Timeline for What was offensive about the "ladies lingerie department" joke, and how can I avoid offending people in a similar way?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 17, 2018 at 2:42 | comment | added | Azor Ahai -him- | @aparente You are welcome to your opinion, but I don't think it's worth discussing further on a closed question. | |
| May 17, 2018 at 2:38 | comment | added | aparente001 | @AzorAhai - Although I wouldn't, and apparently most dictionaries, wouldn't define lingerie as being associated with attempting to visually please men, I do acknowledge that there is at least one dictionary whose definition fits with your assumption about the meaning and connotation of the word lingerie. | |
| May 17, 2018 at 2:35 | comment | added | Azor Ahai -him- | @aparente That's not a definition of anything? | |
| May 17, 2018 at 2:35 | comment | added | aparente001 | @AzorAhai - You wrote, "Lingerie is associated with a context where women are attempting to visually please (usually) men with their bodies." | |
| May 17, 2018 at 2:32 | comment | added | Azor Ahai -him- | @aparente I didn't give a definition for anything? Did you mean to respond to someone else? | |
| May 17, 2018 at 2:29 | comment | added | aparente001 | @AzorAhai - I checked multiple dictionaries. I found one that gave the definition you used. None of the others took this approach. | |
| May 15, 2018 at 18:22 | comment | added | Azor Ahai -him- | It might be helpful to clarify a bit more that it is important that the offending professor said "lingerie" and not "underwear" (as the OP used). Lingerie is associated with a context where women are attempting to visually please (usually) men with their bodies. I think the joke would have been (minimally) less offensive if he had said "underwear." | |
| May 15, 2018 at 14:08 | comment | added | AnoE |
@DRF, the answer does not need to address that because OP wrote I don't understand why the joke was funny, *but that's not really important*. I would like to understand why it was offensive. (and Wrzlprmft, I am specifically commenting this here instead of chat because @DRFs is the only comment you left here, and it has 39 upvotes. Treat this comment of mine is an outlet for balancing out those 39, maybe.)
|
|
| May 15, 2018 at 13:56 | comment | added | Wrzlprmft♦ | Okay, here are the rules for this comment thread: 0) Be nice! 1) If you can suggest an improvement that adds something to the already suggested improvements, write a comment. 2) If you disagree with a suggested improvement, don’t do anything or take it to chat. 3) If you agree or disagree with the answer, vote up or down. 4) Everything else, take to chat. 5) If you think that out of several similar suggestions for improvement, I should have chosen yours to stay, take it to chat. | |
| S May 15, 2018 at 12:29 | history | mod moved comments to chat | |||
| S May 15, 2018 at 12:29 | comment | added | Wrzlprmft♦ | Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. Please use comments only to suggest improvements to the answer (e.g., asking for clarification of an aspect). If you have a different stance on events to offer, please post your own answer. | |
| May 15, 2018 at 10:45 | comment | added | DRF | -1 you'e completely ignoring the fact that the OP and me as well in this case are not getting the joke/innuendo. Please address why the sentence implies women are merely sex objects? As guy G stated it also strikes me as a complete non-sequiter. I wouldn't laugh at it because it would make 0 sense to me. What does going to the women's lingerie department have to do with the woman in question? What is the innuendo referred to? | |
| May 15, 2018 at 7:30 | history | edited | user9646 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1009 characters in body
|
| May 15, 2018 at 7:25 | history | answered | user9646 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |