Originally Posted by
John Dunne
Just a quick question, regarding what could potentially be considered offensive material/language.
References for women, which, depending on the context, can be interpreted as mildly derisory/comical, where as, when issued directly, could be construed as blatantly offensive:
"Bitch, Hoe, Trick, Skank, Slut, Whore, Hood Rat, Floozy, Tart, Wench, Muff, Pussy, Twot, Cunt - and one of my personal favorites, Little-Piece-Of-Chicken".
I raise this to evaluate this entire issue completely, in light of what moderation considers acceptable.
Now, as you can tell from many of those references, they do embody distinctly comical overtones.
I think they can introduce a light hearted element to descriptions, which can be used to dissipate mounting tensions between posters, as can happen sometimes on internet boards.
Used in a broad sense, like I mentioned, they can be quietly provocative, lending themselves to the instigation of better responses to thread or posts, or encouraging more forthcoming feedback.
As an example, I recall a former moderator here, SmileySarah, incorporated one such reference into one of her thread titles, and it received almost responses in kind, but all made in good nature, with absolutely no inherent malice.
Now - in contrast - if I were debating an issue with another poster in a thread, and, to emphasize a point say, I incorporate one of those references in the form of, "Do you understand now, you stupid pussy?".
Or by example, say, amidst the discussion of a courtship gone wrong, a post is made along the lines of: "I bet if she pulled out of dick instead of a whip, you would have been down for the action, you lame cunt".
In the latter instances, despite the fact that I personally would continue to interpret such references in light-hearted/comical, good-natured-ribbing terms, I can also appreciate that some posters - which we can not overlook of course, because these are open forums - that perhaps have more tender sensibilities, could potentially take them comments more personally, and become upset at such references.
I suppose what I'm alluding to is that, the line may be thin, but I do believe there is a line there in terms of the degree one can go to in terms of incorporating these phrases into their expression on the forums, and basically - I'd like to establish where that line is.
Now, I had discussed this to some degree through messaging, with the senior moderator here, Floki.
Specifically the use by myself of one such term previously, when I was discussing an issue surrounding window prostitution in Amsterdam; I had used the reference, "Hoes".
It would appear that, one or more forum posters had taken offense at this phrase, which resulted in my being issued an infraction.
Now, having kicked the issue around with Floki a bit, he eventually correctly concluded the above: that I had written that phrase, not in direct reference to anyone on the forum, or even on E-I for that matter, but more so as a comical reference to the Netherlands based sex workers in central Wallen based Red Light District, that are often times known for overcharging, and attempting to scam their clients.
So, there's a variety of potential perspectives to be considered there.
Without dragging the issue out any further, perhaps we could establish a initial minimal level of clarity, when it comes to these references being applied in relatively congenial fashion, versus, directly offensive/degrading or pejorative fashion.
In short - as it says in the forum rules - this is a adult website. Can we at partially clear up the issue that, using tongue-in-cheek references like this, provided not directed at other users, or incorporated as a means to directly or actively insult other users, is not something that would necessarily incite or warrant a permanent infraction or ban in future...
Established Member
Certified E-I Addict
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote