|
Post by Panther on Dec 21, 2010 16:57:11 GMT -5
On my own radar of propriety, there is nothing wrong with saying that a woman (or man) looks good, and complementing her on it. So, saying something like, "You look good today", is generally considered appropriate for most (all?) situations by most people, including me.
Biologically speaking, however, every time a man tells a woman that she looks physically good, what he is really saying is "I would enjoy having sex with you". This is the coded message of it, from a scientific perspective.
Thus, the rhetoric of precisely HOW we say such "complements" is very important, despite certain people's dismissal of it all as "PC". It's absurd to suggest that "nice tits, baby" is the same as saying, "You're looking lovely this morning".
Likewise, terms like "doll" cannot be said to carry the same implication as "dear" or "miss" or "shopgirl". I would suggest that (in N.American English speech communities) the word "doll" has an obvious sexist implication (not to mention it's kind of outdated), which implies an authority of judgment and a certain paternalism on the part of the speaker.
Then again, we're just writing words on a web-forum here, so I suppose anything goes, studs.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Dec 21, 2010 19:18:33 GMT -5
Hey panther, mate you're over-analysing this, if you can't give a woman a compliment about the way she looks because you like her then there's something wrong.
And not all guys find the same woman attractive. I agree the term 'groupie' was used loosely but calling someone a doll is not bad. As soon as you call a woman a doll she knows you like her and basically the chase is on, women love that.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Dec 21, 2010 21:19:42 GMT -5
Okay, now tell me how this is one iota different from what Yoko Ono did when she met John? Certainly if either acted more like a "groupie", it was Yoko. Unprompted, she pestered and peppered John for over a year until he relented and let her into the kitchen. He was also married when she did this. And she slept with him on their first date. And he didn't even buy her dinner. I thought he bought her an imaginary dinner..... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Dec 21, 2010 22:43:34 GMT -5
Hey panther, mate you're over-analysing this, if you can't give a woman a compliment about the way she looks because you like her then there's something wrong. Ursa, please read my previous post more carefully, as you clearly didn't understand it.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Dec 21, 2010 23:18:14 GMT -5
I do not believe Yoko was in this to be a groupie and "sleep and party with a Beatle". Me neither. Never have. But I do believe that she was keen to get a Beatle on board in furtherance of her artistic ambitions, knowing that they were "where it was at" in the world of contemporary art and fashion, and she wasn't too bothered which one of them it was. As it happens, Paul was a good deal less in tune with Yoko's particular brand of artistic utterances (which, in this instance, I shall be charitable enough not to characterise as "pretentious claptrap")(whoops), which leads me to two observations: 1. John's reaction is essentially the same as it was to Magic Alex - he was a sucker for a good salesman selling the Emperor's New Clothes; and 2. Paul's broadly neutral response to Yoko's initial overture to him (which, if I remember right, pre-dated her approach to John?) perhaps says more about his embracing the avant-garde than all his protestations about film loops and music concrete. In any event, John did respond and, notwithstanding some negative elements, it turned out to be the real deal for him - the best thing for himself, personally, that he could have done. More by luck than judgement, maybe, but you can't deny the reality of it. Sucker for a good salesman!! You forgot the best example--Allen Klein.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Dec 21, 2010 23:20:44 GMT -5
Me neither. Never have. But I do believe that she was keen to get a Beatle on board in furtherance of her artistic ambitions, knowing that they were "where it was at" in the world of contemporary art and fashion, and she wasn't too bothered which one of them it was. As it happens, Paul was a good deal less in tune with Yoko's particular brand of artistic utterances (which, in this instance, I shall be charitable enough not to characterise as "pretentious claptrap")(whoops), which leads me to two observations: 1. John's reaction is essentially the same as it was to Magic Alex - he was a sucker for a good salesman selling the Emperor's New Clothes; and 2. Paul's broadly neutral response to Yoko's initial overture to him (which, if I remember right, pre-dated her approach to John?) perhaps says more about his embracing the avant-garde than all his protestations about film loops and music concrete. In any event, John did respond and, notwithstanding some negative elements, it turned out to be the real deal for him - the best thing for himself, personally, that he could have done. More by luck than judgement, maybe, but you can't deny the reality of it. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but if I'm not mistaken Yoko first approached Paul. She had some idea for a compilation of hand-written song lyrics and asked Paul if the Beatles would donate a song to the cause. Paul was nuetral and passed on the idea to John who I believe agreed to the project. Yes John gave her the lyric sheet for The Word which he and Paul had made into a psychedelic piece of art. I wonder where that lyric sheet is now.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Dec 21, 2010 23:25:39 GMT -5
As I already stated ("neither should be called a groupie" -- see above), Yoko was clearly not a groupie in the grand scheme of things (that's rather obvious). My point is that if you're going to call May Pang a groupie based on her initial get-together with John, then you certainly have to call Yoko the same, as her actions were by far the more 'groupie-like' of the two (not to mention Yoko was about 14 years older than May when she did this). So, can we just resolve to call neither of them a "groupie"? Linda shouldn't be called a groupie either. Meeting people during the course of her job as a rock photographer and dating them, as most any red-blooded girl would have done given the mores of that time and the circumstances, does not make her a groupie. She didn't follow these people from city to city, concert to concert. She met them as a freelance photographer for Rolling Stone and this happened during the course of their work. It happens every day in Hollywood and its not confined to the entertainment history. Yes, she set her sights on Paul. Given her opportunity--since Paul was attracted to her--I don't begrudge her.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Dec 22, 2010 5:46:24 GMT -5
While we're at it, my girlfriend shouldn't be called a groupie either!!!
(That's her in in my pic... well, 5 or 6 years ago.)
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 22, 2010 5:54:46 GMT -5
Linda shouldn't be called a groupie either. Meeting people during the course of her job as a rock photographer and dating them, as most any red-blooded girl would have done given the mores of that time and the circumstances, does not make her a groupie. She didn't follow these people from city to city, concert to concert. Who says a groupie would have to follow a celeb "concert to concert" or "city to city"? Yoko Ono and May Pang did not go city to city or concert to concert, either. But I do think Linda fits the shoe just the same as any of the others, if they do; though in the end, like Panther has said about Yoko, Linda was obviously in true love.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 22, 2010 6:08:18 GMT -5
On my own radar of propriety, there is nothing wrong with saying that a woman (or man) looks good, and complementing her on it. So, saying something like, "You look good today", is generally considered appropriate for most (all?) situations by most people, including me. But I really don't care. A person cannot go around worrying about every little quirk someone's going to have when he uses a phrase or term, if those others take some kind of personal offense. This is a huge problem with the world as it is today. The bottom line to me is that if no offense was intended behind it, then it's all good. Now THAT is offensive for you to charge people with. And it's just not at all true 100% of the time. "Scientific perspective"?? "Coded message"?? That's ridiculous. I can assure you that there have been times where I have told women they look nice, or their new haircut looks good (or whatever) and I had NO intention or desire to have sex with them. Nobody's suggesting that -- now you're really making a huge exaggeration! Of course in this example these are two very different extremes! For example, my saying that May Pang was so nice that she was a "doll" was not even meant to be a physical comment -- and it certainly did not imply me saying the same type of thing as "You have nice T's!" But you certainly reacted to my wording as if it was just as intense! I'd also say that the "it's HOW you say things" observation of yours is not applicable, because it is completely subjective. What sounds offensive and off-putting to one person may not be so to another. That is the entire problem with this "PC" bull.... everyone's different and you cannot taper every word you utter for fear of offending someone else. They all have their own quirks of what offends them. Give me a break. It was a word that popped into my mind when I was trying to convey that May was really nice when I met her, that is all. And no, I don't think it has an "obvious sexist implication" for EVERY WOMAN ON EARTH. We would have to ask May herself if she was offended by reading that comment online from me (though I'm sure she would have been offended by some other things I've said, which WERE meant to be rough ;D ) . Well, I do not consider myself a "stud", and I resent your wording there.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 22, 2010 6:10:01 GMT -5
Yes John gave her the lyric sheet for The Word which he and Paul had made into a psychedelic piece of art. I wonder where that lyric sheet is now. Indeed -- where is that lyric sheet? Makes you wonder if it's not just another BS story.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 22, 2010 6:18:52 GMT -5
especially since she supposedly didn't know who he was, yeah right !! Since this has cropped up again, so will my response. I think you take that too literally. I'm sure Yoko knew of The Beatles, as an entity. But it is obvious that Yoko was not at all interested in or knowledgable about the Rock N Roll World. So it is possible that initially she may not have recognized John at first sight (especially depending on how he might have looked or dressed), or maybe the connection was not immediately made with the individual name at first (just as she may not have known the name Brian Jones, but knew of The Rolling Stones).
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 22, 2010 6:26:15 GMT -5
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but if I'm not mistaken Yoko first approached Paul. She had some idea for a compilation of hand-written song lyrics and asked Paul if the Beatles would donate a song to the cause. Paul was nuetral and passed on the idea to John who I believe agreed to the project. This is a story I believe is only told by Paul himself, unless I'm mistaken. And I don't think he ever mentioned it until only fairly recently in history. I have a VHS of him on the Howard Stern TV Show in 2001, and he admits he may be wrong about his recollection of this, and what order the events came in, and so on. This happens frequently with Paul and his attempts at recall, which is why he has been accused of "re-writing history" at times. You can hear him a couple of times in the ANTHOLOGY not being too sure of himself and going back and forth on his memory ... saying he wasn't sure if All You Need Is Love was written specifically for the OUR WORLD broadcast or not, or his sketchy memory on the details of HELP!, or trying to derail the fact that MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR was bascially his own concept, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 22, 2010 6:29:15 GMT -5
Jane Asher - cute and sexy. Hey! Where is Panther's "sexist" objection here?
|
|
|
Post by brothermichael on Dec 22, 2010 9:08:46 GMT -5
On my own radar of propriety, there is nothing wrong with saying that a woman (or man) looks good, and complementing her on it. So, saying something like, "You look good today", is generally considered appropriate for most (all?) situations by most people, including me. Biologically speaking, however, every time a man tells a woman that she looks physically good, what he is really saying is "I would enjoy having sex with you". This is the coded message of it, from a scientific perspective. Thus, the rhetoric of precisely HOW we say such "complements" is very important, despite certain people's dismissal of it all as "PC". It's absurd to suggest that "nice tits, baby" is the same as saying, "You're looking lovely this morning". Likewise, terms like "doll" cannot be said to carry the same implication as "dear" or "miss" or "shopgirl". I would suggest that (in N.American English speech communities) the word "doll" has an obvious sexist implication (not to mention it's kind of outdated), which implies an authority of judgment and a certain paternalism on the part of the speaker. Then again, we're just writing words on a web-forum here, so I suppose anything goes, studs. Agree 100 percent. Nice post. One shouldn't call a woman "a doll." I associate it with sort of a Three Stooges mentality, the kind of faux macho speech from that era.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Dec 22, 2010 11:41:34 GMT -5
And he didn't even buy her dinner. I thought he bought her an imaginary dinner..... ;D ;D Bravo, low basso!
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Dec 22, 2010 16:31:39 GMT -5
But I really don't care. A person cannot go around worrying about every little quirk someone's going to have when he uses a phrase or term, if those others take some kind of personal offense. This is a huge problem with the world as it is today. The bottom line to me is that if no offense was intended behind it, then it's all good. I completely, 100%, disagree with every point you expressed here. In my opinion, a person should go around worrying about every response each person we interact with will have to what we say. After all, 1st-language ability is the most human of all things in humanity -- the generally-agreed-upon evolutionary characteristic that finally and ultimately separated us from chimpanzees. It's something we need to take seriously, and work harder at, all our lives, to be better at, just like working, sleeping, loving, and breathing. I think one of the huge problems with the world today is that too many people think that "what [they] meant" wasn't offensive, so therefore no one needs to worry about it... an attitude that plainly overlooks the potentially huge group of people who were offended by what was said. Also, I think the "PC" nature of certain terms in use today reflects a very positive change at the mainstream level of our society. Of course, like anything from Melba Toast afficiondos to Star Trek fans, language-carefulness can have its extreme positions, but I am convinced that the watchfulness of more people about what terms they use to describe more (generally marginalized) people and ideas is a very healthy one -- and one that is directly resulted from The Beatles' generation and the different ways of thinking in the 1960s and beyond.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Dec 22, 2010 16:36:59 GMT -5
