Also, you can tell it's not gonna have a happy ending when the main guy's all bumpy.

Tara ,'First Date'


Natter 68: Bork Bork Bork  

Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.


Hayden - Apr 28, 2011 6:53:51 am PDT #5702 of 30001
aka "The artist formerly known as Corwood Industries."

My buddy Michael just texted me to say that his house in Tuscaloosa is nothing but shambles. Presumably this includes all of his guitars and home recording equipment. But he's okay and grateful for that because he lives in that neighborhood behind the stores at the beginning of the video above.

I can't comprehend a mile-wide tornado. I had to map out in my head how far 1 mile is from my house, and I am gobsmacked to think of a tornado that huge.

That's the thing that gets me. In that video, the guy starts recording with the tornado about a mile off, presumably at the far end of Forest Lake neighborhood - my friend Michael's neighborhood, a place I lived for many years - which has nothing standing in it any more, not even the trees. It's on top of him within four minutes. Where could he go?

In other news, the tornado watch sirens just went off here.


Jesse - Apr 28, 2011 6:54:31 am PDT #5703 of 30001
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.

I would say sex with a lot of people and/or indiscriminate.

In other (or related?????) news, I just accidentally started talking about abortion with coworkers. I should know that is a bad idea, even if it goes well.


§ ita § - Apr 28, 2011 6:55:25 am PDT #5704 of 30001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

serial:

Okay, that took a long time to compose.

I totally get that the term "indiscriminate" is highly loaded, and not something you should hold someone else's sex life up to, but I'm not mistaken in interpreting the term as "you're having not just a lot of sex with a lot of people, but with the wrong people"?


Amy - Apr 28, 2011 6:57:42 am PDT #5705 of 30001
Because books.

I'm not mistaken in interpreting the term as "you're having not just a lot of sex with a lot of people, but with the wrong people"?

I don't think so. If a cheerleader is supposed to have slept with the whole football team, she's likely going to get called a slut, but for sleeping with *so many* boys, not which ones.


Consuela - Apr 28, 2011 6:59:46 am PDT #5706 of 30001
We are Buffistas. This isn't our first apocalypse. -- Pix

Stay safe, Hayden!

So you see it as inherently gender-specific, Consuela?

I think the great majority of the use I see applies to women; when I see it used about men, it's (a) usually kind of ironic ("He's a slut for new technology,") and/or (b) not as pejorative. Men who have indiscriminate sex are perceived as men who have indiscriminate sex: there's much less moral weight on the sex of itself.

Which is not to say that a man who sleeps around a lot doesn't get a reputation, but it's as a player, right? Other men don't shame him for his activity, although they might tease him for his choice of partners. Women might think he's trouble, as well, but there isn't that sense of being dirty that is associated with women who sleep around a lot.

Because of course we must control women's sexuality, and women do that by calling other women sluts.


§ ita § - Apr 28, 2011 7:00:10 am PDT #5707 of 30001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

I'm not sure how to frame the "right" people proposition (I'm operating with seriously reduced intellectual capacity right now, so I don't know if it's my point or my brain that's the problem), but isn't it pretty clear that the whole team is never discriminate? Unless it's the bible study team, or something.


§ ita § - Apr 28, 2011 7:01:05 am PDT #5708 of 30001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

"He's a slut for new technology,"

And in this scenario, does it mean he uses a lot of new technology, or that he'll use any old new technology, and not apply much discretion to it?


Consuela - Apr 28, 2011 7:01:46 am PDT #5709 of 30001
We are Buffistas. This isn't our first apocalypse. -- Pix

I'm not mistaken in interpreting the term as "you're having not just a lot of sex with a lot of people, but with the wrong people"?

I think Amy's right: when it comes to women, the quality of the partners doesn't matter, just the number. For men, it seems like the quality of the partners comes into play, but then I'm not a man and not privy to the conversations men have amongst themselves.

I don't think a man who sleeps exclusively with beautiful women is going to be called a slut; but a woman who sleeps with a lot of attractive men? Probably, depending on the social context.


Consuela - Apr 28, 2011 7:02:59 am PDT #5710 of 30001
We are Buffistas. This isn't our first apocalypse. -- Pix

And in this scenario, does it mean he uses a lot of new technology, or that he'll use any old new technology, and not apply much discretion to it?

Hmm. I think you're right, it does imply that the speaker thinks he doesn't apply much discretion. But that's a question of perception, right? He might think he's very discreet about his tech purchases.


flea - Apr 28, 2011 7:05:10 am PDT #5711 of 30001
information libertarian

Yeah, it's not "a lot of sex," it's "sex with a lot of people." You'd never call a woman who has sex with her husband 4 times a day a slut.

I do think indiscriminate and "a lot" in general run together - presumably it's pretty hard to have sex with 100 people and be discriminating? Or it would be a lot of work, anyway.