************************

Mr. Zarquon, I'll get to you first.

I am quite positive that the "naked and petrified" stuff means "naked and transformed into a statue", with absolute certainty. I'm careful to always gather all the data before I bash something, and this is no exception.

First of all, I saved a lot of the "naked and petrified" junk from Slashdot to my personal archive, so I'd have a record of what had happened. Not only is there some truly offensive stuff in there, but the guy (or guys... I never found out for sure whether it was more than one guy doing it) mentions statues over and over and over. Second, the creep who started the whole thing on Segfault and later Slashdot actually admitted to it and posted an explanation on the Userfriendly board a couple weeks ago (his name is Graig something and he's actually into the petrification/freeze/statue stuff -- maybe he's secretly Astrid's lover ). After reading the jerk's insane rantings for over a year, I think I know pretty well that he's talking about statues, not fear.

I know it's very disturbing stuff, but I want to share a few quotes from what I've saved that prove he's talking about statues, and that show just how sick the whole thing really is. Scroll down past the quotes if you're not willing to be offended, because this garbage will offend any rational person.

Here are some of the LESS OFFENSIVE samples:

This one encourages pedophilia and incest:

quote:

---

I wish I had a cute daughter. (Score:-1, Offtopic)
by Anonymous Coward on 10:11 PM May 3rd, 2000 CST (#5)

If I had a cute daughter, I'd really enjoy using a scientifically-proven magic petrification ray to transform her nubile young buttocks into solid marble! I'd petrify my daughter all the time. If I had two daughters, I would petrify them both, while they stood together nude and hugged each other and stuff.

First, I need a wife. If any females read this, would you please be my wife? I want to turn you to stone, and have sexual contact with you, and impregnate you for the purpose of creating cute daughters for me to petrify, because I REALLY WANT TO PETRIFY MY CUTE DAUGHTERS, I just need to get some daughters first, and I need a wife for that.

PLEASE BY MY STATUE WIFE AND HAVE MANY CUTE DAUGHTERS FOR ME TO PETRIFY.

Dear females,

please consider this.

Thank you.

---

<b>This one is more pedophile trash and is in incredibly bad taste:</b>

quote:

---

Has anyone seen pictures of the Columbine cheerleaders? I saw pictures of them in American Cheerleader magazine. They're very cute. They're hot. They're female teenage girls with buttocks and boobs & stuff. And they're
cheerleaders.

Which Columbine cheerleader hottie would you most like to see petrified? I think they'd all make very cute statues. All cheerleaders would make cute statues. But some of these hot teenage eyecandies would be VERY cute statues.

Please help me turn the Columbine cheerleaders into statues. You won't regret it! I WANT TO TURN THE COLUMBINE CHEERLEADERS TO STONE!!

SECRET ADDED BONUS: When the Columbine cheerleaders are turned to stone, they will be immune to bullets!!!

Ha ha ha.

I like girls.

---

This one is kind of funny, but it's still very disturbing

quote:

---

Reading this article, I wonder about the usefulness of this. I personally think that "Using Enzymes to help fight CO2 build-up" is pretty pointless. I think that "Using Enzymes to petrify Natalie Portman" would be a more productive use of taxpayer dollars.

I'm completely Libertarian.

As a Libertarian, I'm opposed to using taxpayer money to fund scientific research. But as a sensible human being, logic demands that ANY PRICE neccessary to turn Natalie Portman to stone MUST BE PAID. The taxpayers will understand that their money is being taken for a good cause.

Other than that, I'm completely Libertarian.

All taxation is evil and must be abolish, except for taxation used to fund research into transforming actress Natalie Portman into a nude marble statue. People should be required pay 40% of their income towards this goal.

Other than that, I'm completely Libertarian.

Well, I *DO* think everyone in the world is also entitled to receive, from society if they are unable to afford one, exactly one (1) nude petrified teenage girl. Not neccessarily Ms. Portman, because there's only one of her, but SOME teenage girl.

Other than that, I'm completely Libertarian.

Of course, we don't have enough cute teenage girls in the world for everyone to have one. Therefore, I support the genetic engineering of teenage girls, and I support the citizenry being required to parent and raise these girls who, upon reaching the age of 17, will be turned over to the government for petrification.

Other than that, I'm completely Libertarian.

Those who are required to parent and raise these future statues will be given a 5% tax deduction. Those who are not required but volunteer will receive a 10% tax deduction.

Other than that, I'm completely Libertarian.

Some may say that cute teenage girls like Natalie Portman have the right not to be turned to stone. But I believe it's okay, because it's FOR THE GOOD OF SOCIETY.

Other than that, I'm completely Libertarian.

I also think European people have very bad attitudes and should be banned by law from society.

Other than that, I'm COMPLETELY Libertarian!

---

This is another pedophile thing (I think I see another trend), with rape overtones as well

quote:

---

We need a new AIBO feature

A FEATURE THAT TURNS GIRLS TO STONE!!!!!!!

Dear Slashdot:

This is what we need more than anything.

Please write to Sony and DEMAND that the next model of AIBO be fully able to transform cute teenage girls into cute teenage statues!!!

Let's imagine a sexy 17-year-old girl. Let's call her Sarah. Thanks to the new AIBO, we can have all KINDS of fun now.

It's Christmas morning.

Sarah is wearing this really sexy little pink silk dress.

She opens up a gift.... it's an AIBO!!

"Hooray!!" She's so happy. She plays with her new pet.

And then I, hiding outside, push the button on the special petrification remote control. Sarah looks down at the dog, smiling, and before she knows what happened, the dog zaps her with the on-board petrification ray and she hardens into a pretty little marble statue.

Then I go inside and feel her up a little bit, and take her and the dog back to my place, where they will be my two best friends.

Then I pet the AIBO, and say "Good dog!!!"

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING

A.C.

---

Even more pedophilia, and a cheerleader fixation

quote:

---

MY FAVOURITE PASSTIME IS TO ROUND UP A BUNCH OF 16-YEAR-OLD FEMALE CHEERLEADERS IN SHORT SKIRTS, AND TRANSFORM THEM INTO A BUNCH OF PETRIFIED MARBLE 16-YEAR-OLD CHEERLEADER STATUES!!!!!!!!!

IF THE MPAA TRIED TO STOP ME FROM DOING THIS, I'M GOING TO BUST THEIR ***ES BACK TO THE STONE AGE. NOBODY STANDS BETWEEN ME AND MY PETRIFIED MARBLE CHEERLEADER STATUES!!!

---

And this one pisses me off more than any other...

quote:

---

HELLO FRIENDS:

PLEASE SOMEONE HELP ME

PLEASE WRITE A VIRUS PROGRAM FOR ME SO THAT I CAN SEND IT TO CUTE GIRLS, AND WHEN IT IS RUN ON THEIR COMPUTES IT WILL TRANSFORM THEM INTO STATUES THROUGH THE MAGIC OF PROGRAMMING TECHNOLOGY!!!

PLEASE MAKE IT SO IT RUNS ON LINUX AND WINDOWS BECAUSE THE GIRLS WHO USE LINUX AND WINDOES ARE THE **CUTEST**!!!!!!!!!! THERE'S NO NEED FOR IT TO RUN ON BSD BECAUSE ***NO*** CUTE TEENAGE GIRL USES BSD!!! OR MACINTOSH!!!

REALLY ALL I WANT IS THE PROGRAM TO TURN THE TEENAGE GIRLS TO STONE, SO LIKE IF I'M TALKING TO A HOT GIRL ON IRC, I CAN JUST PUSH SOME BUTTONS AND SHE'LL BE TURNED TO STONE IN REAL LIFE!!!

PLEASE HELP ME DO THIS!!!!!!!

Thanks,

A.C.

---

That BSD reference made me want to hunt the bastard down. I'm not quite a teenager anymore, but I was at one point.

SAFE TO START READING AGAIN

I'm sorry I had to post that but I think it's important for people to know what we're talking about... keep in mind that some of it was even more offensive, and some of it was so bad that I could barely stand to read it, let alone save it.

Zarquon, and Saintonge, how can you support stuff like that???

One of the things that I really admired about the Geek Culture community is how Nitrozac and others eventually laid a verbal smackdown on this guy, and he seemed to mostly go away after that. And now I hear people here saying that stuff like that is okay??? Hopefully there's something I'm not getting, here, because I can't imagine anybody actually supporting posts like that. Please tell me I'm missing something.

************

Astrid:

I'll ignore your comments about same-sex relations because, progressive forum that this is, I'm sure that you're just pulling my leg. However, with regard to the freezing/statue thing, I think I'll use an analogy to try to make it clear what I'm trying to say. This analogy is also inspired by Slashdot, but since you haven't followed Slashdot, it should be new to you.

Say that you're seeing a guy, and you're spending the night at his house. After the two of you get into bed, he tells you to close your eyes... he'll be back in a minute. You close your eyes, you hear him leave, you hear him come back a few minutes later, he gets in to bed, you still have your eyes closed... and then you feel something SCALDING HOT in your groin area.

You open your eyes and you see that he's poured a ****ing bowl of hot grits down your pants. But let's say for the sake of analogy that you actually enjoy the experience. It turns you on. So you thank the guy for introducing you to something new and exciting, and you go home, stopping at the store to buy a few boxes of Quaker Instant Grits.

Well, you've found something that turns you on, and everything's happy, right? Well... say that later that day you actually find out that grits-down-the-pants is really a common and widespred fetish. The pourers come up with wild stories about fantasy pourees (that's you), and some of them actually spam message boards with "I'M GOING TO POUR HOT GRITS DOWN NATALIE PORTMAN'S PANTS!" garbage over and over again.

I don't know about you, but this is when I would realize that my partner had NOT shared some loving and intimate and exotic experience with me... he had used me as gratification for the fetish. The pourers (petrifiers) don't see the pourees (petrified, statues) as human beings, they see them as a way to get off their bizarre sexual tastes.

Would you not feel a bit USED? Would you not be the least bit upset that your partner hadn't been honest with you about what was really going on? Would it not bother you that your partner might be one of those people downloading badly-Photoshopped edited pictures of Natalie Portman with grits down her pants? Would it not bother you that your partner might brag to the others about how he'd "scored" or share the story or even the pictures???

The point is... grits pouring, or immobilization, there's clearly an "aggressor" and a "victim". Now, feminism aside, there's nothing wrong with sometimes voluntarily playing a "victim" role in sex, as long as your partner actually cares about you and thinks of you as a human being, and doesn't have any secret ulterier motives. And that's what really gets to me. Do these "petrifiers" who actually get to act out their fantasies on people like you, Astrid, actually care about their "victims"? Do they see their victims as people? Of course it's voluntary on both sides, but does it not concern you that your partner is seeing you more as a means of gratification than as a human being? That he's just turning you into a statue because, well, that's what he gets off on?

That's what bothers me about the whole "naked and petrified" thing. Not only do most of the Slashdot troll posts and stories on their web sites feature involuntary, forced freezing, often with elements of torture and rape and even death (is THAT the guy you want to give power over you??? Welcome to the 1800's!!!), but I think that even any "voluntary" sexplay like that is inherantly UNEQUAL when you think about the way these people think (one of their stories features two twin sisters being mind-controlled into making love, then turned into metal statues, them melted down into liquid metal, another features a man who actually sprays women all over with an enamel substance which in real life would kill her after a few minutes, a third portarys women as subservient animals when one woman actually turns another woman to stone because of jealousy over a man). Yes, sometimes the genders are reversed and there's even a <a href="http://freyr.home.texas.net/SiS/">gay petrification site</a>, I think the whole thing was invented to be hateful and demeaning towards women (whether it's women or men doing the petrification).

As I said, I was really turned on by the idea at first. But then I found out all the stuff that was going on on the web, the stuff that Julie hadn't told me, and I realized that she hadn't been thinking of me as a friend or a lover or even as a person, she had been thinking of me as an object, a victim, and as basically a ****able piece of rock.

Sorry again for the long rant. The whole thing was just really traumatic for me. Thanks for listening if anybody read this far. I'm long-winded when I can't sleep!

~Laura

As I said on the forum topic about the horrible things that were going on at slashdot, i never noticed them, since I cruise at +2 and as I said before, i never picked up on the whole thing, or its significance.

Yes people probably use others just to get their rocks off (and in some cases, both parties aren't willing), but other times, people do use it after they have formed a lasting relationship with someone. I guess we could ask Saintonge since he's implied that he's married.

I am sorry to hear that you've had such a bad experience.

And it is disturbing that most men dont get offended by such topics, in such a "progressive" era.

On slightly related note: Astrid, i didnt get a response about the photos of the statues (as ive stated I am one to need feedback). I think you would find them interesting.

-----edit------
I guess I grew up with a different definition, and I never gave a second thought to the posts in the beginning, and never pursued their definition, and the grounds behind the original posts.

One thing ive realized is that each person gives everything a value of importance (wether one person likes you, while you wouldnt care what another person thinks about you) and I guess i never give assign any major value to things in the slashdot forums, unless it is interesting to me (which natalie portman petrified isnt). But i guess everyone does that. So for you the rampant allowance of perverted posts on the forums there are things that make you turned off from it. For me its more of technical inaccuracies and poor reporting (and how people seem to take it as the holy grail) that bugs me.

Ive also been pre exposed to a lot of this is my day to day conversations with friends (rants about things, were the most obsurb ones wins, yes we are very strange people). And for a time I was mistaken for a necrophiliac at my old Highschool (someone overheard a conversation about Brazil, the "how about some necrophilia" line, to be specific)
--------end edit---------

Well, you learn something new every day. The thought of fucking a marble statue is one of the least erotic things I can think of. Pouring hot grits down someone's pants is even stranger to me.

Secondly, I do NOT support the Slashdot posts you've copied. (I don't read /. because the signal-to-noise ratio is too low. Thank you for some more confirming datapoints.) While there are Libertarian arguments to be made for allowing such people to post this stuff, that does not mean we have to give it any respect -- and I don't. If Nitrozac allowed that kind of thing to be posted here, I'd leave.

About fetishes: (Begin sermon mode) Uhh, welcome to the adult world. I'm sorry to be the one to break this piece of bad news to you, but LOTS of people, especially those of the male persuasion, see their sex partners as "gratification for the fetish ... a way to get off their bizarre sexual tastes." In fact, if you wish to make arguments against pornography and prostitution, then imao this is the best one of all: it helps the customers and the suppliers to harm themselves. It's distressingly easy to objectify other human beings.

However, that's the GENERAL picture. There's also the specific interaction. Possibly your ex-girlfriend Julie wasn't "honest with you about what was really going on ... might brag to the others about how (s)he'd 'scored' or share the story or even the pictures???" Possibly, she's never mentioned this to anyone. Then again, maybe she's pure slime. I don't know, I don't know her.

Laura, people are complex and contradictory. The phrase 'love/hate relationship' captures a great truth: that emotions that contradict each other can exist in the same person. Most people have desires, experiences, fears, and curiosities they are nervous about, perhaps ashamed of, and they have great difficulty talking about them with someone. So, Julie may have simultaneously been using you as a lust gratification object and falling deeply, intimately in love with you. She may have had real feelings for you and simultaneously been unable to get any personal gratification without indulging her fetish. She may have done this with everyone, and you may have been the first person she ever dared to do this with.

So the answer to the quesion "Do these 'petrifiers' who actually get to act out their fantasies on people ... actually care about their 'victims'? Do they see ...you more as a means of gratification than as a human being? ... [Are they] just turning you into a statue because, well, that's what (s)he gets off on?" is: "Depends on the person; some always do and some never do, and some vary from day to day and 'victim' to 'victim.' And frequently, it's both at once."

You may be exactly correct in writing "Julie ...hadn't been thinking of me as a friend or a lover or even as a person, she had been thinking of me as an object, a victim, and as basically a ****able piece of rock," but you may be doing her a great injustice. The only way to know is talk with her about the whole subject. Maybe you did, and haven't mentioned it. Or maybe you're so creeped out by the whole thing (and I wouldn't blame you a bit) that you couldn't discuss it calmly. It's your life, and you have to make the choices in it, but I think you should be aware you may have done Julie a grave injustice. Or maybe you've haven't condemned her nearly strongly enough.

Just something to think about. End of rather bizarre sermon. Hope I haven't offended you.

"Sorry again for the long rant. The whole thing was just really traumatic for me. Thanks for listening if anybody read this far. I'm long-winded when I can't sleep!" No need to apologize. I'd much rather read something this long and gain some understanding than go back and forth trying to figure out exactly what's bothering you, never getting it and inadvertantly angering you at the same time. <strike>I much prefer angering people deliberately.</strike>

And you seem to be getting all fussed up about nothing. Those stories from "slashdot" you posted are pretty silly and badly written -- there are far better comedy sites on the web, like After Y"K. But there's nothing really worrying about them. The guy just wants to turn women into statues. Some women (naming no names ) /like/ the idea of being turned into a statue. And I don't know what your idea of "paedophilia" is, but personally speaking, I lost my virginity at the age of fourteen, and I don't think I was particularly unusual.

I don't know what the hell "hot grits" are, and I'm assuming it's yet another joke from "slashdot". But the general point I understand, and I still think you're getting worked up over nothing. If it was fun, it was fun. God knows, I've "used" enough people, if finding someone to help live out your fantasies is "using". If you're hoping for someone to treat you as an equal human being, and respect you as a person, then you're looking for a husband, not a fling. I'm afraid that, if you're gonna take things so seriously, and not just enjoy physical pleasure for the sheer pleasure of it, you're gonna have a disappointing sex life, until you happen to meet Mr (or Ms, I guess! ) Right. Meantime, I'm gonna be having fun -- you'll see me, at the end of the bar, in the stone-grey party dress!

------------------
tease me, please me, freeze me!

--------------

edit: OK, I've had a look a Slashdot, and it doesn't look like a whole barrel of laughs. You have the option of 1)Dull talk about computer games (yawn), or, you can screw about with their complicated user interface and enjoy 2) Dull talk about computer games with a lot of swearing and pictures of parrots on penises, or 3) set your "threshold" to maximum, and read dull mini-essays that tell you all you need to know about computer games. I don't really see the appeal -- theregister.co.uk is much better written.

As for people who actually -do- practice alternative sexual lifestyles, the vast majority of them wouldn't even talk about as much as Astrid and I have done here. They -certainly- don't want to call attention to the fact in any 'unsafe' forum (ie, a forum being read by the general public; this is at least more or less a 'singles' section of the geek-culture forums, and there are, of course, dedicated forums for discussion of alternative lifestyles.)

As for treating partners as objects, well, some do and some don't; I think, by and large, that more people practicing 'normal' sexual behaviours (I'm thinking about frats and sororoties, singles-clubs, etc... a terribly judgemental stereotyper, that's me... ) objectify their partners than people in any of the alternative scenes; if nothing else, there is a feeling of a 'shared secret'.

For me, personally, the feelings of my partner are -extremely- important; in fact, that's true of most 'dominants' in the BDSM community. If you take a minute to think about it - the submissive partner is the one being humiliated/tied-up/spanked/getting nipples and genitals teased/etc. ... all the attention, all the sensations, everything is directed from the dominant to the submissive. For the dominant, the experience is -much- more psychological, and essentially relies on the knowledge that the other person -is- a living, breathing human being who is experiencing all the sensations that the dominant is going through so much work to give.

Obviously, I can't speak to your particular partner, but, I wouldn't judge any particular sexual inclination by slashdot trolls anymore than I would judge grits (which are, btw, the little white cores of corn kernels, popular in the south as a breakfast food - I like them with butter and honey; I do not like them on -any- part of my skin! ) or even the more conventional troll-topics ... windows users, linux users, bsd users, amiga users, right-wing politics, left-wing politics, libertarian politics... if you go by the troll-posts -all- of those groups are dangerously unstable and twisted. Just remember that trolls, by and large, probably don't actually hold the opinions that they post, they are just very immature (regardless of their age) people who are trying to get attention.

Also, I disagree with Astrid about there being anything wrong with lesbian relationships (though talking your feelings through with a non-judgemental counselor-type might help clarify the issues.) If sex is for pleasure and not procreation, than the number and gender of the participants and the act of what gets inserted (or not) where, doesn't matter - what matters is that the people involved respect each others feelings and do their best to have a mutually good time.

Parity

quote:

---

Originally posted by Parity:
If sex is for pleasure and not procreation, than the number and gender of the participants and the act of what gets inserted (or not) where, doesn't matter - what matters is that the people involved respect each others feelings and do their best to have a mutually good time.

Parity

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
This is the conventional wisdom among the liberated, but after viewing the AIDS disaster I'm not sure "sex for pleasure" and "respect each other" are very easily reconciled.

---

Nobody ever said life was easy; respect for ones partners involves regular testing for STDs (where 'regular' obviously depends on how many partners you have / how often you switch partners; 'serial monogamy' can spread aids (and others) just as fast as multiple partners if you don't take care!)

And, of course, you need to either be -certain- both partners are clean and -strictly- monogamous (no 'it just happened!' and if it -does- just happen full and immediate disclosure), or else you need to be very certain that you're using safe-sex practices, every time. For every act. This means dental dams as well as condoms.

Granted, not everybody lives up to this ethical goal, but then, if people were perfect, the world would be a very different place.

Anyway, in the -particular- context of lesbianism, lesbians have the lowest transmission rate of AIDs of any sexual group. Note I said -lowest-. Not 'zero'. Dental dams should be used in lesbian sex; if you hate latex that much, stick to fingers. (Which isn't quite a non-zero transmission rate but is d*mn close; it would be better to use latex gloves, but everybody has to decide for themselves how many 'nines' they're willing to risk... you know, 99% safe, 99.9% safe, 99.99% safe... just remember unsafe sex isn't 9s, it's 8s and lower. Well, okay, straight het sex is 90% safe for the male (10% transmission rate) but only 50% for the female partner. Two year old statistics, check for yourself if you really want to know, but what it comes down to is unsafe sex is far less safe than skydiving.)

Anyway.

(That wasn't -me- lecturing, was it? I don't -do- that do I? Eep! I'm turning into an adult!)

Parity None

Back when I read Slashdot at a threshold of 0, I used to see a lot of one-player hot-grits scenarios ("I love to pour hot grits down my pants!").� This does make the abuse scenario seriously questionable (unless you are a member of the ASPCHG[1]).� These posts tend to get moderated down to -1 very quickly; the community is pretty much agreed that these posts are worthless.

I always found the "naked and petrified" stuff to be tasteless at best, and sometimes scary.� I made a point of posting a snarky comment in response to one of those, but it had no effect (like a fart in a hurricane).� I hadn't considered it until just now, but it's the exact reverse of the Pygmalion story.

The people who do this are just trolls. �They are posting offensive stuff to try to get a reaction, probably because they are not sufficiently intelligent, imaginative or informed to get attention for positive things.� I think they need swift kicks in their behinds, but that's not feasible with current technology. �The only thing left to do is wonder where their humanity got left behind, and otherwise not waste time on them.

I get my kicks from racking up 3 "informatives" in a single thread.� YEAH, BABY!� (Pity I'm over the karma cap.)

And now back to our regularly scheduled kinky sex discussion.

[1]� American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Hot Grits, which is an organization of which I have never heard but probably exists given the general nuttiness these days.

[2]  Why the heck is HTML off?

quote:

---

I always found the "naked and petrified" stuff to be tasteless at best, and sometimes scary. I made a point of posting a snarky comment in response to one of those, but it had no effect (like a fart in a hurricane). I hadn't considered it until just now, but it's the exact reverse of the Pygmalion story.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer:
The whole point of the Pygmalion story is the eroticism of the immobile. Pygmalion wants the statue to be a woman, but he wants her to be a statue/woman, not a woman/woman. If you read the story in the Greek, or in a good translation (not the bastardised popular classics versions), the complex psychology isn't hard to see. Pygmalion is only attracted to the statue because he's kinky about statues, to put it in vulgar terms. He wants it to be a woman, because he can't have sex with it as it is. But when it becomes a woman, it's no longer a statue; you can see this as a metaphor for lost innocence, but the fetishistic interpretation is just as plausible, given that the Greeks didn't have as many hang-ups as we do. That's why I find it an erotic story, anyway.

---

The Natalie-Portman-naked-and-petrified is the exact reverse.� These bozos will never meet Natalie Portman, and wouldn't get the time of day from her if they did.� (Probably the same response they get from all women, but Natalie Portman is a name almost everyone recognizes.� I think she's too short and skinny, but those are my tastes.)� If they were somehow able to petrify a naked Natalie Portman, they would have something which would no longer be a woman, but they could possess it. �Instead of "more, but no longer mine", it would be "less, but mine to have".� Looks like a more or less exact reversal on all the important points; the rest is cultural window-dressing.

My snarky comments to the NPN&P posters were along the lines of "you're so creepy that no live woman would even talk to you; you'd have to freeze one just to keep her from running away!"� Didn't affect the flow any.� Those appear to have petered out; the trend of late seems to be disgusting incest stories.

quote:

---

Perhaps I've only read a bastardized version (a translation in a Greek Lit class for a humanities credit) but I got the message that Pygmalion fell in love with beauty for its own sake.� He already possessed that beauty in stone, but it was inadequate for him and he wanted it made flesh.� Unfortunately for him, the flesh-woman had desires of her own and did not return his love, so Pygmalion lost everything.� This is the essence of tragedy.

---

Not even a translation; whichever academic toilet came up with this "Greek Lit" course has fobbed you off with some horrific modern working that owes more to Eliza Doolittle than Greece. For a start, Pygmalion isn't a tragedy; it's a myth. Seconds, the statue-woman certainly did return his love and stayed with him for the rest of her life, giving him a son called Paphos to prove it. The idea of the creation rebelling comes from Shaw's "Pygmalion", and people who teach it as if it had anything to do with the myth deserve to be pierced with spears.

Seconds, in the Hellenic myth, Pygmalion prays to Venus precisely because he's disgusted (ie; sexually turned off) by the physicality of human women; he finds them icky because they have all sorts of sticky wobbly bits. He wants a woman exactly like Galatea (the name of the statue). Which is probably a deeply misogynistic fetish, but it's one I share.

quote:

---

The Natalie-Portman-naked-and-petrified is the exact reverse.� These bozos will never meet Natalie Portman, and wouldn't get the time of day from her if they did.� (Probably the same response they get from all women, but Natalie Portman is a name almost everyone recognizes.� I think she's too short and skinny, but those are my tastes.)�

---

Y'know, I'll take back some of what I said in the other thread, but you really might want to consider raising your level of consciousness of women's issues. You've just defined a slur on other men by referring to their inability to "get" women, and brought in a totally irrelevant reference to your own sexual preferences. I'm tough; I can handle it. Lots of women find even that mild talk intimidating. Just might want to think about it.

quote:

---

If they were somehow able to petrify a naked Natalie Portman, they would have something which would no longer be a woman, but they could possess it. �Instead of "more, but no longer mine", it would be "less, but mine to have".� Looks like a more or less exact reversal on all the important points; the rest is cultural window-dressing.