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but if I'm not mistaken Yoko first approached Paul. She had some idea for a compilation of hand-written song lyrics and asked Paul if the Beatles would donate a song to the cause. Paul was nuetral and passed on the idea to John who I believe agreed to the project. This is a story I believe is only told by Paul himself, unless I'm mistaken. And I don't think he ever mentioned it until only fairly recently in history. I have a VHS of him on the Howard Stern TV Show in 2001, and he admits he may be wrong about his recollection of this, and what order the events came in, and so on. This happens frequently with Paul and his attempts at recall, which is why he has been accused of "re-writing history" at times. You can hear him a couple of times in the ANTHOLOGY not being too sure of himself and going back and forth on his memory ... saying he wasn't sure if All You Need Is Love was written specifically for the OUR WORLD broadcast or not, or his sketchy memory on the details of HELP!, or trying to derail the fact that MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR was bascially his own concept, etc. I've always found the hand-written lyrics story plausible -- don't quote me but I'm pretty sure I've heard it from Derek Taylor and others aside from McCartney. But those of you that spin it like Yoko was a "groupie" pestering the band you have to remember the context. The Beatles at that point were promoting their idealistic vision of being patrons of the arts through Apple Records, so they were actively inviting artists like Yoko into their world. And avant-garde artists like Yoko who were completely uncommercial constantly had to be appealing to donors and benefactors simply to exist. As much as I'm not a big Yoko fan I feel its unfair to put her in the same camp as hustlers like Magic Alex and Klein. Love is a mysterious thing and an incredible attraction. Cynthia Lennon has said that from the very first time she saw John and Yoko together she knew they were exactly right together, like seeing a perfectly matched set of dolls, and that she had lost John. I'm sure on some level Yoko knew that she and John were meant to be together. As pushy as Yoko could be, I think this is one case where she was compelled in the direction of John for reasons probably even she didn't understand at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 22, 2010 18:28:25 GMT -5
I completely, 100%, disagree with every point you expressed here. In my opinion, a person should go around worrying about every response each person we interact with will have to what we say. Well, knock yourself out, but it'll never be possible to anticipate the reaction of every human being all of the time. And the irony is, you'll still wind up inadvertently offending people even when you didn't think something you said would have upset them. We have proof right here with me, as I meant "doll" in the most innocent and complimentary way and it freaked everyone out (though we still don't know if May would have objected). The problem is that people are not all alike; we're not all robots with the same feelings, interpretations, etc. So while you go around trying to please everyone, you may very well still offend some people anyway. And then there will be times when you think you may have upset someone, but they take it fine.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Dec 22, 2010 18:40:33 GMT -5
Joe Karlosi wrote: {Well, knock yourself out, but it'll never be possible to anticipate the reaction of every human being all of the time. And the irony is, you'll still wind up inadvertently offending people even when you didn't think something you said would have upset them. We have proof right here with me, as I meant "doll" in the most innocent and complimentary way and it freaked everyone out (though we still don't know if May would have objected) The problem is that people are not all alike; we're not all robots with the same feelings, interpretations, etc. So while you go around trying to please everyone, you may very well still offend some people anyway. And then there will be times when you think you may have upset someone, but they take it fine.}
I try to be sensitive (can't say I always succeed) to how other people define themselves. There are some women in my circle I call "chicks" and they are flattered by it. There are others who I know would be offended. I can understand feminists being insulted when you call a grown man a "man" but you call a grown woman a "girl." For awhile I was in the habit of calling women of all ages "my dear," which I thought was courtly. But then I heard some woman on the radio complaining that she was insulted by "my dear" -- that it was much too personal unless she was really close to the person. So you can't win. Recently I made what I considered a complimentary comment about Obama's basketball skills (the high school team he played on won the state championship). But then I noticed this black guy looking at me funny, like I was indulging in stereotypes ("They sho' can play basketball and they got that natural rhythm."). But now that I think about it, there's probably people offended by the term "black guy" -- its supposed to be "African-American" in some circles. So you can't win. But I at least try to be sensitive about that stuff.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Dec 22, 2010 19:00:49 GMT -5
While we're at it, my girlfriend shouldn't be called a groupie either!!! (That's her in in my pic... well, 5 or 6 years ago.) So you're a female and you were going out with a cat ? Niiiiiiiiiice !!!!
|
|
|
Post by brothermichael on Dec 22, 2010 19:02:24 GMT -5
Words do matter.
A combination of education, effort, and empathy will allow one to communicate inoffensively.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Dec 22, 2010 19:04:03 GMT -5
especially since she supposedly didn't know who he was, yeah right !! Since this has cropped up again, so will my response. I think you take that too literally. I'm sure Yoko knew of The Beatles, as an entity. But it is obvious that Yoko was not at all interested in or knowledgable about the Rock N Roll World. So it is possible that initially she may not have recognized John at first sight (especially depending on how he might have looked or dressed), or maybe the connection was not immediately made with the individual name at first (just as she may not have known the name Brian Jones, but knew of The Rolling Stones). It actually doesn't matter, I just would have thought that in 1966 everyone on the Planet knew who John Lennon was. The fact is they were meant for each other and I always believe that if you're meant to be with someone then it will happen so I'm happy for both of them that they found each other.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Dec 22, 2010 19:06:25 GMT -5
Words do matter. A combination of education, effort, and empathy will allow one to communicate inoffensively. Not when you're trying to hook up with a woman, words count for 10% of the interaction, it's body language and the WAY you say something that counts NOT what you say.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Dec 23, 2010 5:07:55 GMT -5
Not when you're trying to hook up with a woman, words count for 10% of the interaction, it's body language and the WAY you say something that counts NOT what you say. Ah. That explains a lot.
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Dec 23, 2010 5:29:31 GMT -5
As I already stated ("neither should be called a groupie" -- see above), Yoko was clearly not a groupie in the grand scheme of things (that's rather obvious). My point is that if you're going to call May Pang a groupie based on her initial get-together with John, then you certainly have to call Yoko the same, as her actions were by far the more 'groupie-like' of the two (not to mention Yoko was about 14 years older than May when she did this). So, can we just resolve to call neither of them a "groupie"? Linda shouldn't be called a groupie either. Meeting people during the course of her job as a rock photographer and dating them, as most any red-blooded girl would have done given the mores of that time and the circumstances, does not make her a groupie. She didn't follow these people from city to city, concert to concert. She met them as a freelance photographer for Rolling Stone and this happened during the course of their work. It happens every day in Hollywood and its not confined to the entertainment history. Yes, she set her sights on Paul. Given her opportunity--since Paul was attracted to her--I don't begrudge her. I'd like to be a grouper... (male version). If things were reversed and sexy artistic musician women were at parties and I was somehow able to attend I think I'd sample the wares if given an opportunity....
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 23, 2010 6:00:41 GMT -5
Words do matter. A combination of education, effort, and empathy will allow one to communicate inoffensively. No, not necessarily. Because the people you're speaking to are all different and each has their own interpretations, personal baggage, and all other kinds of feelings and interpretations of words they hear. What is so hard to understand about this as common sense?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 23, 2010 6:09:05 GMT -5
I try to be sensitive (can't say I always succeed) to how other people define themselves. There are some women in my circle I call "chicks" and they are flattered by it. There are others who I know would be offended. Good example. I would NEVER call a girl a "chick". To me, this is wrong. But obviously, to you somtimes it is "okay", and to some girls they don't mind it. I think this proves everything I've said, that it's not necessarily "one size fits all" when it comes to choosing words. Exactly. Which underlines everything I have been saying. So this is the time I quote John Lennon (and to an extent Abe Lincoln): "After all is said and done, you can't go pleasing everyone, so screw it". EXACTLY! Even a non-racist with all the best intentions in the world can be labeled a "racist". Why? Because it's POLITICAL CORRECTNESS RUN AMOK, that's why! Ever see the episode of SEINFELD where Jerry sees a mailman from the back and asks him where the chinese restaurant is, and the man turns around and he is Chinese (ummm... or should I say "Asian"? ) and he gets offended: "Ohhh..... so you're asking me because I'm Chinese!!! ?". It's just so damn stupid, the whole PC thing. And it's a waste of time to go on about it any longer. It's the overly-sensitive people with the problem.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Dec 23, 2010 6:31:48 GMT -5
Not when you're trying to hook up with a woman, words count for 10% of the interaction, it's body language and the WAY you say something that counts NOT what you say. Ah. That explains a lot. That's because women are emotional , sexual creatures. They don't respond to logic. You need to be sassy, cocky and funny. Two guys saying the exact same words, one gets a fantastic response, the girl is all over him and the other guy is given the cold shoulder like some big loser.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Dec 23, 2010 7:37:40 GMT -5
I think I may gone off-topic here. Sorry !!
|
|