Absolutely there is.

It's like you take pleasure in being completely ignorant in terms of what women feel about this kind of thing. Odd to watch. Have you ever spoken to a woman of the modern age? — Baden

Well, I spoke to a woman this afternoon -- but she's 63 years old, I suppose a dinosauress. I had lunch earlier this month with three former co-workers who are now in their late 40s. They were in their early 30s when I worked with them. A good friend at Church is in her 30s.

Now, I get that young women (and young men) in the allegedly totally novel millennial generation have a special set of highly refined sensibilities. I don't mix a lot with this age group. I'm not just 71, I look sort of like Santa Claus. They definitely see me as "not one of them".

I get that the young tend to be more finicky and touchy than us jaded old folks. They are also more likely to be extremist in their views. So was I when I was their age. They were educated under the baleful influence of post modernism, and that has left a mark on their generation that previous generations were mercifully spared.

Maybe, although I doubt there was ever a time, po-mo or no, when most women appreciated jokes about their "broken pussies". My guess is the only thing that's changed now is that they are more likely to speak up about their displeasure.

I doubt there was ever a time, po-mo or no, when most women appreciated jokes about their "broken pussies" — Baden

asked her ... if the xray was of her broken pussy — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Of course, the X-ray was of her cat-pussy, not "her" pussy. I pointed out earlier in the thread that this joke is built into the language. Pussy has been a metaphor for genitalia or cats, since the 16th and 17th centuries. according to the OED.

?a1560 in T. Wright Songs & Ballads Reign Philip & Mary (1860) lxxiv. 209 Adew, my pretty pussy, Yow pynche me very nere.
1583 P. Stubbes Anat. Abuses sig. Hv You shall haue euery sawcy boy..to catch vp a woman & marie her... So he haue his pretie pussie to huggle withall, it forceth not.

1699 T. D'Urfey Choice Coll. New Songs 7 As Fleet as my Feet Could convey me I sped; To Johnny who many Times Pussey had fed.

"Pussy" has been used in print with varying frequency, with a peak in 1870 and 1920, then a steady increase from a low in 1960 to a new high in 2000. I'm guessing it's pre-1940s meaning was more "cat" or term of endearment for a very pleasant woman (as used in Uncle Tom's Cabin) than "genitalia". I doubt very much that there was a surge of "Pussy = genitalia" in 1870 and 1920 in print

The 1960-2000 surge in pussy in print probably refers to genitalia, as much as anything else.

Many people are humor challenged, and any sort of double entendre, even one as ready-made and as old as "is that your broken pussy" offends them.

The lady with the broken pussy needn't have looked up pussy in the OED, of course. But one would think that most people would be at least vaguely familiar with the double pussy/pussy metaphor on which the joke here depended.

Speaking of broken pussies, there was a episode on Gray's Anatomy in which handsome consultant Mark Sloan - otherwise known as McSteamy - suffered a fractured penis after indulging in sex in the on-call room with Lexie Grey. (This was in 2009)

According to the search engine Google, two of the three most searched terms at present are "penile fracture" and "broken penis". Again, 2009.

Yes, it is possible. The tough lining of the spongy tubes that erect the penis can rip, with a distinct "crack" noise. One has to be engaged in pretty strenuous sex for this to happen. It's very painful, as one would expect.

Appropriately, nobody stalked off to HR to complain about having his or her virgin ears pierced.

Maybe I have beaten this dead pussy long enough.

? Obviously she was as is everyone I presume. That's the point. Your cat / Your genitalia. Har har. But not har har for her or most women or just purely on funny factor for anyone who's heard a million of those jokes already.

How's that book you're writing? — Akanthinos

It's good, do you want to pre-order a copy? ;)

Sometimes men think what they do is harmless, but they are too insensitive to see the harm they do.

Sometimes "banter" is not harmless and is a subtle way to dominate the situation by making other's look small.

Sometimes it is a fully conscious effort to put another person down.

you're wrong about regulations concerning sexual harassment because you don't understand how regulation works or why it's necessary — Baden

I don't think this regulation is at all necessary. Just more bureaucracy

A manager can say, "This fuckin report is so full of errors, what a bitch this is!". Or he can say to his subordinate, "Get me the FUCKN report NOW!!" in an extremely aggressive tone. Would you say there is a difference there? I would. — schopenhauer1

Yes, in the latter case, the manager may have to change secretary quite frequently :P

Mother Nature set up the hardware and wrote the operating system. — Bitter Crank

That is at least partly wrong. "Mother nature" (or it may be the result of the Fall) may have set up the hardware, but the operating system is by and large self-altering. The brain has what is known as neuroplasticity, and there's a series of drives within the human organism, not just sex.

the broadly defined sex drive — Bitter Crank

So broadly defined that it doesn't mean much anymore.

Some people, for example, are driven by curiosity to know more about the world, to find out more about nature, to understand the universe better. And that is their dominating instinct as Nietzsche would say, not sex. In their case, this dominating instinct takes over even the sex drive.

Other people are driven by deep piety and devotion to God, and they seek to deepen their spiritual understanding, reach closer to God in this life and so on. All instincts then become subordinate to this one.

