sixwordstories | (no subject)

If you've got an explanation, I'll listen to it. Depending on your answer, I may or may not go for the latter.

Very well.

To sum up *takes a deep breath*:

Abby posted a very nice picture of a chap I was, once upon a time, intimate with and still regard quite fondly. I made a compliment upon said chap's attractiveness. Abby told me to go away as he was hers. I remarked that jealous possessiveness was unbecoming. Abby said that she had considered sharing the chap in question. I was taken aback by this, since, as mentioned, he's quite a desirable fellow. I advised her to keep him to himself and out of the reach of other "hussies," this being the first instance thereof.

Abby asked if that meant I considered her to be a hussy. ~~I took the moral high ground and did not say something about women who share their men about automatically qualifying as such~~ I informed her in a light, playful tone that she was the very best sort of hussy and that all women are such anyway, which appears to be the major point of contention here.

She called me an "asshole", which is both harsher in meaning and upon the ear than "hussy."

I pointed out that the word 'hussy' has a long and rich etymological history, including a period of time when it meant, quite literally, merely a girl or a woman, with none of the unfortunate later negative connotations.

Abby called me, and I quote, a "twatwaffle," and said that I had called her a whore or a slut, which is untrue.

I pointed out it was untrue, and added that 'hussy' is an archaic and outmoded term which is rarely even used today. She argued the point.

At that juncture, I withdrew from the field of battle to gather information (http://community.livejournal.com/sixwordstories/2283356.html) on whether I had, indeed, inadvertently called her a "whore" or a "slut." If that had been the case, I should have issued an apology to her. However, the large majority of people have agreed that the terms are not equivalent.

In the meantime, Abby has seen fit to encourage violence upon my person and property, hence your involvement.

Should I be accused of bias in my recollection, I present you the exchange (http://abbytude.livejournal.com/23690.html?thread=302986#t302986) so you may see for yourself.

You. Are. Obnoxious.

Well, if one thing's for sure, it's that you sure know how to archive your information. I'm sure she'll jump in and say that something in here isn't right, though, so I'll just jump ahead a bit.

If all women are hussies, then I'd say all men are, too. Do you agree?

*shrugs* Words are my forté, Murphy. I am attached to their accuracy.

That depends what you mean. The dictionary specifies that a "hussy" is by definition female, so technically speaking we can't be. If you would have me say, on the other hand, that all men are brazen and immoral (http://www.answers.com/hussy&r=67), I'll be the first to admit that.

Men are terrible. I should know; I am one! We've got loose morals, and we sleep around, and we leave the seat up (well, I don't; I'm a gentleman), and we never call.

So yes; if the term can stretch to include men, of course we're hussies.

And interestingly enough, Abby said you'd pull out definitions and technicalities. Let's just assume the technicalities don't matter, because they shouldn't matter. Then it won't be a matter of "if" the term can stretch to include men; it will include men. Obviously we can't make our own dictionary, but it seems only fair.

But let's get back to the original issue: do you really think that all women are hussies? Because now it sounds like you think all humans are hussies.

*starts to look offended himself* I beg your pardon, but why shouldn't definitions and technicalities matter? The human race has invented their marvelous dictionaries so that people can look up words and be sure that the one they are using is the one that conveys what they want. 'Definitions and technicalities', as you put it, are not, as you seem to think, ways to weasel out of a situation, but the very cornerstone of clarity and communication between one another. I should think they very much matter.

Apropos of the current situation, if I had wanted to say I thought Abby was a slut or whore-- which again, for the record, I do not-- I would have said such, instead of the word I did use. Because definitions are relevant, or good god, anyone could call anyone anything and a war could result because party B thinks party A said something nasty which party A never meant. Historically, such wars often have.

*takes a deep breath* Women, hussies, jades and minxes; men, cads, curs, bounders, rotters. I didn't make up the words. They mean what they mean.

All of that being said-- *another deep breath* --no. I don't "really" think that "all" women, or humans, are hussies.

Only the interesting ones.

Oh, come on! Definitions and technicalities are how lawyers make their money. They're always ways to weasel out of things, ~~and I should know!~~ "Well, technically the bullet only grazed his head; he really died when he hit his head on the pavement!" "Well, technically we're not cheating any poor people out of their needed medicine; we're just trying to show them the value of a little hard work!" I could go on for a long time, Robin. Technicalities are the bane of our existence. We define things in order to get what we want.

So why'd you say it if you didn't think it? And what's an "interesting" woman? Go ahead and... define that for me. *smirk*

> We define things in order to get what we want.

Perhaps you do. I will politely request that if that is the case, you don't seek to project it onto me. I use words for poems, not courtrooms.

Because Abby was taking obvious offense that I'd called her such, so it seemed wise to specify it wasn't personal; because for a century or so it was true until the language changed; because it was a joke; because because because. Pick a reason.

As for that, gladly: an interesting woman is one with whom I enjoy talking. She is witty and spunky and sparky and not afraid to speak her mind, delights in arguing with me, can easily hold her own, lives life to the fullest and takes what she wants from the world rather than waiting in a cloister for a prince to come save her day.

All of which would qualify as hideously hussyish behaviour according to the dictionary, which you refuse to let me quote, since you'd rather the word mean whatever you want it to.

Perhaps you do.

And other people don't?

I'm not saying I want the word to mean whatever I want it to. I'm saying that it's wrong when you apply it to all women. But that's a moot point now, since you just said that wasn't what you really intended.

I'm not responsible for what other people do.

...Well, if it's all moot point... *frowns trying to follow the thread of conversation to its current conclusion* ...were you going to be wanting to hit me, or not?

...

No, I guess not. But I will if we end up having a conversation like this again.

A conversation about definitions?

A conversation about generalizing women with derogatory terms.

Oh. Fine.

May I generalize women with complimentary terms?

That depends on your definition of-

No, you know what? Sure. Go for it.

Thank you, Murphy!

You're welcome. I think.