---

Well, I'll forgive you for not understanding the myth and prepare a draft of hemlock for your teachers, but you've completely misunderstood statuephilia. It's an aesthetic preference, and not really all that dissimilar from any other forms of bondage.

quote:

---

My snarky comments to the NPN&P posters were along the lines of "you're so creepy that no live woman would even talk to you; you'd have to freeze one just to keep her from running away!"�

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tau Zero:
My snarky comments to the NPN&P posters were along the lines of "you're so creepy that no live woman would even talk to you; you'd have to freeze one just to keep her from running away!"�

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer:

Hmmmmm ... if you're still doing that, you might want to consider rephrasing it to remove the tacit approval of doing things to women "to keep them from running away". I might be tempted to to say "watch your mouth", if it wasn't an extremely hostile and rude thing to say.

---

I don't see how you get 'tacit approval' from Tau Zero's quote.

------------------
Saintonge

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:

I don't see how you get 'tacit approval' from Tau Zero's quote.

---

I don't mean to be nasty about this, but that doesn't surprise me. If you don't look, or if you filter everything through the assumption that language is neutral, and sentences only mean what they are intended to mean, you're never going to see the structures of control.

quote:

---

Professor Astrid:
Seconds, in the Hellenic myth, Pygmalion prays to Venus precisely because he's disgusted... (etc.)

---

Curious.

The version of Pygmalion & Galatea that I'm familiar with differs from both the aforementioned story outlines. I've been an enthusiastic but entirely amateur student of mythology since age 10 or so, when my mom gave me a book of translated Greek myths (I don't remember the title or edition anymore, but based on what I remember of it, it's probably one that Astrid would disprove of).

The story I recall goes something like this: Pygmalion was a handsome young man of the sculpting persuasion, who spurned the advances of all the young maidens who fell for him and refused to worship Aphrodite. So, naturally, Aphrodite was a little steamed and cursed him so that he fell in love with one of his own statues (Galatea). But, after that, he prayed to her (Aphrodite, that is) so eloquently that she rewarded him by bringing the statue to life so they (Pygmalion & Galatea) could live together happily ever after (without any "My Fair Lady" creation-rebelling-just-you-wait-'Enry-'Iggins plot twists).

Based on that version of the story, I've always extrapolated that it was more about the archetype of the "cold" individual who got a taste of his own medicine, and finally found out what it was like to be in love with someone who doesn't return your feelings.

I can't find my favourite translation on the Web, but this one is from the Penguin Ovid and is accurate if a little plodding:
http://www.trail.com/~birdman/pygmalion.htm

Astrid

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer:
Y'know, I'll take back some of what I said in the other thread, but you really might want to consider raising your level of consciousness of women's issues. You've just defined a slur on other men by referring to their inability to "get" women, and brought in a totally irrelevant reference to your own sexual preferences. I'm tough; I can handle it. Lots of women find even that mild talk intimidating. Just might want to think about it.

---

You did read something right, and that is that I intentionally, deliberately and coldly insulted the NPN&P posters' ability to find satisfaction with a live woman (whatever that might mean to them). �It was designed to make any one of them who dared to come back and read the reactions shrivel just a little bit, feel less of a man.� There are things you very obviously don't understand, and one of them is feeling like a little boy when you're trying to be grown up (which those trolls very obviously are not).� I was aiming at making them feel just that way (as well as inadequate, which is a feeling most people can understand) so that they'd be reminded of that feeling every time they posted such a troll.� When they stop trolling and start conversing, maybe the process of converting them into decent human beings can begin.

quote:

---

Hmmmmm ... if you're still doing that, you might want to consder rephrasing it to remove the tacit approval of doing things to women "to keep them from running away". I might be tempted to to say "watch your mouth", if it wasn't an extremely hostile and rude thing to say.

---

That is about the fifteenth in a series of blatant and apparently deliberate (and thus malicious) misreadings I've seen from you. �If you want to play Humpty Dumpty and redefine words to mean whatever you feel like they should mean today, you aren't communicating.� You aren't even behaving like a decent human being.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tau Zero:
[QUOTE]

That is about the fifteenth in a series of blatant and apparently deliberate (and thus malicious) misreadings I've seen from you. �If you want to play Humpty Dumpty and redefine words to mean whatever you feel like they should mean today, you aren't communicating.� You aren't even behaving like a decent human being.

---

Tau, there is no reason to be so hostile. If you're interested in being inclusive to women, you should be interested in the implications which exist in the things that you say. It wasn't a "deliberate misreading"; I explicitly acknowledged that you didn't mean it that way. It was, however, meant to raise consciousness of how it's very difficult (but worth the effort) to purge one's language of misogynistic imagery.

If you say "you'd have to freeze a woman just to prevent her from running away" then 1) you don't understand statuephilia and 2) you're saying something which seems to regard women as something to be "got". It's known in the literature as "domination by chivalry"; you're ostensibly protecting women from attacks, but you're actually just trying to drive off competitors, so that people who aren't "pathetic" can "get" them. It's slightly patronising.

Besides that, if you think these hidden implications are in ANY way hindering ANYONE's ability to do ANYTHING, there is something really wrong with you.

Astrid: I concede the matter regarding the two versions of Pygmalion.� It has been ages since I went over them, and I spent a great deal more time on the GBS tale than the myth.� It's not surprising they got mixed up in my memory (which sure isn't perfect) and that the GBS dominated.  As for the rest:

quote:

---

I *know* you don't intend it that way, but words mean what they mean; not what you intend them to mean.

---

quote:

---

If you're trying to say that "get a woman" doesn't have the implication that a woman is like an object, then you are just as guilty of Humpty-Dumpty-ism. Saying something like "your fixation with statues is objectifying; you seem unable to form a relationship with women as human beings" might be more appropriate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tau Zero:
...I was writing a put-down to a troll.� I had to put it in language they'd understand, that would grab them viscerally.� They'd already objectified women, I was just telling them how inadequate they were for having to think of women that way.� There are times when subtlety is counterproductive, and that was one of them.

---

a) I consider myself a feminist.

b) I don't consider feminism to be male-bashing, nor the idea that all women/minorities are oppressed in some way by a white, male power structure.

c) I do believe there is a "sexist language"; that is, a specific vocabulary that promotes sexist thought, even subconsciously and without intent, although I don't believe the English language to be inherently sexist nor racist.

Example: not too long ago, they came out with a version of Barbie doll that "spoke" when you pressed a button or pulled a string, or something. One of the things she said was something to the effect of: "I don't like math, it's hard." The association of a blond, impossibly shaped female doll (which I already believe is somewhat sexist-- but I never liked Barbie anyway, even when I was a little girl) with being bad at math is inexcusably subversive to young children playing with such a toy. I believe the incident was parodied by the cartoon "The Simpsons", in which Lisa was disgusted by "Talking Malibu Stacy's" vacuousness, and then created her own empowered "Lisa Lionheart" doll.

Now, to get at the topic at hand directly. Tau Zero said, verbatim: "you're so creepy that no live woman would even talk to you; you'd have to freeze one just to keep her from running away!"

If Astrid thinks that line is inherently sexist, I think she's reading meanings that simply aren't there, not even in an unconsciously implied way. There aren't even any words suggesting that women are objects to be obtained. In the first part of his statement, he says "no live women would even talk to you," putting women in an active role, not a passive one. The second part of the statement comes closer to being objectifying, but since it's an insult to and a parody of the "petrifier's" mind-set, I personally don't consider it sexist at all. What the comment results to (although rather ineffectual, since the trollers posting the Natalie Portman naked & petrified rubbish aren't going to listen to any kind of chiding anyway), is "What a lame-ass you are. Too bad for you that women are smart enough to stay the hell away from you."

Just my 2�, since I didn't want the only "feminist" voice in this thread to be one that is apparently blowing things out of proportion.

P.S. Astrid-- not to be insulting, but I doubt most people (including the aforementioned /. trollers) understand statuephilia, since it seems to be a very obscure and little-studied sexual preference; although I readily admit I'm not an expert on the matter of sexual preference, it seems like most people's posts reflect incomprehension of your sexual obsession. Therefore it's unfair to expect us to immediately understand the complexities of that obsession without explanation.

quote:

---

words mean what common usage says they mean (unless you are using them as terms of art in a speciality); outside such a context, such definitions are invalid.�

---

No. The meaning of a word is its *entire* social role among speakers of the language for which it is a word. Ludwig Wittgenstein pretty much wrapped this one up in the 1930s.

Example: go to the dictionary (.com) and look up the words "n i g g e r" and "kaffir". They'll both be given the same definition; insulting epithets for Negros. But the two words have an ocean of different meanings.

quote:

---

Revisionist definitions are invalid from the beginning (Newspeak).

---

Absolutely untrue. Check out the etymological progress of words like "liberty", "democratic", "socialism" and "society" and see whether the current ones aren't much better than a number of historical attempts. Or try a word that has been reclaimed, like "queer".

quote:

---

What's your obsession here?� I was writing a put-down to a troll.�

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MeckaMon:
Astrid, in the name of all that is tech, what is your problem?! I've kept quiet for a while, but I can't stand it anymore! All you do is complain about every fucking miniscule implication and side-meaning of every phrase or statement directed towards women or a minority!

---

I do a number of other things, actually; I ski, I socialise, I have sex, I drive cars. Even on this board, I discuss art, artificial intelligence, free will and other matters. Thank you.

I've got news for you; the whole social power structure is made up of "fucking minuscule implications". The "side meanings" (nice phrase by the way; it perfectly describes those meanings of words which are entrenched in their usage, but which aren't in the dictionary) are what structure our social relations.

quote:

---

I've got news for you: most people don't actually mean what you feel is implied.

---

They mean it without intending it. They are not conscious that they are using language in a certain way. It's called "unconscious prejudice". Challenging people on their use of language is one of the best ways to make them think about their unconscious assumptions and implications. It's not a comfortable process, but it's entirely worthwhile. No joke is "just a joke", as Freud pointed out. (God, I do hope we're not going to have to go through a ritual denunciation of Freud here).

quote:

---

And if these implications are such a problem to you, go speak Newspeak.