Others are driven to build something in the world, to make a mark, to leave something behind. This is also a form of reproduction, albeit not a sexual one.

Others are driven to build a big family, with all that it takes.

Others are driven to have as much sex as possible and spend almost their entire time being busy with their sexual drive.

And so on. People are very different, we don't all have the same dominating instincts.

Freud, if I remember correctly, didn't have a lot of sex either for most of his life, and viewed this with pride.

The brain has what is known as neuroplasticity — Agustino

Yes, yes, of course, but neuroplasticity does not over-write the basic design of the brain. The limbic and hormonal systems (where our basic drives and emotions come from) are ancient and not given to convenient remodeling.

So broadly defined that it doesn't mean much anymore. — Agustino

Libido was always a term describing a strong, vital, but blunt urge, that could be redirected by the will into the sort of constructive activities which you describe in your own life. Or, it can be channelled into debauchery and dissipation, or into a great quest, scholarship, and so on. And, of course, it includes the specific "sex driver".

And so on. People are very different, we don't all have the same dominating instincts. — Agustino

This is one of the great watershed questions: Are people all alike, or are they all different. There's no proving it, one way or the other -- it's like an article of faith. I hold the view that people are all alike. There's nothing wrong with thinking that we are all different, because people behave the way they behave, either way.

Other people are driven by deep piety and devotion to God, and they seek to deepen their spiritual understanding, reach closer to God in this life and so on. All instincts then become subordinate to this one.

Others are driven to build something in the world, to make a mark, to leave something behind. This is also a form of reproduction, albeit not a sexual one. — Agustino

Quite right. That's the result of sublimation, a very noble process where we redirect our most basic, organic drive into sometimes very etherial. That's how civilization get's built.

Yes, yes, of course, but neuroplasticity does not over-write the basic design of the brain. — Bitter Crank

Sure, but it certainly changes the output. How information is processed by the hardware is more important than the hardware itself generally (unless we're dealing with severe limiting factors like mental retardation, brain damage, etc.)

Libido was always a term describing a strong, vital, but blunt urge, that could be redirected by the will into the sort of constructive activities which you describe in your own life. Or, it can be channelled into debauchery and dissipation, or into a great quest, scholarship, and so on. And, of course, it includes the specific "sex driver". — Bitter Crank

But if libido simply means that, why not call it "life energy"? Why not call it "spirit"? These words indicate something that has an abundance of energy and must spend it somehow - must pour that energy into the world. And from a strictly physical point of view, that's what human beings are - we take energy in, process it, and then must outpour it back into the world. So a better way to think of this is that there is some primal energy, which isn't sexual in nature, but can become sexual if it is channelled along the sexual path.

Are people all alike, or are they all different. — Bitter Crank

But there are practical implications if we go one way or another. It's not a purely metaphysical issue that would remain identical regardless of how the physical world is. If people are all the same, as you hold, then we should expect to be able to turn any one person into any other person in terms of desires and values. But we can't turn one person into another in terms of their values and desires. This seems to be the most evident truth that I've learned so far about people.

Quite right. That's the result of sublimation, a very noble process where we redirect our most basic, organic drive into sometimes very etherial. — Bitter Crank

See, I don't think this drive is organic. It's just pure energy seeking an outlet. The easiest outlet does happen to be sexual. So this energy goes along the path of least resistance in the absence of a consciousness or reason to direct it differently.

I don't think the question is ethical, your question is political. — Agustino

Two sides of the same coin.

If I had a rooster with a broken leg, and somebody said I had a busted cock, I would not be offended. — Bitter Crank

That would be the greatest of crimes, and the perpetrator would have to be severely punished, like all deliberate cunts ought to be. This is no laughing matter.

Crucify him, I say, like they did to Jesus, the most deliberate cunt ever to have graced this earth.

It's like you take pleasure in being completely ignorant in terms of what women feel about this kind of thing. Odd to watch. Have you ever spoken to a woman of the modern age? — Baden

Jane Moore, Sue Carroll, Julia Hartley-Brewer, Katie Hopkins...

What thoughts and feelings have these women expressed about this kind of thing?

I spoke to a female friend of mine last night about this, as it happens. We were of like mind and agreed.

Believe it or not, not all women of the modern age think alike or share your opinion.

Not exactly, politics is not in the business of enforcing ethics generally.

Depends on the perks level of your kickstarter.

Sometimes men think what they do is harmless, but they are too insensitive to see the harm they do.

Sometimes "banter" is not harmless and is a subtle way to dominate the situation by making other's look small.

Sometimes it is a fully conscious effort to put another person down. — charleton

Yes, and sometimes it's otherwise.

Sometimes it's refreshing to listen to an alternative to the predictable mainstream emphasis on political correctness.

Not exactly, politics is not in the business of enforcing ethics generally. — Agustino

Yes it is, and there is no shortage of examples from which to choose. Just consider criminal law and how regularly it's enforced. And parliament is the supreme legislative body.

Then you have a misunderstanding of what ethics is - in other words you have politicized your ethics. The two aren't the same. It's unethical to be gluttonous, but we're not going to make a criminal charge of it.

