Would you tap that?

[Bala Perdida]

As a person attracted to women, I hear this one a lot. I'm sure people attracted to men get this one too, so feel free to give your perspective and feelings towards the phrase/question.

First off, how do you see the question. Do you see it as a simple question such as 'do you think she's beautiful?', or do you see it as an expression of undermining a female in a sexually objectifying fashion?

Secondly, how do you respond to the question when asked?

This also goes for any question related to 'who's the hottest...'?
Personally, I just joke my way out of it or stay casually quite until they answer for me. I was asked this about a manager today and I just said,'I don't know all management looks the same to me?' I guess verbally lashing out at someone about viewing someone like that is an option, but that's just not me.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

The question itself doesn't bother me so much as the phrasing...specifically the meaning behind it. "Would you tap that?", with 'that' basically being an object of some sort. At that point, you should just say "Would you bang that cock-sleeve?"

Unpleasant sounding? It should. Because that's the underlying context of the way the question is phrased.

As for how I'd respond to it? Mostly with a simple "Dude, c'mon....". It's a good way to voice your displeasure without being unbearably preachy.

[BIXX]

I respond in a lot of ways, mainly "what do you mean, 'that'?" But also sometimes I just tell people why its fucked.

[BIXX]

I used to just quiet my way out of it though and I find that perfectly acceptable if you wanna avoid confrontation.

[The Disillusionist]

Yeah, those phrases always make me uncomfortable. Referring to a human being as "that" is inherently objectifying, because the person, or a part of that person, is being linguistically referred to as an object. "Who's the hottest" is a slightly blurrier phrase, and it probably depends on the context whether that is objectifying or not, but usually I would say that it's not a good phrase to be using.

Another term that really makes me uncomfortable is the word "fuck" used in a sexual context. As in, "Would you fuck that person?" It's just... I have trouble even describing how much I hate it. It's vulgar, and it's used in a really disrespectful manner, and it's so common, it just makes me want to kill someone.

As for your second question, I usually just shrug and don't say anything. Or I say, "I don't know." Overall, I avoid giving any kind of answer that would encourage the discussion. I also avoid spending time with the kind of people who ask those questions.

I'm hetero, but I avoid expressing my sexuality much in a public setting, because I just don't see any reason for it. So I get asked a lot if I'm gay, because apparently not basing your life around the constant objectification and exploitation of women is the same as not being attracted to them.

[RedWorker]

I'm hetero, but I avoid expressing my sexuality much in a public setting, because I just don't see any reason for it. So I get asked a lot if I'm gay, because apparently not basing your life around the constant objectification and exploitation of women is the same as not being attracted to them.

These people who behave in such a way are a living caricature. I mean, acting like such people makes yourself a clown not to leftists but to everyone in general.

[consuming negativity]

depends.

if i think they're intelligent i'll try to tell them that they're being sort of disrespectful

if not, i'll just shrug my shoulders and move on

no point in giving a shit about it. they're either too stupid or too ignorant to know what they're doing.

[willwinall]

I see nothing wrong with the phrase. That's how people talk, what's the big deal. Sometimes I say yes other times no.

[Atsumari]

I see nothing wrong with the phrase. That's how people talk, what's the big deal. Sometimes I say yes other times no.
High level discourse ladies and gentlemen.

The ethics of saying "Would you tap that" is up for debate which I am too exhausted to engage right now, but one thing that is rather consistent with people who say such comments is that their views on women is not flattering most of the time.

[The Disillusionist]

These people who behave in such a way are a living caricature. I mean, acting like such people makes yourself a clown not to leftists but to everyone in general.

Well, I'm a college student, so I run into a lot of those "living caricature" frat-boy types, all over the place.

[Bala Perdida]

I see nothing wrong with the phrase. That's how people talk, what's the big deal. Sometimes I say yes other times no.
Reducing someone to a sexual object is what's wrong. That's a position seemingly most of us take and see. Why I asked the question of 'how do you see it' I'm honestly not sure now. I guess I was mostly wondering if anyone drastically separated it from it's sexually aggressive roots.

As for the people who say it, they don't seem open to discourse anytime soon so I'll just side step anything like that until someone brings up respecting women.

[Palmares]

I think it's a pretty simple equation that if someone uses such a sentence, that they are very much lacking in (pro-)feminist discourse. With the kind of communities that I encounter, I generally don't really experience this phrase much at all. And the few times I have heard it, I've certainly been surprised it hear it. However, I think it's more in American vernacular, possibly of the more jock-type culture I'm guessing. So where I am, people either word it differently, or may infact say something much worse... if that's even possible. Well, actually, it definitely is.

Thinking back to when I last heard it, it came, funnily enough, from an American friend. Some other American friends of mine who were also friends with him had better gender politics than him, so they didn't say it. And to add to that, it was quite clear he wasn't used to being around more... radical communities. So I ended up having to have some big conversations with him and explain to him my certain women thought he was sleazy, etc. He listened, but I'd hardly say he's a feminist now...

In my circle of friends, and possibly extended out from there, it's quite common for us to say we think someone is a "babe" if we think they are attractive. Infact, it's the main word I use when I feel like it's appropriate to communicate my attraction to someone. And from there, it usually be like, I leave them alone and tell them to come find me and talk to me more if they find that information useful. Something like that.

:o

[Quail]

I find that as soon as hetero guys find out I'm queer they think it's acceptable to say gross and objectifying things about women to me. I don't thinkthat the phrase "would you tap that" is used very often around here, but generally asking a question which reduces another person to a sex object is disrespectful at the very least, and probably sexist because reducing people to sex objects is a gendered thing which affects women much more than men.

[motion denied]

Sometimes I wonder if people here can actually hold a conversation with other people without calling them out on something.

[Philosophos]

I hear lots of things like that: "look at that piece of ass", "would you fuck that pussy" and all sorts of things that imply women are some kind of a thing or just pieces that need to be fucked.

Generally I used to to engage in a dialogue on why such things are degrading for women and make them see why it's wrong, but most of the times I've been called an idiot and also they pointed out that they don't really mean that even though they say such things even in front of women...

Now I just don't give a damn, especially for these men that can't seem to understand even the most basic concepts of respect and what means to be human. I either don't say anything or I use sarcasm in a level that these douchebags won't get.

[Quail]

Sometimes I wonder if people here can actually hold a conversation with other people without calling them out on something.

Why would I want to hold a conversation with someone who was expressing their disgustingly sexist view of women?

[Sabot Cat]

I don't have a good bead on this topic, as I've only heard this phrase from my girlfriend in reference to me. Nonetheless, I think others have provided good analyses of it.

[RA89]

Depends who asks the question, if it's between friends I see no problem. I wouldn't ask someone I just met that sort of question or expect it from someone I just met- mainly because I'd find it weird why they would care.

People around here become unreasonable with this sort of stuff, how do you even express what you find attractive physically without being accused of objectifying? Are we supposed to talk like eunuchs?

E.g. if a thread was made asking for top 5 hottest celebs people would lose their shit over nothing.

[Counterculturalist]

Sometimes I wonder if people here can actually hold a conversation with other people without calling them out on something.

It's a fine line at times, to be sure.

In a university setting, where I've spent the past five years, it's rare to hear blatantly sexist or other bigoted language, at least if you spend your time around humanities students. I suppose things might be different among business majors. The one prejudice that everybody has is blatant classism. When people start complaining about uneducated blue collar people, I delight in telling them that that's my background and watching them squirm in discomfort.

When I worked in a factory, unfortunately, everybody I knew was extremely bigoted. It was impossible to go for a smoke or lunch break without some asshole regaling me about how much they hated (insert group here.)

I tried my damndest to argue and struggle with people who expressed that kind of bigotry around me. "Calling out" is maybe not the right term. I preferred to get a discussion going. Constantly telling people off isn't really helpful, especially since, for the most part, these aren't bad people. They just lack exposure to other views and other ways of life. Many of them were close friends for whom I cared genuinely, which made it hurt all the more to hear them talking like klansmen.

I got a reputation for arguing with people about their prejudices. People generally respected me for it, but I don't think I ever changed anybody's mind. It got to be fucking exhausting. But I still think it was time well spent.

[Comrade #138672]

Sometimes I wonder if people here can actually hold a conversation with other people without calling them out on something.It is not so bad as it seems, but that is social life. If you do not want to be called out on something ever, you need to become a hermit. If we did not call each other out on our errors, it would hinder our social development significantly.

[OzymandiasX]

It is easy enough to see objectification exercised throughout society. We should ask why it takes place.

The natural conclusion is that there is a blatant caste system in the United States. Where men are superior to women; the wealthy are superior to the poor; and whites are superior over all other races.

It is one of dozens of mechanisms designed to advantage the prevailing power structure dominated by wealthy white males.

It is a comfort, to speak about those inferior to you as though they are objects. To not recognize their humanity and therefore not have to empathize with their plight. It is for this same reason that any number of viciously coercive terms exist to label those who are not white, but not a single term exists to offend whites. Because they are in power. You cannot offend those in power.

All you can do is try to scare them. Intimidate them. But then, they use that fear and turn it back on us, and wrap their tentacles around our necks.

The one thing they fear is the loss of power, but I cannot imagine what tremendous force it would have to be to pose such a threat.

[willwinall]

How else are people suppose to express their need to have sexual relations with the opposite sex? Are we not human? I suppose it is wrong to think of others as sexual objects but then again its everywhere in Hollywood and in the media in other words we are constantly bombarded with this kind of stuff.

[Comrade #138672]

How else are people suppose to express their need to have sexual relations with the opposite sex?How about something like:

"I find that person attractive."?


Are we not human?Yes. Unfortunately, though, some people (women) tend to objectified, thereby being dehumanized.


I suppose it is wrong to think of others as sexual objects but then again its everywhere in Hollywood and in the media in other words we are constantly bombarded with this kind of stuff.That does not make it right.

[willwinall]

Since I believe your view is correct, I`ll add that individuals shouldn`t be ostracized for the shortcomings of a society as a whole because this kind of language is only the reflection of beliefs still held by society.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Are we supposed to talk like eunuchs?

The fuck does this even mean? I didn't know eunuchs had a distinct way of talking, but if you're implying that "talking like a eunuch" means treating people like human beings worthy of a basic level of respect, then yea, I would say we all need to talk like eunuchs.


Anyway, it usually doesn't even cross my mind whether I would "tap that" because the odds of me having the possibility to sleep with any given person I don't know are pretty slim, given that they are, you know, an actual person who has their own business to get on with and doesn't just exist to wait around for me to fuck. Well I'm attracted to people sometimes but it's just not the first thing I consider when I look at someone

[Comrade #138672]

Since I believe your view is correct, I`ll add that individuals shouldn`t be ostracized for the shortcomings of a society as a whole because this kind of language is only the reflection of beliefs still held by society.In a way, that is not entirely untrue. We do have to remember that sexism is institutionalized and reinforced by capitalism, so we have to be careful when condemning the actions of individuals, when it is actually caused by something much bigger. However, we cannot pretend that objectification is not harmful, either. We cannot pretend that these things are OK until after the revolution.

[willwinall]

So...Would you guys tap Katy Perry, Paris Hilton, or Miley Cyrus? lol. Jk. :laugh:

[The Disillusionist]

How else are people suppose to express their need to have sexual relations with the opposite sex? Are we not human?

At first I thought this was sarcasm, but it looks like you were serious. Why would people need to express this need to anyone but the person they are romantically involved with? Sex is a personal, intimate matter, and there is absolutely nothing to be gained from expressing your sexuality to people you aren't romantically involved with. Even when seeking to become romantically involved with someone, the topic of sex isn't what you should lead with in most cases. Rating women with your friends is completely shallow and unnecessary, your friends shouldn't care what your preferences are anyway. If you see a need to inform people you aren't having sex with about your sexuality, that's probably a personal issue you need to fix.

[willwinall]

You guys are right. I didn`t give this topic the respect it required. Forgive my immaturity. :) I would like to address one last point, I know for a fact that some people take pride in being "tappable". That`s all I`m going to say.

[Comrade #138672]

At first I thought this was sarcasm, but it looks like you were serious. Why would people need to express this need to anyone but the person they are romantically involved with? Sex is a personal, intimate matter, and there is absolutely nothing to be gained from expressing your sexuality to people you aren't romantically involved with. Even when seeking to become romantically involved with someone, the topic of sex isn't what you should lead with in most cases. Rating women with your friends is completely shallow and unnecessary, your friends shouldn't care what your preferences are anyway. If you see a need to inform people you aren't having sex with about your sexuality, that's probably a personal issue you need to fix.Well, I think that is beyond the issue at hand here. It is not that sexual attraction is wrong without romantic attraction. The idea that it is, stems from bourgeois moralism. The problem here is not sexual attraction without romantic attraction, but sexual attraction expressed as the objectification of women. Besides, sexism does not cease to exist in romantic relationships. So, obviously, it is about something other than monogamy.

[synthesis]

Another term that really makes me uncomfortable is the word "fuck" used in a sexual context. As in, "Would you fuck that person?" It's just... I have trouble even describing how much I hate it. It's vulgar, and it's used in a really disrespectful manner, and it's so common, it just makes me want to kill someone.

I find this to be a really bizarre thing to take exception to. In terms of phrasing, to me it's probably among the least objectionable in relation to objectification. As distasteful as I find "would you hit that?" questions or "I'd tap that" statements, many if not most people have animalistic, carnal impulses and talking about it as such can help them to make sense of those impulses. Hearing men say it about women can certainly be very off-putting, but more than chauvinistic or sexist I generally just find it to be a sign that the person is either very desperate or is trying to compensate for something.

[Comrade #138672]

Well, "would you fuck that?" is no different than saying "would you tap that?", IMO.

[RA89]

The fuck does this even mean? I didn't know eunuchs had a distinct way of talking, but if you're implying that "talking like a eunuch" means treating people like human beings worthy of a basic level of respect, then yea, I would say we all need to talk like eunuchs.


Anyway, it usually doesn't even cross my mind whether I would "tap that" because the odds of me having the possibility to sleep with any given person I don't know are pretty slim, given that they are, you know, an actual person who has their own business to get on with and doesn't just exist to wait around for me to fuck. Well I'm attracted to people sometimes but it's just not the first thing I consider when I look at someone


There's nothing disrespectful about admitting whether you find somebody sexually attractive, and you're delusional if you think people need to know someone's personality before being able to tell if they find them sexually attractive. Physical features play a huge part in attraction. To say otherwise is to deny basic biology.


given that they are, you know, an actual person who has their own business to get on with and doesn't just exist to wait around for me to fuck.

Bit of a strawman here. I'm not claiming the females I'd answer "yes" to are waiting around for me. When I say "yes" what I mean is "yes I find her physically attractive, if it was mutual I'd be interested in pursuing a relationship and eventually sex (I'm not promiscuous personally or into 1 night stands etc)",

or "yes, if I was into 1 night stands and she wanted it too I would have one with her."

It does not mean "yes I'd rape her", "yes that is all she is good for" or "yes I'd mislead her into having sex by promise of a relationship" etc.

[synthesis]

Well, "would you fuck that?" is no different than saying "would you tap that?", IMO.

But nobody says that. That's the point. As the person I quoted noted, people say "I'd fuck that person," or "I'd fuck [him or her]," not "I'd fuck that." That doesn't intrinsically make it less chauvinist, of course, but it certainly opens the door for considering that person to be, well, a person, and taking that into account when discussing sexual attraction. (Of course it's a semantic dispute, but semantics are really the issue at hand here - the term isn't dismissive in this context.)

[Comrade #138672]

There's nothing disrespectful about admitting whether you find somebody sexually attractive,Indeed. There is nothing wrong with this. But this is not the point.


and you're delusional if you think people need to know someone's personality before being able to tell if they find them sexually attractive. Physical features play a huge part in attraction. To say otherwise is to deny basic biology.Of course they are not irrelevant.


