Slashdot Mirror


Decency Group Says "$#*!" Is Indecent

The Parents Television Council says the "$#*!" in the title of the upcoming CBS show $#*! my dad says is indecent. From the article: "'CBS intentionally chose to insert an expletive into the actual name of a show, and, despite its claim that the word will be bleeped, it is just CBS's latest demonstration of its contempt for families and the public,' declared PTC President Tim Winter. 'There are an infinite number of alternatives that CBS could have chosen, but its desire to shock and offend is crystal clear in this decision.'" By this logic Qbert was the filthiest game ever made.

51 of 821 comments (clear)

  1. All I have to say is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fuck the fucking fuckers!

    1. Re:All I have to say is: by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think you meant to post "$#*! the $#*!ing $#*!ers!"

    2. Re:All I have to say is: by Anonymusing · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Hey look, it's the Expletive Formerly Known As Fuck."

      --
      Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
    3. Re:All I have to say is: by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I find the bleeping indecent.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    4. Re:All I have to say is: by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think you meant to post "$#*! the $#*!ing $#*!ers!"

      Actually, in this context, $#*! stands for shit, not fuck. As in Shit My Dad Says .

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    5. Re:All I have to say is: by kenj0418 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't understand. What does the Parents Television Council have against children learning Perl?

    6. Re:All I have to say is: by tenco · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Fuck my dad says"? Yoda, is that you?

    7. Re:All I have to say is: by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      THIS.

      I don't know if you were being serious or not, but when someone hears, say, the word "fuck" in real life, most stable-minded individuals would not think a thing of it. It's just a word.

      However, when you instead bleep it out, you are stating that that word is not just another word, it is something indecent and taboo that much be censored. In short, it's not the word "fuck" that is the issue, it's people who think the word "fuck" is the issue who are the real issue.

      PS: I want to skullfuck the bastard who designed idle's CSS, particularly the retarded comment field. Seriously, just why...

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  2. ignore them and show it anyway by FudRucker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    no matter what you do some bed-wetting crybaby is going to bitch about it, so just ignore them and continue with what you want to do.

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:ignore them and show it anyway by MrHanky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it would be better to subtly taunt them to make complete fools of themselves and lose whatever credibility they still might have.

    2. Re:ignore them and show it anyway by RangerElf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I definitely concur with you. Ignore them and they become increasingly annoying until you can't ignore them any more; pester and ridicule them, and they throw a hissy fit and shut up.

    3. Re:ignore them and show it anyway by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Interesting

      it would be better to subtly taunt them to make complete fools of themselves

      This may be what has happened, since after all, this group DID just make complete fools of themselves.

      I'm hoping this is what happened

      -CBS execs try to decide what shows to put on the air next, cause they're scraping the bottom of the barrel
      -Out of the blue, this idiot group approaches them and pre-emptively warns that if they were to make a show with an obviously censored word in the title, they'll protest it.
      -CBS execs find this hilarious (and realize an opportunity for free slashvertising), scramble to find a show that uses a censored word as part of the title
      -CBS execs realize that the only way to make this even funnier is if they make the show based on, of all things, a twitter feed
      -Censorship advocates rebel in exactly the braindead way they said they would, execs and the rest of us get a good laugh and hopefully a few more people realize that there's no point in getting offended at words (or symbols standing in for words).

      As Justin's dad's most recent quote, probably on this very topic: "They're offended? Fuck, shit, asshole, shitfuck; they're just words...Fine. Shitfuck isn't a word, but you get my point."

      Seriously, I object to a show being based on a twitter post, but at least they picked the best one and did the title well. The rest of it might be a trainwreck, but it's off to a great start.

    4. Re:ignore them and show it anyway by TheLink · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hmm, is that a perl one-liner? ;)

      --
    5. Re:ignore them and show it anyway by fishexe · · Score: 5, Funny

      The rest of it might be a trainwreck, but it's off to a great start.

      It stars Shatner and it might be a trainwreck?

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    6. Re:ignore them and show it anyway by aaandre · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here's a little dose of understanding and compassion to balance your frustration:

      Babies usually cry because of discomfort or pressing need for something.
      Bed-wetting is not a choice.

      Finding someone else's otherwise harmful behavior intolerable reveals severe discomfort to an internal reaction to said behavior. That's usually caused by severe conditioning. The results are fear, anger, ignorance and damage. I can imagine this is intolerable I can understand the overwhelming need for controlling others.

      Of course, in a free society, allowing damaged minds to change everybody else, instead facing their own discomfort, is too high a price to pay. It is letting a mentally unbalanced individuals to dictate the reality for everyone. No need to re-enfoce this millennia-long tendency.

      Unfortunately they are also very determined and violent as a result of their sickness.

    7. Re:ignore them and show it anyway by jeremyp · · Score: 4, Funny

      It stars Shatner and it might be a trainwreck?

      You mean it stars $#4!ner.

      In Britain "$#4!" is a colloquial past tense of "to $#*!" as in "he $#4! his pants".

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  3. Fuck right off. by Pojut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    CSI shows chest cavaties that have been ripped open. Law and Order discussed horrible sex crimes. But heaven forbid you say a naughty word!

    Didn't South Park already cover this?

    1. Re:Fuck right off. by Kenoli · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But heaven forbid you say a naughty word!

      Heaven forbid you imply a naughty word.

    2. Re:Fuck right off. by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Funny

      Quite a surprising number have even declared it to be Holy!

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    3. Re:Fuck right off. by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Replace the Anglo-Saxon word "shit" with the Frankish word "poo" and then everything will be a-okay. (Yes our US FCC really is that stupid and inconsistent.)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:Fuck right off. by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This sort of thing happens a lot in government. Two sides fight it out, and then end up with some kind of compromise that is inconsistent, but it gives each side something. Then other people come along and say, "That's inconsistent! It's so dumb!" but in reality those people just don't understand how government works.

      In this case, most people who are opposed to sex and certain words on TV are also opposed to violence on TV. For various reasons, that's how the compromise ended up. And they will continue the fight to reduce violence, and others will continue the fight to get swearing and sex on TV. That's how politics, and society, works. We wouldn't survive without compromise.

      --
      Qxe4
    5. Re:Fuck right off. by colonelquesadilla · · Score: 5, Informative

      The definition of some words as "bad" and others as "good" is more or less arbitrary and generally classist. For example the expletive in question, shit, derives from old english (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=shit). Oddly enough the polite words such as feces seem to derive from latin. The vulgar word (in the literal sense, meaning of the common people) became considered impolite, as it sucks to be a common peasant. Now hundreds of years later in a society that prides itself on not having nobility, and helped the french decapitate most of theirs, we still cling to the idea that vulgar words are bad, and latin and greek ones are better, to the point that we allow the FCC to regulate speech and the press on the flimsy excuse that the airwaves they regulate are a scarce resource. Don't you just hate people sometimes?

      --
      It's either false dichotomies, or the terrorists win, you decide.
    6. Re:Fuck right off. by cHiphead · · Score: 4, Funny

      I feel bad for you. My grandfather was fucking awesome and would occasionally even use fancy curse words like 'shitass' and 'fuckered' around us grandkids.

      Note: He was a sailor in WW2.

      (disclaimer: I once considered myself a christian then woke up one day and realized it was all goddamn make-believe bullshit) (subdisclaimer: you can thank the baptists for my initial realization of the truth behind 'the Word')

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    7. Re:Fuck right off. by isorox · · Score: 5, Informative

      As someone who has read English literature for the last 400 years

      Bloody hell you're an old bugger. Or did you mean from the last 400 years?

  4. They're right! by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Kids should never be exposed to the symbols $#*!. They should have &^@%ed those symbols out.

    1. Re:They're right! by gorzek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      $ is probably the most violent symbol of all.

    2. Re:They're right! by MrLint · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just imagine what unicode is going to do to the minds of children and all those symbols...

    3. Re:They're right! by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Indeed - but since when is violence on TV not ok for the children?

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  5. WTF ? by daveime · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are these people so repressed that even the suggestion of a "naughty word" is enough to get them complaining ?

    Have they really got nothing better to do with their time ?

    I thought the Puritan movement died out in the 17th century, obviously I was wrong.

    1. Re:WTF ? by FauxPasIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Offenses that used to be punishable by stoning, now only land you in rehab.

      True, but that's not due to a softening of hearts in the Puritan movement, but a steady waning of their influence.

      As Christopher Hitchens says, never forget how these people behaved back when they had enough power to do whatever they wanted.

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
  6. CBS chose to *insert* an expletive? by Kelson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How have they missed the fact that "Shit My Dad Says" is the title of the source material? Complaining that CBS chose to "insert" the word into the title makes them look like the people who were horrified that New Line Cinema decided to use an obvious 9/11 reference in the sequel to "Fellowship of the Ring"..."The Two Towers."

    (All that said, I could have sworn I read somewhere that CBS had retitled the TV show as "Stuff My Dad Says," but I guess I misremembered.)

  7. Languages Change by rotide · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not that I agree, but I understand where they are coming from.

    If the 'F' word is banned in your school and the kids all of a sudden decide to say the word 'Squash' in lieu of the naughty word, eventually they become synonymous. Saying "Squash you, Mr. Teacher" is still potentially going to get you in trouble if the teacher knows what "Squash" means in that context.

    So, the question really is, is the putting together of the letters F-U-C-K naughty, or the meaning and/or implied meaning of the word the naughty bit?

    If it's the latter, then _any_ substitution of the word still implies the word and carries the negative connotation along with it.

    Again, I don't agree with it and frankly, I think all words should be allowed. It's all part of the language and any negative feelings you have to a word are _your_ problem.

    1. Re:Languages Change by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That treads on dangerous territory though.

      When we get into synonyms, then really, the un-#(@)#'ed title is "Shit My Dad Says". Now, we know they're not talking literally about feces. They're just using a more laid back way to say "stuff".

      Should the word "stuff" be illegal? Should the very word "intercourse" be illegal, as it has exactly the same meaning as "fuck"? Should it be illegal to say "a child without a father", since it is synonymous with "bastard"?

      When you start trying to ban substitutions because they "mean the same thing" then you're literally encountering a roadblock that will prevent the language from working properly. There will be entire situations and scenarios that are literally non-describable because the very discussion of that situation is forbidden.

      No, I say we need to dispense with the notion of "profane speech" entirely. Rude speech will continue to be rude (IE, "I fucking hate you." is the same in meaning as "I hate you.", because the idea conveyed is the same), whilst positive speech that contains words that have been deemed taboo (Ie, "That's fucking awesome!") will retain it's meaning as well.

      Then people can judge speech by it's true meaning rather than the words used to convey that meaning.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    2. Re:Languages Change by alta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Your post directly relates to something we're going through at our house. Our 5 year old is intrigued with what words he can't say, and which ones he can. And he's pushing it as far as he can, without getting in trouble. My wife and I don't swear in front of the children, and we don't listen to music or TV that does. There's a line somewhere between not wanting your kids to have a potty mouth vs allowing your child to express himself. Anyway my child came home from school one day, "Daddy, can I say damnit?" No son, you can't say damnit. Can I say dangit? Yes.

      He comes home a few weeks later. Daddy, can I say "What the." (As in WTF but without the F) After a little deliberation, we said OK. How can the words What and The be considered offensive. Well, after about a week of "What the..." I can't stop completing that sentence in my head. We finally changed our rule and told him that even though those aren't bad words, the way he's saying it isn't very nice. He made the decision that he doesn't want to do something that's 'ugly' and doesn't say it any longer.

      And as for the _your problem_ I agree and I disagree. In our house, we monitor what the kids watch. There's a number of cartoons (chowder) that we don't allow them to watch because they are do visually or verbally suggestive. That is OUR problem to monitor the kids. The problem lies in the fact that despite our best efforts, we're not alway going to be there. I don't want to be way over protective, but he's just five. I don't want him hearing things while we're walking around in public that we find offensive.

      not sure where I was going with all this, been interrupted so many times, I've lost my point. Sorry!

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
  8. Do these people live in reality? by the_raptor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah cause you never hear people say "shit" or much worse in about any situation I have ever been in during my life. I heard it at my Catholic primary school. This is what happens when "Christians*" live in little gated communities and become completely out of touch with reality and the wider community.

    * I am a Christian. Most of the people that whine about this stuff aren't really Christians. They just believe in ritual and "decency", they seem to miss that Jesus was mocking this kind of Pharisaical behaviour. Well actually they generally miss most of what Jesus said or at least fail to apply it.

    --

    ========
    CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    1. Re:Do these people live in reality? by camperdave · · Score: 4, Informative
      In fact, the entire Bible doesn't condemn 'bad language' in any sense unless it involves the name of God. There's not a single word in the entire Bible that could be construed, in any manner whatsoever, as saying you shouldn't say 'fuck'.

      Of course not. It is an English word, and English hadn't been invented yet. However, you're wrong about the bible not condemning bad language:

      But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

      Mat 5:22

      With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring?

      James 3:9-11

      Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.

      Ephesians 4:29

      You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.

      Colossians 3:7-8

      Put away perversity from your mouth; keep corrupt talk far from your lips.

      Proverbs 4:24

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:Do these people live in reality? by DavidTC · · Score: 4, Informative

      But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

      I mentioned this explicitly, you fool. Jesus said not to insult people. That has nothing at all to do with whether or not the word is 'obscene'.

      With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring?

      The word 'curse' there is 'katara' which is an actual curse. Aka, wishing that someone comes to harm because they are a bad person.

      Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.

      A better translation there for 'unwholesome' is 'corrupt', or even 'rotten', the word is 'sapros'. Sadly, 'rotten talk' is a broken metaphor...that's not what it means.

      See, the word you've translated as 'talk' is 'logos', which all Christians should recognize (In the beginning was The Word, etc.), which can, indeed, mean 'talk', or even 'word' , but here almost certainly means 'the truth'. Do not speak rotten truths. Aka, don't lie.

      You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.

      What is translated as filthy language there is 'aischrologia', which is, oddly enough, a specific Latin word meaning 'a role-reversal mocking and insulting your betters', and there were actually festivals (Scroll to 'Significance'.) that had this as an aspect of it.

      Of course, this mocking probably included rather lewd languages, especially as women got to insult men during it. But it certainly not talking about 'bad words', or the way we use the term 'filthy language'.

      You know that thing, where your boss leaves and you pretend to talk like him and make fun of him? Believe it or not, a Bible verse condemns that.

      Put away perversity from your mouth; keep corrupt talk far from your lips.

      'Perverse' doesn't mean what you think it means. Perverse simply means 'crooked'. In fact, it still means that, we just use it entirely metaphorically now. Again, it's 'don't lie'.

      However, you've certainly proven me wrong. Apparently, there is language that idiots can interpret to be about the word 'fuck'. The world can always surprise me by building a better idiot.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  9. change it back then by DynamoJoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fine, then remove $#*! and put back the word "Shit". If they're going to be offended anyway, might as well make it count.

    --
    bah.
  10. Re:Stop listening to the PTC by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And all you do is complain about it on Slashdot, which is why your opinion goes unheard.

    Meanwhile, they get out their letter writing campaigns, their phone calls to senators, whatever it takes. Which is why they end getting listened to.

    Frankly, I don't think the people at the FCC really care. If it were up to them alone, we would have swearing and nudity all over TV by now. But there are people who really do care, and they make a concerted effort to have their opinion heard. That is why they are listened to.

    And really, that's kind of how it should be. If a small group of people really really cares about something, and the rest of us don't care too much, it's basic social wisdom to compromise in favor of the people who really do care. That's true in all human relationships, not just at the national level.

    --
    Qxe4
  11. What can they do about my brain? by Gopal.V · · Score: 4, Informative

    What do the decency groups know about indecency?

    (. ) ( .)

    Are these decent? I'm sorry, you can't wash out the filth out of my brain ... you can try, but I see the a-style logo and I see what I see, because of the filth in *my* brain.

    If you see the same ... well *giggle*

  12. *Sigh* by pete-classic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I block channels with religious programming, because I don't care to see it. If you are too sensitive to allow yourself to be exposed to implied vulgarity, feel free to block the channels that offend your delicate sensibilities.

    Here's the gaff; YOU AREN'T CBS's CUSTOMER. Advertisers are. CBS is quite expert at attracting viewers. If you don't like their content, by all means DON'T WATCH IT.

    This really isn't a difficult concept.

    -Peter

  13. I do not think... by Kylere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I do not think that adults who still talk to invisible friends have any right to make decisions for the rest of us.

  14. Re:boys drag girls down until they finally say NO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're part of the problem, you know. You've now set expectations such that "boys will be boys" and that the girls should just expect boys to behave like gutter trash and learn to live with it.

    If you held "boys" to as high a standard for their behaviors as you seem to set for "girls" then you might be working to get the world to this neo-Victorian attitude that you seem to want to live with.

    Personally, I think the Victorians were a bunch of overly-repressed fuckers whose hypocrisy is almost unmatched in the history of the world, and I'd hate to see us revert back to it. Even the hypocrisy of 1950's USA is tame in comparison. I actually think we're better off as a culture if we're more open about shit. When you liberally sprinkle your fucking vocabulary with shit that other people think is taboo, eventually the words lose all their goddamn power to shock and offend and they become nothing more than motherfucking words - which is what they should be. The word "shit" as in the title of the show "Shit my Dad Says" is a word that means nothing more than fecal matter unless you've got a goddamn stick rammed so far up your ass it makes you walk funny.

    But whatever - it's a free country. If you want to fight for neo-Victorian attitudes I say fucking go for it. Balls out, as they say.

  15. Re:boys drag girls down until they finally say NO by molo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What, girls can never be devious or sexually adventurous without the prodding of a boy? Are you living in 1955?

    -molo

    --
    Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
  16. Re:boys drag girls down until they finally say NO by grasshoppa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Please, give the puritan crap a rest. Women are just as filthy as men, perhaps more so.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  17. Re:boys drag girls down until they finally say NO by NiteShaed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I tell girls that boys will drag them as far down in the gutter as they will allow.

    You know, you're an asshole. I don't think I've ever started a post on Slashdot that way, and I really don't go in for name-calling, but you get the prize for driving me to it. You seem to have issues with males (I can't tell from your name whether you are one or not, but it's irrelevant), and you should be working through that yourself, not poisoning children's minds to share in your gender issues. No, BOYS will not drag girls into the gutter, some will, some won't. Just as some girls will be manipulative little monsters, and others won't. Shame on you for actively trying to damage these girls' outlook with regards to the other half of the population.

    For me, I download everything, so I am immune to CBS and most ads for that matter!
    I know this self-censorship will probably dwindle, but for now its heavenly!

    Great, another do-gooder who isn't affected by something, but feels compelled to "protect" everyone else. You appear to have mastered the use of the "off button" on your television, so instead of cheering for censorship, why not just help some other easily offended prats find it too, and quit telling others what they can and can't see on TV.

    --
    Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
  18. Re:boys drag girls down until they finally say NO by MMC+Monster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have a very close female friend who's out of sorts because she's always been told that her being sexually adventurous is bad, and that she shouldn't like sex. It tears her up inside, and she feels that she needs to hide that side of her from her friends and family. She feels that since she likes sex, she should feel like a whore.

    It's assholes like you that did that to her. She's broken inside, and hell if I know if it's fixable.

    Fuck society.

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
  19. I suggest a name change by mangu · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just call the show "2 Girls 1 Cup". No one could say that name is indecent.

  20. Re:boys drag girls down until they finally say NO by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Where the person is wrong is that sex somehow deserves to be in the gutter.

    And yet, you are speaking of a relationship "degrading" to sex from the supposedly ideal "platonic". How is that cognitive dissonance working out lately?

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  21. Re:boys drag girls down until they finally say NO by NiteShaed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A little quick to judge? How about some basic biology. Males are wired for sex and females are wired to be selective about sex. Its not opinion, it is biology. Some males may show constraint, but they are fighting nature. If biology is allowed to take its course males will always try to go all the way and females will have to put on the breaks unless they like the traits of the male; in which case the female is just as likely to attempt to procreate and all bets are off.

    That's a nice, clinical description, which in the real world falls apart pretty quickly. Plenty of guys go out, spend the night flirting and have no intention of actually trying to have sex with anyone, and I've seen plenty of girls at my local bar who are looking to get laid and leave with a different guy every weekend. Those girls aren't poor innocent waifs who have been taken advantage of, they're adults who choose to have sex when they want to. There's also nothing wrong with what they're doing. Women are just as grown-up and competent as men when it comes to sex, and are perfectly capable of deciding whether they want to sleep with someone or not.

    So if someone is educating their daughters to be wary of boys because "boys will drag them as far down in the gutter as they will allow" they are correct; eventually the relationship will become non-platonic and if allowed will degrade to sex.

    No they are not correct. Is it okay make them aware that some guys will lie and do what it takes to get them into bed? Sure. Is it okay to teach them that guys only want one thing, and it's in their pants? No, it is not. That's how you create a girl with problems with self confidence, and trust issues.
    I have plenty of friends who are women, and there's absolutely nothing sexual about our relationships. They don't have to play gatekeeper to my uncontrollable desires, and I don't have to worry about them innocently falling prey to my sneaky male charms. That's the real world for ya, we really are more than just a collection of base instincts.

    --
    Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
  22. Re:Bad words defined by DavidTC · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oh yeah?

    Why is 'crap' not a bad word, then? Please explain the distinction between 'shit' and 'crap' for all of us. Likewise, the distinction between 'whiz', 'piss', and 'pee'.

    And what the hell does toilet training have to do with anything? You're just trying to exclude 'childish' words like 'poop', but that's a rather idiotic slang distinction and doesn't have much to do with anything.

    Likewise, the word 'sex', itself, is fairly new slang. The first recorded instance of it referring to intercourse is barely 80 years old, before that, it referred entirely to the distinction between male and female. It's from 'sexual intercourse', which actually meant 'intercourse with the parts of the body that differ between men and women'. Which poses some interesting etymological issues when speaking of 'gay sex', as that would be the opposite of sex, but whatever.

    And yet nowadays we have judges talking about 'sex acts' and whatnot. (Which would technically mean 'acts that differ between the sex'.) Language changes. Slang changes to language, languages becomes outdated. Words become offensive, or acceptable.

    And you really need to just accept that we just made up the damn distinctions. There seems to be a medical and legal exception, in that no matter what the word is, no one can actually complain if you're using those terms in that sense, but the rest of the distinction, the entire

    Incidentally, bastard is a legal term. It's not used that often in the modern era because a) not a lot of law rely anymore on whether or not someone is born in wedlock (Inheritance law based on that actually was ruled unconstitutional in the US.), and b) it is gender specific. However, it is still a legal term, especially in places that do hereditary titles. (And note that's the least offensive term..the other term is, believe it or not, 'whoreson'.)

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?