Then you have a misunderstanding of what ethics is - in other words you have politicized your ethics. The two aren't the same. It's unethical to be gluttonous, but we're not going to make a criminal charge of it. — Agustino

No, trust me, the misunderstanding is all yours. I neither claimed nor implied that they're the same. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of that idiom I employed.

Your example proves nothing. I could point out a hundred things which I think are unethical, yet within the law. But that wouldn't alter the fact that, contrary to your suggestion, politics, law enforcement, and ethics, have a significant relationship. It is the business of parliament to legislate, and it is the business of the police to enforce the law. Parliament is political, and that which is political has a foundation in ethics. Your liberalism is no exception.

Then you have a misunderstanding of what ethics is - in other words you have politicized your ethics. The two aren't the same. It's unethical to be gluttonous, but we're not going to make a criminal charge of it. — Agustino

Only because we live in times of plenty.
If you push the conditions, almost everything we tolerate could become of such importance that we would consider reasonnable to no longer be tolerant of it.
Such as the last man on an Earth filled with women refusing to reproduce because he happens to like dudes.

Your example proves nothing. I could point out a hundred things which I think are unethical, yet within the law. But that wouldn't alter the fact that, contrary to your suggestion, politics, law enforcement, and ethics, have a significant relationship. It is the business of parliament to legislate, and it is the business of the police to enforce the law. Parliament is political, and that which is political has a foundation in ethics. Your liberalism is no exception. — Sapientia

Still, it's not the business of the law to legislate morality. Yes, no doubt there are correlates between the law and morality, but they are by no means identical, nor as related as you want them to be.

How is this conversation still going? How many hundreds of years were comments like these, directed at women, commonplace but also less lighthearted in nature? A way for men to steer the conversation towards the sexual all while under the guise that it's either a joke or a compliment.
Now we're at a time where sexual harassment is being taken more seriously and legal departments have come to realize that a zero tolerance policy is the only way for a business to safely govern itself because of the aforementioned nuances and multiple interpretations.

Is this a great loss to society? Should we mourn the loss of crude sexual jokes at work? Would any of you even make the same jokes in a boardroom setting? Call me a prude, but I wouldn't feel comfortable commenting on a female coworkers body.

If this is a great loss for some of you and you're looking for a utopia of unrestricted language, I would recommend you get a job in construction.

Now we're at a time where sexual harassment is being taken more seriously and legal departments have come to realize that a zero tolerance policy is the only way for a business to safely govern itself because of the aforementioned nuances and multiple interpretations. — ProbablyTrue

Would any of you even make the same jokes in a boardroom setting? Call me a prude, but I wouldn't feel comfortable commenting on a female coworkers body. — ProbablyTrue

Yeah, I've heard such comments in boardroom settings too (amongst business owners I've worked for in the past), of course. The idea that installing these "politically correct" barriers will do anything but enact hypocrisy is wishful thinking. What is required is a spiritual change in people, which cannot be achieved politically.

The idea that installing these "politically correct" barriers will do anything but enact hypocrisy is wishful thinking. — Agustino

I don't think enacting rules in spite of yourself is necessarily hypocritical. People are capable of comporting themselves differently based on their environment. People can generally govern their speech while at church or in court. I don't see why a boardroom couldn't be the same.

Boys will be boys. — Hanover

I read your other post about the stringent rules in the USA as well. I worked for a US company for awhile with a US manager and once complimented his secretary (Dutch) on her dress. He called me over and said I couldn't say that to a woman. Since I was one of the three in-house attorneys I naturally lied about the standards in the Netherlands being medieval with regard to sexual harassment and avoided getting fired.

I think work "banter" that is based on commenting on people's sexual attractiveness is unacceptable. That's just for the record.

What I'd like to ask is what do posters feel about "battle of the sexes" banter - joking about stereotypes like men are no good at such 'n such; women are no good at this 'n that. Is that acceptable? For the record I think it probably is, though not always scintillating. But I am open to dissuasion...

At least 50% of your list are right-wing racists. Katie refugees-are-cockroaches Hopkins and her ilk are the lowest of the media low. They sell an ideology of ignorance to the worst elements of society to which for some unknown reason you've decided to tether your rope. If you think a significant proportion of women would laugh along with you as you mock them sexually or guffaw about their "broken pussies", you're seriously misguided. Try it in the real world and see how you get on. There may be some argument for dialling back PC in some of its guises but you seem to be saying little more than you should have the right to verbally trample on whomever you so wish because it amuses you.

Remember too, we're talking about the workplace and that's somewhere that can't be escaped very easily. It's not like being down the pub where you can just walk away. It can make the environment poisonous and turn into a form of bullying like having a boss who constantly belittles you. And I want to emphasize again that there's an asymmetry here between the sexes. Women are far more threatened sexually by men than men are by women, and tend to react accordingly. So, it's much more likely to feel like humiliation and bullying to a woman than a man. And that's not something you can brush off by telling people to stop being so PC. Besides, there are plenty of other places you can get your rocks off on sexual innuendo (like here in the Shout box for example...), it's no great loss not to have it in the workplace.