Bit of a strawman here. I'm not claiming the females I'd answer "yes" to are waiting around for me. When I say "yes" what I mean is "yes I find her physically attractive, if it was mutual I'd be interested in pursuing a relationship and eventually sex (I'm not promiscuous personally or into 1 night stands etc)",

or "yes, if I was into 1 night stands and she wanted it too I would have one with her."

It does not mean "yes I'd rape her", "yes that is all she is good for" or "yes I'd mislead her into having sex by promise of a relationship" etc.And yet it is objectifying, whether you are aware of it or not.

[The Disillusionist]

Well, I think that is beyond the issue at hand here. It is not that sexual attraction is wrong without romantic attraction. The idea that it is, stems from bourgeois moralism. The problem here is not sexual attraction without romantic attraction, but sexual attraction expressed as the objectification of women. Besides, sexism does not cease to exist in romantic relationships. So, obviously, it is about something other than monogamy.

That's not the point I was trying to make in the least. By "romantic" I just meant "sexual". The point I was making is that sex between people should stay between those people, and that making sexuality some kind of social exhibition is unhealthy.

[sensory]

I perceive as simply stating that you are sexually attracted to that person and try to get validation from a friend or acquaintance.

[Redistribute the Rep]

There's nothing disrespectful about admitting whether you find somebody sexually attractive, and you're delusional if you think people need to know someone's personality before being able to tell if they find them sexually attractive. Physical features play a huge part in attraction. To say otherwise is to deny basic biology.

...my post didn't say anything about personality or physical features


Bit of a strawman here. I'm not claiming the females I'd answer "yes" to are waiting around for me. When I say "yes" what I mean is "yes I find her physically attractive, if it was mutual I'd be interested in pursuing a relationship and eventually sex (I'm not promiscuous personally or into 1 night stands etc)",

or "yes, if I was into 1 night stands and she wanted it too I would have one with her."

Well, the chances of you pursuing a sexual relationship with any given person you meet are small, since, like I said, they have their own lives to live. If you tend to make note of the attractiveness (or lack thereof) of almost every female you meet and consider her as a possible mate, then that probably does come from a position of thinking they are "waiting around" for you. Viewing everybody you meet as a potential partner and in relation to your sexual desires is anti social, it ignores then fact that other people, almost 100% of them in fact, give fuck all about a sexual relationship with you.



It does not mean "yes I'd rape her", "yes that is all she is good for" or "yes I'd mislead her into having sex by promise of a relationship" etc.

None of this has any relevance to what I or anyone else has said, nor are they a prerequisite for objectifying women...

[motion denied]

Can't see a difference between "hit that" and "fuck him/her". I think it all depends on the way people say it, the intonation.


Rating women with your friends is completely shallow and unnecessary, your friends shouldn't care what your preferences are anyway

Maybe I'm too far gone into the 'bro' thing, but I can't get my head around that. How come you're not supposed to talk about your preferences with your friends? I'm not talking about literally rating "oh what a beaut 9/10 lads lolol", but "hey I find Joana very beautiful and wish she liked me back so we could have sex" or even "I think s/he is ugly, not interested in a carnal relationship [who even says that tho]" etc.

Everyone has preferences. Talking about it is no harm.

[GaggedNoMore]

"Tap"?

I've heard (more like seen actually) an even more disturbing variation on this, where someone online would post a picture of a sexually "attractive" (according to male gaze, heteronormative, burgeois cultural standards) woman and guys would respond with "I'd hit that" - those last two words particularly bother me.

[Red Son]

Reminds me of an older guy who used to sit next to me at work who would refer to women as 'that piece' e.g. 'Oh, what's her name? That piece from that programme..'
As a younger man, presented with this question by my peers, I'd have answered yay or nay without giving it any thought. Nowadays I don't come across it much, but when I do I tend to ignore it, occaisionally call people on it but that's rare as I hate public confrontations with laddish types.
Simply asking 'do you think he/she is attractive?' should suffice without reducing the person to 'that' ..or maybe 'what do you think of so and so?' - maybe broaden your thoughts beyond do I want to fuck them or not into do I like them as a person..not likely but still.