If "Bite Me" T-Shirt was offensive, how about this one...

Was it Frank that had the bad experience in Walmart where he was told
to leave the store because he had an "offensive" T-Shirt? We all know
the one...it has a Royal Coachman and the words "Bite Me" on it.

Well, Mr. Walton...how do you explain this?

http://feministing.com/archives/008226.html

--
Bone

On Dec 12, 10:59 am, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Well, Mr. Walton...how do you explain this?

http://feministing.com/archives/008226.html

That's one of those things that's simutaneously wrong and sadly
reflective of social norms on many fronts. Hard to believe (well, I
guess not) that it's offered at the nation's largest retailer.

Joe F.

On 12 Dec, 16:59, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Was it Frank that had the bad experience in Walmart where he was told
to leave the store because he had an "offensive" T-Shirt? We all know
the one...it has a Royal Coachman and the words "Bite Me" on it.

Well, Mr. Walton...how do you explain this?

http://feministing.com/archives/008226.html

--
Bone

Whether one finds that offensive is really a matter of attitude and
perspective, and it could be argued that it is a joke that will not be
seen in use, except by the wearer. It merely reflects social norms and
perceptions. Unfortunate though many of these may be.

On another note, could you ( or anybody) please explain why "bite me"
is considered offensive? I thought it was just some sort of throwaway
phrase, but obviously it is more than that.

TL
MC

"rb608" wrote in message
...
On Dec 12, 10:59 am, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Well, Mr. Walton...how do you explain this?

http://feministing.com/archives/008226.html

That's one of those things that's simutaneously wrong and sadly
reflective of social norms on many fronts. Hard to believe (well, I
guess not) that it's offered at the nation's largest retailer.

Joe F.

In an age in which people tend to work hard at finding offense it pays to
take a moment and reflect on the possibility of missed innocent
interpretations. Haven't been able to find one here after several hours.

Wolfgang

"Mike" wrote in message
...
On 12 Dec, 16:59, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Was it Frank that had the bad experience in Walmart where he was told
to leave the store because he had an "offensive" T-Shirt? We all know
the one...it has a Royal Coachman and the words "Bite Me" on it.

Well, Mr. Walton...how do you explain this?

http://feministing.com/archives/008226.html

--
Bone

Whether one finds that offensive is really a matter of attitude and
perspective, and it could be argued that it is a joke that will not be
seen in use, except by the wearer. It merely reflects social norms and
perceptions. Unfortunate though many of these may be.

If the underwear were designed.....and sized.....for adults, what you say
would be true and unarguable. In this case, yes, someone COULD argue that
it's a joke. Try telling jokes concerning adolscent girls in a similar vein
at the next party you attend. Then come back and offer insights on social
norms.

On another note, could you ( or anybody) please explain why "bite me"
is considered offensive? I thought it was just some sort of throwaway
phrase, but obviously it is more than that.

It's generally considered to be a variation on "blow me," which I will
assume requires no further explanation.

Wolfgang

On Dec 12, 4:06 pm, Mike wrote:
On another note, could you ( or anybody) please explain why "bite me"
is considered offensive? I thought it was just some sort of throwaway
phrase, but obviously it is more than that.

Its roots have sexual connotations that some consider offensive; but
like "sucks", I'd have expected the ubiquitous use of the phrase had
rendered it generic without the sexual offensiveness. Nonetheless,
what's commonplace on the coasts can still earn you some trouble in
the heartland.

Joe F.

On 12 Dec, 22:18, "Wolfgang" wrote:

Whether one finds that offensive is really a matter of attitude and
perspective, and it could be argued that it is a joke that will not be
seen in use, except by the wearer. It merely reflects social norms and
perceptions. Unfortunate though many of these may be.

If the underwear were designed.....and sized.....for adults, what you say
would be true and unarguable. In this case, yes, someone COULD argue that
it's a joke. Try telling jokes concerning adolscent girls in a similar vein
at the next party you attend. Then come back and offer insights on social
norms.

On another note, could you ( or anybody) please explain why "bite me"
is considered offensive? I thought it was just some sort of throwaway
phrase, but obviously it is more than that.

It's generally considered to be a variation on "blow me," which I will
assume requires no further explanation.

Wolfgang

I don´t do jokes at parties any more, but thanks anyway Grandma.

MC

Wolfgang typed:
"Mike" wrote in message
...
On 12 Dec, 16:59, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Was it Frank that had the bad experience in Walmart where he was
told to leave the store because he had an "offensive" T-Shirt? We
all know the one...it has a Royal Coachman and the words "Bite Me"
on it. Well, Mr. Walton...how do you explain this?

http://feministing.com/archives/008226.html

Whether one finds that offensive is really a matter of attitude and
perspective, and it could be argued that it is a joke that will not
be seen in use, except by the wearer. It merely reflects social
norms and perceptions. Unfortunate though many of these may be.

If the underwear were designed.....and sized.....for adults, what you
say would be true and unarguable. In this case, yes, someone COULD
argue that it's a joke. Try telling jokes concerning adolscent girls
in a similar vein at the next party you attend. Then come back and
offer insights on social norms.

I would like anyone to tell me why, under *any* circumstances, it would be
deemed to be socially acceptable for a manufacturer or retailer to promote
the cash value of adolescent girls or boys sexual organs. I mean, I know I'm
the resident prude and all, but this is rather a sick portrayal of a
joke-for-profit scheme. Also interesting would be how many of those were
sold to parents who thought they were "cute."

Idiots. (© Wolfgang)
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

On 12 Dec, 23:43, "Tim J." wrote:



I would like anyone to tell me why, under *any* circumstances, it would be
deemed to be socially acceptable for a manufacturer or retailer to promote
the cash value of adolescent girls or boys sexual organs. I mean, I know I'm
the resident prude and all, but this is rather a sick portrayal of a
joke-for-profit scheme. Also interesting would be how many of those were
sold to parents who thought they were "cute."

Idiots. ((c) Wolfgang)
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------http://css.sbcma.com/timj

I doubt it was done to be "socially acceptable", it was done to make
money for somebody.

You know, like illegally invading other countries on false pretences
to gain control of their oil

Mike typed:
On 12 Dec, 23:43, "Tim J." wrote:

I would like anyone to tell me why, under *any* circumstances, it
would be deemed to be socially acceptable for a manufacturer or
retailer to promote the cash value of adolescent girls or boys
sexual organs. I mean, I know I'm the resident prude and all, but
this is rather a sick portrayal of a joke-for-profit scheme. Also
interesting would be how many of those were sold to parents who
thought they were "cute."

Idiots. ((c) Wolfgang)

I doubt it was done to be "socially acceptable", it was done to make
money for somebody.

The question remains *DID* it make money for the retailer. If "yes", then
there are sickos out there among us (you know who you are.)
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj