is MLP is more slapstick. Something like the new G.I. Joe is a stereotypical violent cartoon for boys. I really just wanted an excuse to mention Snake Eyes though. Snake Eyes.

OT: I never got why swears were so evil. Not in public mind because sometimes there are legitimate reasons like it's public and there might be kids or whatever but why is swearing in general regardless of context bad?

 

[Prosis]

Swearing. I mean you can say poop or pee pee but not shit or piss. How fucked are we as a society when a sound is taboo? No one cares about the meaning, everybody poops after all. But when people start shitting, that's offensive.

In this case, it simply depends on your company. If you are out in public, around children, it (rightfully so) isnt acceptable. Its a matter of respect. I have been in more than one situation where I have had to ask someone to watch their language, because I didnt want my kids to hear it. I behave in a similar way, in public, because I know its disrespectful to curse around children, as well as other people. Sure, it may not bother you and I to "color up" our language, but its not everyones cup of tea, and being civil, we should respect that.

All you've done here is repeat that it's considered bad, not explained why. Why are these words worse than any others? My point is it's meaning we should concern ourselves with, not the synonyms used to express it. So shit being unsuitable for kids makes no sense when poop and doo doo aren't. The word "shit" literally just a sound. It seems superstitious and weird to give it this sort of power.

But words do have power. It's the context of the word. Swear words are used in a negative, insulting, or angry context.
For example, Hitler is just a name. There should be no reason why Hitler is any different from Henry, Harold, Harford, etc. Presumably, there were multiple families in the world with the last name Hitler.
But the Nazi party changed that. Although it is just a sound, it is now considered to be a terrible name. Because there are ideas associated with that word- fanaticism, genocide, cruelty, and war.

Another example would be "African American" and the "n word." Both mean the same thing; a non-African person of African heritage. But culturally, they do not mean the same thing. The n word was use historically as an insult to deride and ridicule slaves, and declare them as "less than human." Thus, the n word is a swear word.

Likewise, swear words do have a literal definition. But the words have acquired additional meanings through culture. Negative, insulting meanings. An arguement could be made for s***, but the rest of the words don't really have any justification for use in everday conversation.

 

[llamastorm.games]

No need to start an argument here, buddy. He was simply stating that you were a little hypocritical in your post, he didn't mean it as a personal attack against you. You had your opinion and then he had his. There's my little "grunt of disapproval". I'm now moving on.

Its ok pal, I quite like replying to these kinds of posts.

Making out in public, I mean REALLY making out we're talking Gene Simmons tounge action here. Or even just regular frenching, to me it always appears to make people uncomfortable for reasons I don't quite get I mean what real concern is it of anyone elses other than envy if you ask me.

My gf and I were kicked out of a bus transit station just for this, well that could be considered the cause of the interation between ourselves and transit security and I know that we were basically kicked out because cause I called the fat prick an envious nazi essentially, I suppose I didn't have as good a control on my temper when I 19, but still just the fact that the guy came up to us and told us "either don't do that, or take it somewhere else" all matter of factly. There is a polilte and adult way to deal with any situation.

have another read of that last paragraph and try to spot the hypocrisy

So what's your point?

For starters 1. Who cares?
2. What are you gonna do about it?
3. If you didn't like reading why post a reply? (HIPOCRACY ALERT!!)

Just make your annoying little grunt of disaproval and move on. Being able to spot hipocracy dosen't make you smart you know, and commenting on it without development of an opinion as to why you disagree in the first place just makes you sad and you shouldn't make waves if you're not willing to get wet, that's just cowardly, but I suppose thats something total anonymity is good for. For both our sakes.

It seems you also don't have control over your temper now.

OK, I'll bite, lets go.

What's my point? Don't ask people to deal with things in a 'polilte and adult way' if you aren't willing to do the same.

1. Me. So someone asked you to stop doing something and you called 'the fat prick' an 'envious nazi'. Yes that seems like the 'polilte and adult way' to deal with this situation. I dislike people who give other people shit just for doing their jobs.

2. Aside from call you out on being a hypocrite? Nothing. It's an internet forum. I'm not really sure as to what else you think I could do about it, this just seems like unnecessary posturing.

3. So in your world if people don't like a post they should just sit there, shake their head and tut? No thanks.

Total anonymity? Click my profile. I have a picture of myself right there. There's a link to my FaceBook page aswell. More pictures are available there. Admittedly I change my name on FB when I get bored, so it's rarely my own, but if you care so much my name is Ian Cottam. I have nothing to hide.
Although that last paragraph is a mess and I'm still struggling to understand what it's trying to say.

Nice to meet you Ian Cottam.
Reading that made me chortle

 

[shadyh8er]

- I never understood why rats and mice are considered ugly, but hamsters are cute.

In the same vein as this; cockroaches are icky. Lobsters are a species of cockroach. Which one is more widely consumed?

And yes, the double standard on male and female bodies bothers me too. Like when a woman wears a low cut dress, it's ok, but if I walk around with my fly halfway down, people lose their shit.

 

[WaysideMaze]

-snip-

And I apologise for my abrupt (and perhaps a bit confrontational) initial reply.

Nice to meet you Ian Cottam.
Reading that made me chortle

Nice to meet you to, Daniel .

 

[Monkeymanbob]

- I never understood how somebody who's 17 and 364 days is off limits, but the day they turn 18, they are fair game . It seems odd that somebody who is 16 or 17 is deemed "unable to give consent"
varies by region but the point still stands). Although, once somebody is into their mid-20s they shouldn't be dating that young anyway, I'm talking more about people ages 18-22 who get pinned for statutory rape.

Because there has to be a cut-off point, and on that age it is recognised they should have undergone enough development to be able to give informed consent.

- I never understood how a film (or other forms of media) can have violence and killing and only be PG13, but one woman's nipple will give it an R rating.

- I never understood how men's nipples are allowed to be exposed, but not women's.

Because women's breasts play an active role in reproduction? This is a western thing. Most of the tribes in the Amazon, etc, don't see the breasts as sexual - at least, not enough to be covered as a social norm.

- I never understood why halloween is normal but cosplay is weird.

Because Halloween is traditional, while cosplay is not. It returns to societal norms - an excuse for one night ( when younger) instead of an adult doing a 'childish activity' (dressing up as a character from something).

Fairly reasonable answers that I probably could have come to if I had given those things any amount of thought; I just wanted to contribute : \

I wouldn't say it's a Western thing, more of an American view. European movies were showing partially nudity for many years and allowing childrn to view the movies at the cinema. In fact spend an evening watching French or German T.V. and you will see more nudity in the ads than on U.S. primetime shows.
US entertainent seems more geared towards violence than any other culture, so I find it weird that Janet Jackson's nipple cause's more of a stir than scenes of blood and gore.

Again the view of Cosplay depends on the culture you come from, dressing up to celebrate various relgious festivals is quite common in many parts of the world. I would think that the reason that most people think cosplay is weird is because they perceive it as being "less than adult". A view typical of people who look down on those who read comics and for many years played video games.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I think there would be far, far less trouble if it was determined on a case-by-case basis,

No that would be far, far more trouble. One rule for all is hard enough to enforce. You cannot vary a law person by person. Then it "ouldn't be fair" why Molly could have sex but Brian couldn't. It could never happen.

Additionally, not just are some kids more emotionally mature (as in, they don't ACT immature), brain development is significantly different for everyone, to the point where comparing two 16-year olds and putting them on the same legal level is just...illogical and counterproductive.

Completely irrelevant.

Edit: But that's just me. I think that arbitrary cut-off points are horribly, horribly wrong for something like sexuality, and really only make sense for stuff like politics, where maturity is not that large of a factor compared to just basic intelligence.

It's not arbitrary. It's something that was discussed at considerable length by lawmakers, voted in by voters to have their values preserved.

It's not the same everywhere. For example, the age of consent in Georgia (and many other states) is 16 (and a police officer and multiple sources confirmed it).

Also irrelevant. Different societies have different standards of acceptable and unacceptable. The USA thinks is perfectly fine to give an 18 year old a gun, but not a beer. We think that's ridiculous.

You are a teenager who disagrees with the law because a) you're likely in the age range where it affects you b) you don't like the idea of a law or any rule telling you you can't do something c) believe the law shouldn't apply to you because you're more mature than your peers d) think it's unfair that the Georgian's are all getting frisky at this very moment without you there and/or e) are horny and want to (be able to) have sex with anything.

 

[nolongerhere]

- I never understood why rats and mice are considered ugly, but hamsters are cute.

In the same vein as this; cockroaches are icky. Lobsters are a species of cockroach. Which one is more widely consumed?

And yes, the double standard on male and female bodies bothers me too. Like when a woman wears a low cut dress, it's ok, but if I walk around with my fly halfway down, people lose their shit.

Dude, lobsters aren't a species of cockroach. They're both arthropods, but that's as close as the relationship gets. Also, cockroaches can transmit disease, and lobsters rarely infest human settlements. It's brutal when they do, but rare enough not to be a major concern.

 

[aattss]

I think there would be far, far less trouble if it was determined on a case-by-case basis,

No that would be far, far more trouble. One rule for all is hard enough to enforce. You cannot vary a law person by person. Then it "ouldn't be fair" why Molly could have sex but Brian couldn't. It could never happen.

Additionally, not just are some kids more emotionally mature (as in, they don't ACT immature), brain development is significantly different for everyone, to the point where comparing two 16-year olds and putting them on the same legal level is just...illogical and counterproductive.

Completely irrelevant.

Edit: But that's just me. I think that arbitrary cut-off points are horribly, horribly wrong for something like sexuality, and really only make sense for stuff like politics, where maturity is not that large of a factor compared to just basic intelligence.

It's not arbitrary. It's something that was discussed at considerable length by lawmakers, voted in by voters to have their values preserved.

It's not the same everywhere. For example, the age of consent in Georgia (and many other states) is 16 (and a police officer and multiple sources confirmed it).

Also irrelevant. Different societies have different standards of acceptable and unacceptable. The USA thinks is perfectly fine to give an 18 year old a gun, but not a beer. We think that's ridiculous.

You are a teenager who disagrees with the law because a) you're likely in the age range where it affects you b) you don't like the idea of a law or any rule telling you you can't do something c) believe the law shouldn't apply to you because you're more mature than your peers d) think it's unfair that the Georgian's are all getting frisky at this very moment without you there and/or e) are horny and want to (be able to) have sex with anything.

I don't know why you're bringing up things I said so long ago I don't even remember saying them. And no, I don't plan on having sex on anyone in my entire life, so you can shut up now.

 

[Bassik]

Also, someone tell me what the fuck makes weed worse than tobacco and alcohol?

Well, since alcohol leads to youths being violent, dramatic, pukey and coma...y, and tobacco leads to cancer, while marijuana leads to sitting on your couch with your mates playing Mario Party.

Yeah I don't get it either.