Casual hookups

[Deleted Member]

I am amused how far we've shifted from the original post tho, lol

[CopperKnob]

31 minutes ago, Pleasurecalculus said:

I just don't understand how anybody can say not knowing isn't an excuse. If you found out today that you'd been using a certain word on a daily basis that was incredibly offensive to some people, and you had no idea previously, and no realistic avenue of obtaining that knowledge previously, you'd really still think there was no excuse for your ignorance? 

As a person likely to get a certain neurodegenerative disease, if someone was mocking a person with that condition, like my father, or even myself, I'd think it was a dick move. And maybe there's a certain word that people use to do so, and maybe it even upsets me to hear it. But if somebody used that word in another context, why would I care? Words can have more than one meaning, and they clearly aren't using it in the offensive sense. They aren't being mean to me, or to anybody else with that condition. I feel reasonably certain that they wouldn't mock me or others with this condition. There's nothing about what they're actually saying that's upsetting to me. If I feel bad, it's not because of them, but because I'm projecting my own issues onto their speech, putting words in their mouth that they didn't say. If they want to change their language for my sake, that's a nice courtesy, but I wouldn't think any less of them if they didn't, because it's ultimately my problem, not theirs. Why would it be their responsibility to change their vocabulary and not my responsibility to deal with my issues and avoid misinterpreting their words?

Imagine a scenario where some people began using an ordinary word as a pejorative (let's say "the") and some people began finding it offensive. It may have the same spelling and pronunciation, but it's an entirely different word, and we shouldn't stop using the word "the" just because it has an offensive homonym. If that were the case, some bad actor could destroy the entire language. 

I think it's fine to change your speech for other people, but claiming there's some responsibility to do so is logically perilous. 

I think that theres two points to this
1. There has to be an awareness that the words/phrases we use may be offensive to others
2. And because we don't necessarily have an awareness as to what others may find offensive, we need to be prepared to have an understanding as to why they are and adjust ourselves
In terms of people changing the meanings of words, to pick up on Chars point re the word Mong/Mongol comes from the word the Mongol race of Asia and an individuals view that
'A very large number of congenital idiots are typical Mongols.' (OED)
And from that the term Mongolian idiocy was coined to describe a congenital condition we now know as Downs Syndrome
My point isn't to give you a Ted Talk but to highlight that most words have a history attached to them and they aren't always pleasant. I do feel that there needs to be a sensitivity around the language we use in front of others, particularly those we don't know

[Pl****]

5 minutes ago, Lady_Char said:

I don't agree. Particularly with examples I gave - words like mong/ retard/ spaz. Continuing to use these words keeps them in the current vernacular. And knowing that they were created as insults because of their association with disability perpetuates the notion that there's something wrong with disabiliy, continues the stigma.

I think this is confusing stigma with reality. Disability is something wrong. If I'm disabled because my foot is damaged, then there is something wrong with my foot. Calling someone else lame for being slow is really just being metaphorically descriptive, and it doesn't make people think less of people with foot problems. I'm pushing 40, and "retard" has been a common insult my entire life, but I've seen no evidence of any stigma against people who are actually mentally deficient in some way. It's been an insult for so long that nobody using it even associates it with its origin anymore. I haven't seen anybody looking down at anyone for mental retardation, just like nobody will think any less of me if I get that neurodegenerative disease. Why would they? It's not our fault.

As someone that is cognizant of speech in many cases, I think it's often a nice thing to do. That said, I think there are sometimes perfectly good reasons not to, and that people do so much more harm by trying to *** it, and vilifying people that refuse, than any amount of real or imagined perpetuated stigmas. Things people find offensive aren't necessarily wrong, and when people are offended, it's often more a reflection of their own biases than anything in the actual speech. We'd be a lot better off with more, "I may not like what that person said, but I understand they didn't mean any harm and accept their speech on its own terms, as it was intended, and will try not to project any unwanted connotations that he/she likely doesn't share."

[CopperKnob]

21 minutes ago, Pleasurecalculus said:

I think this is confusing stigma with reality. Disability is something wrong. If I'm disabled because my foot is damaged, then there is something wrong with my foot. Calling someone else lame for being slow is really just being metaphorically descriptive, and it doesn't make people think less of people with foot problems. I'm pushing 40, and "retard" has been a common insult my entire life, but I've seen no evidence of any stigma against people who are actually mentally deficient in some way. It's been an insult for so long that nobody using it even associates it with its origin anymore. I haven't seen anybody looking down at anyone for mental retardation, just like nobody will think any less of me if I get that neurodegenerative disease. Why would they? It's not our fault.

As someone that is cognizant of speech in many cases, I think it's often a nice thing to do. That said, I think there are sometimes perfectly good reasons not to, and that people do so much more harm by trying to *** it, and vilifying people that refuse, than any amount of real or imagined perpetuated stigmas. Things people find offensive aren't necessarily wrong, and when people are offended, it's often more a reflection of their own biases than anything in the actual speech. We'd be a lot better off with more, "I may not like what that person said, but I understand they didn't mean any harm and accept their speech on its own terms, as it was intended, and will try not to project any unwanted connotations that he/she likely doesn't share."

I would love to live in a world wear I was able to share your rose tinted glasses. I work with adults who have physical and mental impairments. There is definitely a stigma which they have to fight against everyday of their lives. Its the reality for many many people. Ive had to collect adults from Police stations and challenge the Inspector who wanted to charge them with an offence/s when they didn't have the mental capacity to even recognise they were at the Station despite two uniformed Officers sitting next to them let alone what they were accused of. That same adult was then a victim of a vilgilante group in her town and placed at such significant risk that her safety cost the State over £3k a week. I've challenged Housing Depts attempting to evict adults due to their mental ill health. I've sat with adults in tears and ***ful of leaving their homes because of the impact other peoples words have had upon them because they look different.
The very definition of Cuckooing is where an adult with a cognitive impairment/other vulnerability is taken advantage of by drug runners.
How words are used do affect people negatively. Not everyone is able to reflect on what is said to them and think well its ok, they don't know what theyre saying. Those that can should not have to. The saying "sticks and stones..." is outdated.



is outdated.

[ge****]

23 minutes ago, Pleasurecalculus said:

I think this is confusing stigma with reality. Disability is something wrong. If I'm disabled because my foot is damaged, then there is something wrong with my foot. Calling someone else lame for being slow is really just being metaphorically descriptive, and it doesn't make people think less of people with foot problems. I'm pushing 40, and "retard" has been a common insult my entire life, but I've seen no evidence of any stigma against people who are actually mentally deficient in some way. It's been an insult for so long that nobody using it even associates it with its origin anymore. I haven't seen anybody looking down at anyone for mental retardation, just like nobody will think any less of me if I get that neurodegenerative disease. Why would they? It's not our fault.

As someone that is cognizant of speech in many cases, I think it's often a nice thing to do. That said, I think there are sometimes perfectly good reasons not to, and that people do so much more harm by trying to *** it, and vilifying people that refuse, than any amount of real or imagined perpetuated stigmas. Things people find offensive aren't necessarily wrong, and when people are offended, it's often more a reflection of their own biases than anything in the actual speech. We'd be a lot better off with more, "I may not like what that person said, but I understand they didn't mean any harm and accept their speech on its own terms, as it was intended, and will try not to project any unwanted connotations that he/she likely doesn't share."

While I agree there are *some* words where the level of offensiveness may be subjective or very individual - the one that started this whole debate being a good example, there are others that for various reasons are undeniably so.
.
It may be a cultural thing, but here in the UK, retard is generally considered offensive - likewise spastic (it had been used as an insult so much that the charity The Spastics Society changed it's name to disassociate itself from it) and it's derivative spaz. Then we have other widely held offensive terms that touch on race, sexuality etc
.
The point CK and Lady Char are making though is just because something isn't widely held to be offensive, doesn't mean it may not be to some, and that sensitivity is required if you're aware it may be.

[CopperKnob]

I'd also challenge your statement "disability is something wrong"
Nope.
I'd suggest to look up the social model of disability.
Disability isn't that there is something wrong, the various environments are not geared to work for the individual and their difference/s

[Pl****]

19 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

I would love to live in a world wear I was able to share your rose tinted glasses. I work with adults who have physical and mental impairments. There is definitely a stigma which they have to fight against everyday of their lives. Its the reality for many many people. Ive had to collect adults from Police stations and challenge the Inspector who wanted to charge them with an offence/s when they didn't have the mental capacity to even recognise they were at the Station despite two uniformed Officers sitting next to them let alone what they were accused of. That same adult was then a victim of a vilgilante group in her town and placed at such significant risk that her safety cost the State over £3k a week. I've challenged Housing Depts attempting to evict adults due to their mental ill health. I've sat with adults in tears and ***ful of leaving their homes because of the impact other peoples words have had upon them because they look different.
The very definition of Cuckooing is where an adult with a cognitive impairment/other vulnerability is taken advantage of by drug runners.
How words are used do affect people negatively. Not everyone is able to reflect on what is said to them and think well its ok, they don't know what theyre saying. Those that can should not have to. The saying "sticks and stones..." is outdated.

None of what you're describing sounds like a stigma to me. People with mental impairments can still commit crimes even if they don't understand them. Not giving them special treatment is more like the opposite of a stigma. Drug runners take advantage of people because they can, not because they've been influenced by insults. And a vigilante group? I thought we were a bunch of savages in the US, but I've never seen anything like that. 

 

40 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

I'd also challenge your statement "disability is something wrong"
Nope.
I'd suggest to look up the social model of disability.
Disability isn't that there is something wrong, the various environments are not geared to work for the individual and their difference/s

See, and this seems like rose tinted glasses to me. If you have someone with a severe mental impairment like you deal with, is there some feasible cost-neutral change to their environment(s) that would allow them to be economically competitive? 

[CopperKnob]

37 minutes ago, Pleasurecalculus said:

See, and this seems like rose tinted glasses to me. If you have someone with a severe mental impairment like you deal with, is there some feasible cost-neutral change to their environment(s) that would allow them to be economically competitive? 

You want an individual to be cost neutral/economically competitive? You realise we're talking about human beings here not cattle?
It starts with society and how we value people/difference.
If we look at the physical environment, I can give examples of adaptations in terms of renodeling the home to include technologies then yes that individual would likely see increased independence and safety to the point that they are less likely to require physical care from others which comes at a cost to the State. We're already doing it on a low level, the tech is pretty much there. The problem is society, short sightedness and budget holders, why spend a large sum of *** in the short term when we can spend a smaller amount but for longer? Ultimately in the UK it's public *** but different depts have different budgets and it's always a battle but, its essentially because we value those that are able and are contributing to society above all others. Fact is though, most people with impairnents are contributing to their own community just not in the traditional sense. And that's where it starts to become political

[Catsailor69]

Wow! Quite the conversation on the entomology of our language and it’s used today….lol
CK I absolutely understand how things change and take on different meaning. Today the term “freak” has a completely different meaning than it did to my father who lost an eye as a child and was called just that because of it. To this day, I cringe when I hear it used and yet I know that it’s my sensitivity to the use of the word with many different meanings and connotations. I was always amazed how a man with no depth perception was a private pilot.

Everyone has made good and valid points. All I can say is, “Can’t we all just get along together?” Lolol

As to the OP. Yep, usually with the understanding that we DO intend a LTR and have really made an emotional and intellectual relationship online, I’ve had no issues with sex on a first date. Sometimes that was the point of the first date with concerns that in person we would screw it all up…hahaha

[Pl****]

7 hours ago, CopperKnob said:

You want an individual to be cost neutral/economically competitive? You realise we're talking about human beings here not cattle?
It starts with society and how we value people/difference.
If we look at the physical environment, I can give examples of adaptations in terms of renodeling the home to include technologies then yes that individual would likely see increased independence and safety to the point that they are less likely to require physical care from others which comes at a cost to the State. We're already doing it on a low level, the tech is pretty much there. The problem is society, short sightedness and budget holders, why spend a large sum of *** in the short term when we can spend a smaller amount but for longer? Ultimately in the UK it's public *** but different depts have different budgets and it's always a battle but, its essentially because we value those that are able and are contributing to society above all others. Fact is though, most people with impairnents are contributing to their own community just not in the traditional sense. And that's where it starts to become political

I was trying to portray self-sufficiency/not being a net burden on society, which I think is one of the most basic thresholds of being a functional human. I was in a rush, and I certainly could have done a better job of wording it. I tend to think about economics in a more abstract sense than most people, and I sometimes garble the translation. Self-sufficiency could take any number of forms, from being a self-contained economy of one, to fitting within the global economy, or anywhere in between. 

I absolutely understand why it gets so political though. There's not exactly much return on investment in this area. Small changes in growth rates can have a dramatic effect on the wealth of a country in just a few decades, so even the *** spent on these programs now comes at the expense of what can be spent on these programs in the future. That's another reason why getting as close to self-sufficiency as possible is so important. It's honestly kind of embarrassing how much *** is spent in the US with so many still falling through the cracks. I suppose governments were never really the best option for these kinds of things though. 

[Deleted Member]

After the last few years under the Mango Mussolini the general view of the rest of the world on any public policy is to see what the US is doing about it….. and do the complete opposite. Nobody in the world is trying to become like the US. It’s circling the drain on the way to becoming a failed state, and is incapable of charging and imprisoning criminals like Trump or stopping itself ***ing school kids or providing non rip off healthcare.

[CopperKnob]

13 minutes ago, Pleasurecalculus said:

I was trying to portray self-sufficiency/not being a net burden on society, which I think is one of the most basic thresholds of being a functional human. I was in a rush, and I certainly could have done a better job of wording it. I tend to think about economics in a more abstract sense than most people, and I sometimes garble the translation. Self-sufficiency could take any number of forms, from being a self-contained economy of one, to fitting within the global economy, or anywhere in between. 

I absolutely understand why it gets so political though. There's not exactly much return on investment in this area. Small changes in growth rates can have a dramatic effect on the wealth of a country in just a few decades, so even the *** spent on these programs now comes at the expense of what can be spent on these programs in the future. That's another reason why getting as close to self-sufficiency as possible is so important. It's honestly kind of embarrassing how much *** is spent in the US with so many still falling through the cracks. I suppose governments were never really the best option for these kinds of things though. 

So words are important? 😉

[so****]

As long as it's safe & consentual, what's the problem? lol moral decay is an entirely different conversation. But the question wasn't about that.

[Deleted Member]

I....don't have an interest in engaging in any type of sexual or kink behavior with a woman I don't see strong potential in for long term. From a purely lust perspective this position is very annoying but values are values.

[MasterDemonFire]

Hello