Hydaelyn Role-Players

(11-06-2015, 02:37 AM)Teadrinker Wrote: [ -> ]I respect you and what you do and your right to do it but you can't change the definitions of words.

I don't mean to be 'that guy', but we can, and we have. Evolution of vocab is a natural and ever current process of the human language. Examples being "Bae" making into the human language. As well as the over one hundred words literally made up by Shakespear to suit his needs.

(11-06-2015, 02:48 AM)Pastry Army Wrote: [ -> ]I don't mean to be 'that guy', but we can, and we have. Evolution of vocab is a natural and ever current process of the human language. Examples being "Bae" making into the human language. As well as the over one hundred words literally made up by Shakespear to suit his needs.

If they're made up, I'm not sure that is the same thing as changing the definition of a word already in existence.

Though you can probably add to the meaning of the word. There's a reason why many English words have 2+ meanings, or mean different things in different situations.

I won't stop fighting against slut-shaming of any type until someone can give me a cogent, rational explanation as to why sex should ever be shameful.

protip: sex is not shameful, get that puritanism out of your head.

being an asshole to people should be, though.

if you call nonmale people "ho" or "slut" or tell them to "keep their legs closed" or otherwise Strongly Disapprove of someone's choice of sexual partner(s) and/or frequency of sexual activity based on the modern society-wide patriarchal rule set that privileges white cis men over everyone else, well, we for sure ain't gonna get along.

(11-06-2015, 02:45 AM)LiadansWhisper Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-06-2015, 02:41 AM)Pastry Army Wrote: [ -> ]While I agree with the shared sentiment that not being able to discuss something in a Discussion thread comes off as a bit silly, I will stamp my opinion on this thread. Because I am simply that way on things. 

It is interesting to be able to see the view point of someone who is actually in the field open up and share what, to them and others at large, are considered derogatory and insulting vocabulary to their particular field of choice.

The thing is, basing your understanding of an entire field of work off of one person's opinion is...probably unwise.  I have been friends for years with a lovely woman who has been a phone sex operator for quite some time (and has done cam shows and similar), and I asked her about this very subject a few days back.  Her response?  "I don't consider it a slur."

But I also would think that the word "prostitute" wouldn't fit her job description, anyway.  And I'm not sure that she would describe herself as a sex worker, and I'm sure that there's at least someone out there who would consider being called a "sex worker" derogatory.

In my state, "prostitute" is literally a job title.  It isn't used as a slur, it's simply a descriptive title for someone who literally sells physical sex for money.  The term that appears in our legal code?  "Prostitute."  But I've never seen it used as a slur against a person.  Truth be told, the word has too many syllables to be really effective as a slur when you're raging at someone.  I've heard slut, whore, ho, hooker, and other, much less printable words used.  But "prostitute"?  No.  That's a legal term, and that's what it's referred to in courts.

No you are absolutely right, basing your opinions and understandings of a subject matter you know next to nothing about based off the words of one is . . . silly at best. But regardless of that fact I, personally, find it interesting to take in the account of one and put it against the account of another working a similar field. 

Which means I have exactly two opinions to work with now. One being OP, of which I can understandably see being upset  by these words, given proper context and meaning outside of word definition alone. And the other being the exact opposite. She was a prostitute, by her own words.

(11-06-2015, 02:53 AM)synaesthetic Wrote: [ -> ]I won't stop fighting against slut-shaming of any type until someone can give me a cogent, rational explanation as to why sex should ever be shameful.

protip: sex is not shameful, get that puritanism out of your head.

being an asshole to people should be, though.

if you call nonmale people "ho" or "slut" or tell them to "keep their legs closed" or otherwise Strongly Disapprove of someone's choice of sexual partner(s) based on the modern society-wide patriarchal rule set that privileges white cis men over everyone else, well, we for sure ain't gonna get along.

Well, I've never really seen "slut shaming" come up insofar as a serious thread on this forums. When what I've always understood to be sex-related slurs are used, it almost always in a joking manner between friends in a banter thread or something similar.

I don't think anyone is advocating for slut shaming by any means. But I am rather uncomfortable with the idea that we're changing the meaning of words because one person has a problem with it and purports to represent an entire industry made up of probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of others.

(11-06-2015, 02:46 AM)V Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-06-2015, 02:44 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-06-2015, 02:43 AM)V Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-06-2015, 02:37 AM)Teadrinker Wrote: [ -> ]I don't use them to slander people. However, if people view the act of accepting gain in exchange for sex as slanderous then...that's on them.

What's your policy on descriptive racial terms?

Could you give some examples of what those might be?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs

I think that the reason they are slurs is because they are meant to be insulting. I do not think a word like "Prostitute" which has legal, social, and philosophical meaning is a slur, because it is not intended to insult. 

If anything, assuming Pkthunda is right, it might eventually be viewed as something like the word "Negro" which, while rather archaic and not a good thing to call people, is still in use and not a slur. 

For the record, I think Sex Worker is a good umbrella term, and should be used more often, as I don't view a Phone Sex operator as a "Prostitute", however prostitution is still a very valid term to describe a subset of sex workers.

(11-06-2015, 02:55 AM)Pastry Army Wrote: [ -> ]No you are absolutely right, basing your opinions and understandings of a subject matter you know next to nothing about based off the words of one is . . . silly at best. But regardless of that fact I, personally, find it interesting to take in the account of one and put it against the account of another working a similar field. 

Which means I have exactly two opinions to work with now. One being OP, of which I can understandably see being upset  by these words, given proper context and meaning outside of word definition alone. And the other being the exact opposite. She was a prostitute, by her own words.

The truth is, you could rename prostitution "happy sparkle fun time girls," and the moment someone figured out it had to do with sex, they would look down their nose at the title. It doesn't matter what it's called as long as society views the action as lacking in dignity or sinful or wrong (or pick another derogatory term, I suppose). Changing the words we use isn't going to fix that.

(11-06-2015, 02:56 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote: [ -> ]I think that the reason they are slurs is because they are meant to be insulting.

My comment was directly addressing the poster arguing that technical definition and lack of ill intent validate the use of a word with no regard for context.

If I were to use any of the more modern/well-known terms listed on that page to simply describe a person with no intention of insulting them, does that make the utterance acceptable?

(11-06-2015, 03:00 AM)V Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-06-2015, 02:56 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote: [ -> ]I think that the reason they are slurs is because they are meant to be insulting.

My comment was directly addressing the poster arguing that technical definition and lack of ill intent validate the use of a word with no regard for context.

If I were to use any of the more modern/well-known terms listed on that page to simply describe a person with no intention of insulting them, does that make the utterance acceptable?

In this day and age when you can just say "Man that's crazy" and insult someone, nah. You're never going to find the use of a word that doesn't insult someone, and therefore wouldn't be acceptable. I suggest ignoring those people and doing your thing. If you go without purposely trying to insult people, then you can simply say "You know, sorry. I didn't mean to insult you" and move on. The people that continue to stay angry after that? Not worth your time to begin with; they're looking for reasons to be pissed off about it.

(11-06-2015, 03:00 AM)V Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-06-2015, 02:56 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote: [ -> ]I think that the reason they are slurs is because they are meant to be insulting.

My comment was directly addressing the poster arguing that technical definition and lack of ill intent validate the use of a word with no regard for context.

If I were to use any of the more modern/well-known terms listed on that page to simply describe a person with no intention of insulting them, does that make the utterance acceptable?

Yes. 

Exhibit A: The N word and rap songs.

(11-06-2015, 02:58 AM)LiadansWhisper Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-06-2015, 02:55 AM)Pastry Army Wrote: [ -> ]No you are absolutely right, basing your opinions and understandings of a subject matter you know next to nothing about based off the words of one is . . . silly at best. But regardless of that fact I, personally, find it interesting to take in the account of one and put it against the account of another working a similar field. 

Which means I have exactly two opinions to work with now. One being OP, of which I can understandably see being upset  by these words, given proper context and meaning outside of word definition alone. And the other being the exact opposite. She was a prostitute, by her own words.

The truth is, you could rename prostitution "happy sparkle fun time girls," and the moment someone figured out it had to do with sex, they would look down their nose at the title.  It doesn't matter what it's called as long as society views the action as lacking in dignity or sinful or wrong (or pick another derogatory term, I suppose).  Changing the words we use isn't going to fix that.

Prostitution used to be more widely used. A great composer might "Prostitute themselves" by composing for a wealthy noble instead of for the love of the art.

It speaks to the idea that there should be a higher purpose to turn our minds and body towards than simple profit. It can be argued that all labor that is purely for profit is prostitution. 

I do think that sex, that supreme act of human bonding, done for money, debases the act. However I don't hold that against people. I think musicians who sell out debase the art of music, or people like Doctor Oz who sell quack medicines for profit debase medicine.

I don't necessarily blame the individuals though, but more the sad state of our society and economic system that forces people to prostitute themselves (using the more general sense of the word) in order to get ahead.

I think we should be calling more people prostitutes, not less.

(11-06-2015, 02:58 AM)LiadansWhisper Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-06-2015, 02:55 AM)Pastry Army Wrote: [ -> ]No you are absolutely right, basing your opinions and understandings of a subject matter you know next to nothing about based off the words of one is . . . silly at best. But regardless of that fact I, personally, find it interesting to take in the account of one and put it against the account of another working a similar field. 

Which means I have exactly two opinions to work with now. One being OP, of which I can understandably see being upset  by these words, given proper context and meaning outside of word definition alone. And the other being the exact opposite. She was a prostitute, by her own words.

The truth is, you could rename prostitution "happy sparkle fun time girls," and the moment someone figured out it had to do with sex, they would look down their nose at the title.  It doesn't matter what it's called as long as society views the action as lacking in dignity or sinful or wrong (or pick another derogatory term, I suppose).  Changing the words we use isn't going to fix that.

First of all, petitioning to change "Prostitute" to "Happy Sparkle Fun Time Gals." That is infinitely more fun to say. 

And second, thank you for bringing that up because it had completely slipped my mind despite the fact that you are in fact totally right. At the end of the day no matter how you spin it Society is going to find a way to shame the title placed on the occupation because Society as a whole, though loving to promote sex and sexual conduct, has a strange fascination to beat down and bash any and everything that actually takes it a step further and indulges in it at any degree.

(11-06-2015, 02:56 AM)LiadansWhisper Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I've never really seen "slut shaming" come up insofar as a serious thread on this forums.  When what I've always understood to be sex-related slurs are used, it almost always in a joking manner between friends in a banter thread or something similar.

I don't think anyone is advocating for slut shaming by any means.  But I am rather uncomfortable with the idea that we're changing the meaning of words because one person has a problem with it and purports to represent an entire industry made up of probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of others.

Someone just slut-shamed in this thread on the first page, calling a former guild member a "ho." And I see it from people I play with in-game all the time. It's casually accepted in our culture that we should describe women who have lots of sex as being "hos" or "sluts" who are somehow not doing the right thing (because we accept that sex is somehow shameful), but men who have lots of sex are just doing the man thing right.

Slut-shaming is so ingrained into our culture that most people don't even notice it unless it's beyond audacious and blatant.

I can also understand why the word "prostitute" is considered harmful to sex workers. It has harmful connotations. When people say the word or hear the word applied to a person, especially a woman, they're not thinking about good things. They're thinking about a "skanky whore" who is dishonest and a bad person who sells her body for money. The word prostitute has been loaded with negative connotations by our media, our law enforcement and our politicians.

The word prostitute is also often automatically assumed to apply to trans women, especially trans women of color. Even white trans women have to deal with this assumption, though. I can barely dress appropriately for hot weather without encountering at least one creeper per week who tries to get me to suck his cock behind a dumpster for money. I don't dare dress in an intentionally provocative manner unless I've got a bunch of friends with me.

You may not accept the word as being a slur, and technically it isn't so in that you're correct, but it's absolutely loaded with negativity in all kinds of ways. If you don't think so, ask any random woman if they're a prostitute. Chances are they won' reply with a simple, "No, my occupation is..." response.

(11-06-2015, 03:00 AM)Valeera Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-06-2015, 02:56 AM)McBeefâ„¢ Wrote: [ -> ]I think that the reason they are slurs is because they are meant to be insulting.

My comment was directly addressing the poster arguing that technical definition and lack of ill intent validate the use of a word with no regard for context.

If I were to use any of the more modern/well-known terms listed on that page to simply describe a person with no intention of insulting them, does that make the utterance acceptable?

I skimmed the list (I probably missed a few, but some of them were so unfamiliar to me that honestly I have no idea about them). Of the ones that were specifically related to US North American speech (since quite a few of them were specifically from regions in the UK, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, or Southeast Asia), I believe that with the exception of the n-word, none of those words have been used as legal definitions or legal terms for people. And I believe Negro was favored over the n-word even in the Confederacy/South (though I know the n-word was used in legal papers, afaik it wasn't mainstream). Some of those words (similar to words used as slurs against LGBT people) have been adopted by those they were used against in a sort of, "Nah, we ain't gonna let you use this against us." Probably the best known one of those is, "Yankee," which was first coined by the British and there's even a song about it.

But I digress.

None of those terms are legal terms for an occupation. All of the terms I saw and recognized are used in a pejorative manner probably 99% of the time. I think you're comparing apples to oranges.