Gaffaweb > Love & Anger > 1994-14 > [ Date Index | Thread Index ]
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]


No Subject

From: phil@sonosam.wisdom.bubble.org (Phil Verdieck )
Date: Thu, 5 May 94 12:10 GMT
To: love-hounds@uunet.UU.NET
Content-Length: 1698
Content-Type: text

Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Path: phil
From: phil@sonosam.wisdom.bubble.org (Phil Verdieck (x246))
Subject: Re: What does it matter?
References: <CMM-RU.1.4.767523271.vickie@pilot.njin.net> 	<CoyzDI.uI@newcastle.ac.uk> <treefrogCoz916.1u9@netcom.com>
Organization: Lysdexics R Us
Date: Thu, 5 May 1994 12:10:03 GMT
Message-ID: <1994May5.121003.3398@sonosam.wisdom.bubble.org>

treefrog@netcom.com (An Earthling...Really!) writes:

>Somehow, I think the "yes, she's a fox" line is more akin to to saying of
>Michaelangelo's David "yes, he's really well hung." 

Very bad analogy.  "well hung" specifies anatomy.
It says "she's a fox", not "she's got a nice butt".

If you want THE analogy, I think "hunk" would be it (for David).

My 2 cents is that it can be taken the wrong way, but by usually by people
who find the slightest thing wrong with everything.  My definition of 
fox is a devastating looking woman you'd like to jump on top of.  I don't
see how that can be taken offensively by the author of Warm Room, Feel It,
et. al.

If this was Peter Gabriel, and the line was Yes, he's a hunk I wouldn't
take this as sexually demeaning.

Unless someone has a radically different and demeaning definition of fox, 
I don't think it is out of place.  If these people do exist, then they should
take into account 1) Different people have different definitions,  2) To point
out their differences in light of 1) with said usage indicates they are 
probably too tightly strung.  The kind that would embrace PC.

>"Denny, you got any hash joints left? I know you do." -B. Wilson

nice .sig

Phil V.
-- 

		"Either he's dead, or my watch has stopped!"

Philip Verdieck 				phil@sonosam.wisdom.bubble.org