From: amz@iguana.cis.ohio-state.edu (Arnold M Zwicky)
Subject: disliking x
Followup-To: soc.motss
Summary: untangling ideas, still not liking the main idea
Organization: earnestly practicing faggots
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:06:47 GMT

in article <1992Sep4.042431.10596@midway.uchicago.edu>
orc@usite-next.uchicago.edu (david parsons) responds to flak directed
at the statement:

    >|>I don't like "nelly" behavior.  Period.

(i'll call such a statement a Declaration of Ick, or di for short, and
i'll call this one princess di) by asking

 >...what is wrong with saying you don't like some
 >behavior, as long as you don't progress to the "I don't do it, so it's
 >evil and should be destroyed" mindset?  It's possibly not the most
 >politic way of saying that it's not one's cup of tea, but I don't see
 >any other meaning (For example, I don't hunt.  Why?  I don't like hunting.
 >I don't particularly care if other people hunt, it's just that I don't
 >like to do it.  This is a bit different from saying that since I don't
 >hunt, there's obviously something degenerate about it and it should be
 >banned.)
 >                 __
 >   david parsons \/ Who prefers to say that (x) isn't my thing, instead.

(earlier posters have made the analogy to different tastes in food.)

a number of different ideas are all tangled up in these discussions,
and things are helped by changing "i don't like x" to "x isn't my
thing", which preserves all of the ambiguities while softening the
judgment only a little.

when jacques says he doesn't like (in fact, detests) sweet peppers,
his di is a statement about (a) his behavior, in particular, (b) his
eating behavior; he doesn't like *to eat* green peppers, or green
peppers aren't his thing *as his food*.  david parsons's saying that
he doesn't like hunting is parallel; he doesn't like to engage in
hunting.  what's the parallel interpretation of the di "i don't like
nelly behavior".

well, there are two, depending on whether the relevant property is in
you (as in the hunting example) or in the object of your interaction
(as in the dining example).  david parsons takes it to mean "i don't
like to engage in nelly behavior", or "acting nelly is not something i
do, feel comfortable in doing, etc."  but it can also mean "i am not
attracted to men who engage in nelly behavior, i don't like nelly guys
as potential sex partners".

within fairly broad limits, there's no arguing with inclinations and
tastes here.  caring about spectator sports is not something i do
(it's not my inclination), and guys younger than 18 or so are not
attractive to me (they're not to my taste).  everybody has great huge
packages of these inclinations and tastes, and though it's often
rewarding to broaden your repertoires, usually there's no reason
for anyone to get exercised about your particular packages.

(if you feel constrained by your inclinations and tastes - if you can
feel satisfied, say, only by having a straight blond high school
basketball player piss on you and then tell you he loves you, and you
don't get no satisfaction, your requirements being so hard to fill -
or anxious about them - if you like to trick but get panic attacks
afterwards, say - then of course *you* have reason to consider doing
something about them.  it's also true that if your inclinations and
tastes directly reflect dubious social attitudes, other people might
be uncomfortable with them; if you're white and find the idea of sex
with a black person icky, well, it could be "just" a taste, but
there's likely to be a nasty strain of racism in there, and you might
find that your di about black people is not taken well in all
quarters.)

but...the original princess di, "i don't like `nelly' behavior",
surely meant a great deal more than that the speaker avoided such
behavior himself and/or found it unattractive in potential lovers.
this third meaning is "i don't like to be around nelly guys", or even
"i don't like to *see* nelliness".

this is like david parsons saying he doesn't like to be around
hunters, or even to hear anything about hunting.  or jacques saying he
doesn't want to be around people who are eating green peppers, or even
to see the offensive vegetables.  (he does not do this.  sometimes
he gets unpleasant surprises in restaurants, but then he just picks
out the bits of pepper and gives them to me, because he knows i
like them a lot.  he's even happy kissing me after i've eaten them.)

this third meaning is the one most readers of the "too straight
to be gay" thread got from princess di, and the one that so many
of us found offensive.  it is rude, because there's no way to avoid
hearing a judgment of *badness* in such a sweeping di.  compare
"i just don't like being around fat people", "i hate seeing blacks
on the street", "i'd rather not have anyone in a wheelchair in
my bar", "i don't want to be around twinks", "i don't like bisexuals
hanging around with us", "old guys should stick to themselves and
stay away from me", and on and on.  just statements of taste?  if
you think so, you need a lot of mental floss.

on this third interpretation, princess di and her sisters and her
cousins and her aunts are also offensive because they're telling other
people what to do.  someone comes out with princess di to you, you're
being told: either avoid nelly behavior - *YOU change!* - or stay out
of my sight - *YOU limit yourself to suit *ME*!.  a person of some
sensibility is likely to respond to this kind of prescription with
"well, fuck YOU, idjit!", as indeed many have done in this very
thread.  

arnold (dismayed that this posting is not nearly nelly enough
         in tone)