How the hell is that (not) acceptable?

[templar1138a]

Since most of what's being posted here aren't actually taboos and are just cultural inconsistencies:

Saying "Bless you" when someone sneezes. When someone says that to me after I sneeze, I don't respond, and I walk away (if I can) when they go so far as to say "God bless you." I don't buy into the ancient Christian superstition that a sneeze indicates that your soul is trying to escape through your nose. Without that superstition, what's the point of saying anything? It's just annoying and draws more attention to the fact that I've sneezed.

If I have to buy into any superstition about sneezes, I prefer the Japanese idea that you do it when someone is talking about you behind your back. No one has to say anything and the idea is amusing.

 

[MetalMagpie]

Why is it that you can join the army at 16 (In the UK at least) and yet cannot buy games that are orientated around the job you may being doing until you are 18?
I have a friend in the army who was told that he could not buy COD MW2 because he was 17. he then said that he was in the army and showed proof of that and yet still he was rejected.
DAFUQ!?

Although you can join the army at 16, I'm fairly certain you can't be shoved onto the front line until you're 18. So - arguably - you still won't get exposed to that sort of horrific violence until you reach 18. In theory.

But I'm willing to bet that isn't the logic and that it's just one of those stupid things. The army tends to operate on a different set of rules to everything else.

 

[templar1138a]

Why is the "C Word" (hint: not crap.) rude? The other swear words I can see the reason why, but the "C Word" just puzzles me.

Edit: Ninja'd:

I believe the concept of certain words being vulgar in the English language occurred after the Norman invasion in the 11th century.

Before the Normans invaded, words like "shit", "fuck" and "****" were just the everyday, Germanic Anglo-Saxon words for those things, but when the Normans became the ruling class, proper people were expect to speak Norman French and the Germanic, Anglo-Saxon words were considered vulgar as it was the language of the commoners.

So in the case of the word shit, the vulgar commoners would refer to it as something like "scite" or "scitte", whereas the properly educated Norman speaking people would say something like "merde" (obviously not the Modern French word , but it's Norse-French equivalent).

I suppose as the language evolved into modern English, the old Germanic words stayed around, but retained their vulgar stigma and relegated into properly offensive swear words.

That's my understanding of it from what I was taught by my English teacher, many moons ago. I'm not sure how accurate it is, but it makes sense.

I suspect that quite a few things that are considered taboo stem from class prejudices, with the actions of the poorer classes being shunned and made taboo by the ruling classes...

Another reason I've heard for that particular C-word to be seen as so rude was well-articulated by Tina Fey on 30 Rock: "There's no male equivalent."

Seriously, there's not a single insult for men that strikes as hard as that word strikes women. You can call a guy a that word, but it has a completely different (and not as severe) meaning.

 

[redisforever]

AND ANOTHER THING! WHY THE FUCK DOES "'I' before 'E', except after 'C'" NOT APPLY TO THE WORD "Weird"???

I'm sure I saw somewhere that there are more exceptions to that rule than there are words that follow it.

English seems to have more exceptions than rules.

I also don't get why climbing stuff is bad. It's fun and harmless!

 

[templar1138a]

AND ANOTHER THING! WHY THE FUCK DOES "'I' before 'E', except after 'C'" NOT APPLY TO THE WORD "Weird"???

I'm sure I saw somewhere that there are more exceptions to that rule than there are words that follow it.

English seems to have more exceptions than rules.

I also don't get why climbing stuff is bad. It's fun and harmless!

If you look at the history of the English language (and England), you'll find that English is really the bastard child of a series of lingual rapes. English is one of the hardest languages to learn because, when you get down to it, there really aren't any rules that apply to all words, tenses, conjugations, or sentence structures.

 

[Nimzabaat]

- I never understood how somebody who's 17 and 364 days is off limits, but the day they turn 18, they are fair game . It seems odd that somebody who is 16 or 17 is deemed "unable to give consent"
varies by region but the point still stands). Although, once somebody is into their mid-20s they shouldn't be dating that young anyway, I'm talking more about people ages 18-22 who get pinned for statutory rape.

- I never understood how a film (or other forms of media) can have violence and killing and only be PG13, but one woman's nipple will give it an R rating.

- I never understood how men's nipples are allowed to be exposed, but not women's.

- I never understood why halloween is normal but cosplay is weird.

- I never understood why rats and mice are considered ugly, but hamsters are cute.

I have more, but these are the first ones I thought of : \

Getting on board with the movie rating thing: Why is violence more acceptable than sex? I think it should be the other way around.

 

[Imper1um]

Taboos are created by people that ruin the fun in the thing in the first place.

• Streaking/Public Nudity
  We all know what I'm going to say. You've seen it on the beach, with people in bikinis...you know, those people who just...don't fit in a bikini. Those people that make you throw up a little in your mouth [http://goo.gl/yRZ9a]. What's worse is that they are one "costume malfunction" away from all of that splaying out in public view, making a beached jellyfish not the grossest blob of substance on the beach.
  
  Swearing
  Swearing has always been taboo because it needs to be taboo. Its a momentary "collapse" of "acceptable behavior" to express ecstasy, pain or annoyance. Every language has had its taboo language that expresses things in a more "hard" light.
  
  Age of Consent
  The age of consent was created because people just didn't know where the line was before it was created. Some people slept with kids (<13) just because they wanted to test the line, and ruined it for the rest of us. The line was created because people need a line to "see" and not pass unless they are willing to go the extra mile.
  
  Homosexuality
  The stigma of Homosexuality is actually a reflex created based on our anatomy. I don't care what you do, a male genitalia is required to go into a female genitalia in order to procreate. While this has nothing to do with love (I believe that if you want to love a man as a man, that's fine, or a woman as a woman, that's fine.) The stigma comes from that if this perpetuates and becomes the standard, creating MF pairings a stigma, it could stagnate (and even cause the extinction of) the human race, since no one wants to have sex to procreate and continue the human species. While this is an unfounded claim (it would require at least 10 generations of humans before a stigma this ingrained in our genetics would flip), it is an interesting idea, but really isn't a possibility (if we really all did turn gay in 20 generations, science would find a way to cause impregnation without sex, which we kind of already have).
  
  Cosplay
  We all hear the argument "why is Halloween acceptable, but cosplay at conventions a stigma?" This is simply because of idiots [http://goo.gl/NWDrO] wanting [http://goo.gl/1S2fI] to cock it up [http://forums.gametrailers.com/thread/fail-cosplay/1205002?page=6] for the rest of us. They think they are being funny with their revealing costumes (I don't have a picture, but there was this 5'7, 345lb guy dressed up as one of The 300 spartans. I'll pause to let you regain your stomach). However, every time I see someone doing something like this for attention, it causes the stigma of Cosplay to grow, because the good cosplays [http://goo.gl/9yPsw] are the ones that make me proud to be gamer.
  
  Roleplaying (DnD/Pathfinder/4th/GURPS/LARPs)
  The thing is, we're trapped in the idea that we "need to be real." We have been ingrained in the idea that we must be in this world, not in another. Imagination is dying, and I see some of the most inspired ideas while playing Pathfinder Society. Things I wasn't even expecting. Its a pleasant surprise, but, unfortunately, people ruin it for the rest of us. People continuously make characters simply to "break the game" (see: anyone who plays a PF Summoner Synthesist), which causes RPers to come out as assholes, douchebags and increase the stigma that the rest of us are trying to shoot in the head.

That's all I can think of right now (and all I'm willing to research right now).

 

[Scow2]

Here's one: Why is smacking someone for being a mouthy douche prohibited? You could argue "Freedom of Speech" and a desire to prohibit people being able to randomly walk up to people and smack them, but these are two different issues. They have the right to speak. Others should have the right to express annoyance or disapproval of that speech with a hearty backhand or other type of smack. And it's not like a smack does any lasting damage.

Also: Brawling. People naturally have violent urges (especially children). And while we can certainly hurt each other painfully in bare-fisted brawls, the human body's able to recover from almost all of what little actual damage is incurred quickly.

Heck... it would certainly make Political Debates more interesting.

 

[AlexWinter]

- I never understood how somebody who's 17 and 364 days is off limits, but the day they turn 18, they are fair game . It seems odd that somebody who is 16 or 17 is deemed "unable to give consent"
varies by region but the point still stands). Although, once somebody is into their mid-20s they shouldn't be dating that young anyway, I'm talking more about people ages 18-22 who get pinned for statutory rape.

Because you shouldn't be able to run the risk of pregnancy before you're out of compulsory education.

That's what I always thought it was anyway seeing as they're each 2 years more in America than here in Britain.

 

[elvor0]

Also: Brawling. People naturally have violent urges (especially children). And while we can certainly hurt each other painfully in bare-fisted brawls, the human body's able to recover from almost all of what little actual damage is incurred quickly.

Heck... it would certainly make Political Debates more interesting.

I'll second that! I would've payed good money to see Boris Johnson and Ian Livingstone fight for the position of mayor. Or or, the elections a few years ago, the last one standing wins!

 

[Eamar]

Why (in terms of many schools and workplaces) is it ok for a woman to have short hair, but "messy" or "unprofessional" for a guy to have long hair, even if he keeps it just as clean and tidy as any long-haired woman does?