---

hahahahaha. You do realise, don't you, that Orwell's writings on Newspeak were directly meant to satirise exactly the attitude that you describe; that words just "mean what they mean", and the habit of ignoring connotation and implication? No, of course you don't; in American schools, "1984" is taught as if it were an anti-communist tract.

quote:

---

Besides that, if you think these hidden implications are in ANY way hindering ANYONE's ability to do ANYTHING, there is something really wrong with you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer:
You do realise, don't you, that Orwell's writings on Newspeak were directly meant to satirise exactly the attitude that you describe; that words just "mean what they mean"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer:
Care to provide some evidence for this, sport? I've got plenty on the other side.

---

EDIT: Oh, and about the use of words to hinder people and such. Yes, I realize that when carefully engineered, it can happen. But I mean mostly the innocent "misuse" of a few words here and there.
Oh, and a joke can be just a joke. I'm sorry to say, but people who take jokes seriously need to realize that they ARE jokes. (Most) people don't mean anything more by them. And thus, people shouldn't look into every nook and cranny to find implications that weren't intended. That's nitpicking and doesn't help anyone.

------------------
Mecka Mon
AIM s/n: The Pope of Perl (used to be "Mecka Mon")
Homepage: http://www.thesoyokaze.net/geekworld/
or.... http://www.thesoyokaze.net/
I have returned to my natural homeland. Being sarcastic.

------------------
Saintonge

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astrid Leuer:
The meaning of a word is its *entire* social role among speakers of the language for which it is a word.

---

Clearly, the burden is on the user of the variant definition to explain any difference when such becomes germaine.� That was your burden, and you ducked it.

quote:

---

That's my problem. I think (with, I have to say, a bit of evidence) that you're less keen on helping women, or creating an inclusive environment, than you are with "writing put-downs" and establishing your own control over what is said.

---

quote:

---

I've already discovered, at the cost of being called a "liar" and a "Loony", among other things, that you don't like people with different theories about politics and language to yourself. I think you might want to err on the side of subtletly, frankly.

---

One last thing.� Meckamon wrote:

quote:

---

I've got news for you: most people don't actually mean what you feel is implied.

---

quote:

---

They mean it without intending it.

---

Golden Rule.� You wouldn't like it if other people started doing that to you, so unless you are giving the rest of us carte blanche I suggest you retire that particular attitude when you pull up this board.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
Please do us a favor, Mecka, and drop the subject. The nastiness level is painful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tau Zero:
That's just too easily refuted.�

---

*ring* *ring* Professor Wittgenstein! No, no, wake him up! This is important!

quote:

---

"Tubular" means one thing to a mechanical designer and a completely different thing to a user of California surf slang.� "Radical" means widely variant things to politicians and a very large subgroup of US teenagers.� Are these people speaking different languages, or are some meanings determined by context?

---

sorry about that, Professor Wittgenstein ... *click*

You're confusing the meaning of a *word* with the meaning of a *word-use*. Don't feel bad about it; so did everyone in philosophy up until Frege.

quote:

---

Isn't it incumbent upon the newcomer into a group to be specific when they might mean something different when they use a word that is in common use to mean something else?

---

Ahhh, pick-on-the-newbie time. Look back over the thread which you have, unasked, carried over into this one, and you'll see that I did exactly that. Then you, and a few others, decided that you were going to browbeat me until I stopped doing so.

quote:

---

At least I can spell "subtlety" (and don't need a spell-checker).

---

A spelling flame. How very "germaine".

quote:

---

One last thing.� Meckamon wrote:
[QUOTE]I've got news for you: most people don't actually mean what you feel is implied.

---

quote:

---

They mean it without intending it.

---

I have and I do and the answer is; not very. Freudian slips abound. And in any case, to point out that it is possible to be offensive or oppressive without intending to has no such implication.

quote:

---

� It's also a direct contradiction of your claims regarding the meaning of words (they mean what YOU say they mean when you use them, why not what other people say they mean when they use them?).�

---

Since I've never claimed that, it isn't. I've got a degree in Philosophy, so I tend to use words with more care than the average software saleswoman. But the words themselves carry all sorts of unintended meanings. For example, (and to get this thread *back* *on* *topic*), apparently, the phrase "naked and petrified", when I use it, has a whole load of meaning that I can't possibly intend, because I don't understand it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tau Zero:
Golden Rule.� You wouldn't like it if other people started doing that to you, so

---

So let's not anybody do it, OK?

This discussion is almost back to civility (though it should be moved to the hopefully forthcoming boring stuff section), so let's all make one BIG effort, stop sniping, and go back to acting* like civilized, reasonable adults.

*Definition of acting, paraphrase, from my college text: A lie that the audience and performer both know is a lie, but pretend to believe in anyway.

I will grant that 'get a woman' is implicitly objectifying, the same as calling a mature woman 'girl' is implicitly (well, these days, explicitly, but it did used to be common usage) diminishing.

My point being that, 1) I agree with ARJ, who's contribution seems to have been ignored, and 2) I think this whole conversation has been blown way out of proportion, on both sides.
(Ie, I don't think the original flame was all that deeply horrible, and OTOH I think it's naive (in the academic, not personal, sense) to claim that words don't have any negative implications unless the speaker wants them to.)

Also, as a side-note: Trolls -live- for flames and 'withering' comments. Getting you riled enough to snap at them is the whole objective of trolling. Resist the temptation! They'll be much more upset by not getting any response.