EDIT: and on a more serious note, why is a man who doesn't want children (relatively) acceptable, whereas a woman who feels the same is a freak, has a problem and is to be patronised and not taken seriously at every opportunity?

Quite aside from the many, many other reasons for someone choosing not to have kids, the fact that it's the woman who goes through pregnancy and childbirth surely makes it more understandable for a woman not to want them?

And again (sorry this theme is emerging, I've just triggered a train of thought): why are some couples prepared to go through rounds and rounds of expensive, invasive and often heart-breaking IVF using donor eggs and sperm, but won't consider adoption?

I know not all IVF involves donor eggs and/or sperm, but in cases where the resulting children wouldn't be biologically related to either parent, why bother?

 

[Aussie502]

How come in the US people can act in pornographic movies once they turn 18, but they cannot consume alcohol until they are 21?

 

[JerryTerry]

Flatulence, farting, breaking wind, whatever you want to call it. Everybody does it. Apart from occasionally smelling unpleasant in confined spaces, why is it considered rude and disgusting? It's just an unavoidable natural thing. (I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet).

Also, comics. Well, the kind of comics that are referred to as "graphic novels" to try and sound more mature (often to no avail). There are many adult-oriented comics. Most Alan Moore stuff, a fair amount of Batman, The Walking Dead to name a few. And in most internet circles it's deemed completely acceptable, yet in general public it's still usually viewed as childish.
And, in a similar vein, cartoons. I mean, the cartoons that actually cater to all ages, like "Batman: The Animated Series" (Hell, that had some of the most dramatic and powerful scenes I've seen on TV, yet it's often still overlooked as "just for kids"). Yet oddly, when I wear my Batman shirt most people say it's cool (Then again, I'm sure Batman's just an exception).

Oh, and tabletop RPGs like D&D. That seems to have a massive stigma and stereotype attached to it, yet Vin Diesel plays it, for god's sake! The truth is that many, many people play it who don't fit the stereotype.
And I've never actually played D&D yet, but the fact that all RPGs get lumped into the same category/stigma as D&D is annoying. I play Esoterrorists and M-Force. Where you play as a group of secret agents hunting down occult terrorists, and an agency that hunts down monsters. What could be cooler than that?

So what's your point?

For starters 1. Who cares?
2. What are you gonna do about it?
3. If you didn't like reading why post a reply? (HIPOCRACY ALERT!!)

Just make your annoying little grunt of disaproval and move on. Being able to spot hipocracy dosen't make you smart you know, and commenting on it without development of an opinion as to why you disagree in the first place just makes you sad and you shouldn't make waves if you're not willing to get wet, that's just cowardly, but I suppose thats something total anonymity is good for. For both our sakes.

Jesus, no need to fly off the handle. He was just pointing out (quite validly) your hypocrisy. At no point did he say that pointing it out made him smart, or that he wanted to do something about it.
And if he was hypocritical for posting a response, surely you're equally as hypocritical for responding to it?
Posts like this are terribly counter-productive. All your post has really said is "I AM INEXPLICABLY ANGRY BECAUSE YOU POINTED OUT A FLAW IN MY STORY".

[sub][sub][sub][sub][sub][sub][sub]Yes, I am aware of the hypocrisy of this counter-productive response.[/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub]

 

[Vrach]

I think there would be far, far less trouble if it was determined on a case-by-case basis, since there are plenty of 16 year olds that are far more mature and able to give consent than many 18 or 19 year olds.

Additionally, not just are some kids more emotionally mature (as in, they don't ACT immature), brain development is significantly different for everyone, to the point where comparing two 16-year olds and putting them on the same legal level is just...illogical and counterproductive.

Edit: But that's just me. I think that arbitrary cut-off points are horribly, horribly wrong for something like sexuality, and really only make sense for stuff like politics, where maturity is not that large of a factor compared to just basic intelligence.

How do you quantify something like maturity though?

My contribution, I guess I'll throw in with the swearing crowd. It seems incredibly childish to get offended by a 'naughty word.'

Not by age, which is exactly his point. A professional psychologist can give a good estimate though.

OT: Why am I considered socially awkward for playing video games, even though I spend on average just as much time playing online games as any kid spends playing sports or socializing at school?

Because by socialising, people mean doing it in person. If you spend as much time playing those online games with the same amount of people in the same room (LAN party, cybercafes and the like), yeah, you'll be just as sociable. Though they'll still consider you awkward for spending time inside the house. Imagine if some 100 years ago there was a guy who did nothing but sit in his house and send letters/telegraphs to random people he's never met, would you consider him sociable? Because, bar the speed of communication, that's kinda what online chat is.

edit:
OT: Oh wait, no, I've got something much better. How the fuck is it that games get pointed at for all the violence inspiring bullshit (especially among minors) while sports are just perfectly fine? 99% of aggressive kids I ever knew (and I reckon most experiences would agree) were the sporty types, I don't remember a single gamer that was ever violent. Hell, look at a football (football, not handegg) stadium, then look at a gaming event, which one looks more likely to end in physical violence?

 

[Doom-Slayer]

I think there would be far, far less trouble if it was determined on a case-by-case basis, since there are plenty of 16 year olds that are far more mature and able to give consent than many 18 or 19 year olds.

Additionally, not just are some kids more emotionally mature (as in, they don't ACT immature), brain development is significantly different for everyone, to the point where comparing two 16-year olds and putting them on the same legal level is just...illogical and counterproductive.

Edit: But that's just me. I think that arbitrary cut-off points are horribly, horribly wrong for something like sexuality, and really only make sense for stuff like politics, where maturity is not that large of a factor compared to just basic intelligence.

Sadly its just too idealistic. The reason overarching and arbitrary laws exist like that is because its simply not possible to do everything on a case by case basis. There would just be waaaaay too many incidents, and no possible to do each by its own merits.

With an arbitrary cutoff point, no its not ideal, but its practical.

Because by socialising, people mean doing it in person.

Thats the problem there. Society deems that it only counts if done person to person which I think is rubbish. Its the same view with online/long-distance relationships, the general view is if you haven't met, or dont meet often, it doesn't count because you arent person to person. Which again, is rubbish. Person to person is simply one method of communicating, it isn't "the" way of communicating or even the best way all the time, its just one possibility.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

Swearing. I mean you can say poop or pee pee but not shit or piss. How fucked are we as a society when a sound is taboo? No one cares about the meaning, everybody poops after all. But when people start shitting, that's offensive.

In this case, it simply depends on your company. If you are out in public, around children, it (rightfully so) isnt acceptable. Its a matter of respect. I have been in more than one situation where I have had to ask someone to watch their language, because I didnt want my kids to hear it. I behave in a similar way, in public, because I know its disrespectful to curse around children, as well as other people. Sure, it may not bother you and I to "color up" our language, but its not everyones cup of tea, and being civil, we should respect that.

 

[FilipJPhry]

For example, how the hell did public nudity become so taboo? Why did more "civilised" cultures come to disapprove of it? I can understand requiring clothes for specific things, but why the complete shift? Why are clothes now a requirement, rather than an option?

Nudity is a distraction. Car accidents will be frequent. Have you watched that Seinfeld episode?

On another note, why do people get offended when I speak Mi'kmaq(or other languages) in a public restaurant?

 

[LadyRhian]

Homosexuality. Ancient Greece is known as one of history's greatest empire and they practically relished homosexuality, but now a large portion of our society downright abhors it. Pisses me right off and makes me wish I lived in ancient Greece.

And pederasty too!

Homosexual sex in Greece was all older men screwing younger men. If the older man wished to be penetrated, that was considered shameful. Also, homosexual sex between women was taboo there, which is why the poetess Sappho gained such notoriety with her unabashed love for women. It wasn't some Gay Paradise like people seem to think.

As for the nudity taboo, that comes from America being founded by Puritans and religious dissenters. After all, one of the punishments God gives Adam and Eve when they were thrown out of the Garden of Eden is being ashamed of their nakedness and having to cover themselves. As for why it's okay for men to show nipples but women not, well, women's nipples, because they are used for breastfeeding, are considered a sexual area (plus, unlike most other primates, we have these sacks of flesh that make them stand out- other primates only have the sacks of flesh when breastfeeding). So, as a sexual area, they have to be covered- just like the groins of men and women.

 

[Strazdas]

- I never understood how somebody who's 17 and 364 days is off limits, but the day they turn 18, they are fair game . It seems odd that somebody who is 16 or 17 is deemed "unable to give consent"
varies by region but the point still stands). Although, once somebody is into their mid-20s they shouldn't be dating that young anyway, I'm talking more about people ages 18-22 who get pinned for statutory rape.

- I never understood how a film (or other forms of media) can have violence and killing and only be PG13, but one woman's nipple will give it an R rating.

- I never understood how men's nipples are allowed to be exposed, but not women's.

- I never understood why halloween is normal but cosplay is weird.

- I never understood why rats and mice are considered ugly, but hamsters are cute.

I have more, but these are the first ones I thought of : \

First 2 - religion.
the last one - tail. Hamsters dont have it.

 

[TheClownKnight]

Breast feeding. I love women as much as the next guy but if a woman is feeding he baby I don't look and that's what other people need to do. If you think it's that bad don't look the women is feeding her baby.