Binary number tattoo

I saw a guy the other day with a long string of 1s and 0s tattooed
around his arm - a long enough number that it made about 1-1/4 turns.
I didn't ask him what the number means, tho I suppose someone with
a tattoo like that is just asking for people to ask him what it
means.
--

jhhaynes at earthlink dot net

Jim Haynes <haynes@alumni.uark.edu> wrote:

> I saw a guy the other day with a long string of 1s and 0s tattooed
> around his arm - a long enough number that it made about 1-1/4 turns.
> I didn't ask him what the number means, tho I suppose someone with
> a tattoo like that is just asking for people to ask him what it
> means.

lots of people get tattoos for themselves and not only don't give a shit
whether they get asked about them but would rather not explain them to
you at all.

The Queen of Did You and Say Something? wrote:
> Jim Haynes <haynes@alumni.uark.edu> wrote:
>
> > I saw a guy the other day with a long string of 1s and 0s tattooed
> > around his arm - a long enough number that it made about 1-1/4 turns.
> > I didn't ask him what the number means, tho I suppose someone with
> > a tattoo like that is just asking for people to ask him what it
> > means.
>
> lots of peo<snip>

So, anyway.

Unusual tattoos and large gauge piercings are often considered (well,
seemingly) an open invitation for conversation. I had some new students
in my summer school class and I noticed the one seven-year-old staring
at my earlobe intently. She did not, however, start a conversation.
Well, we talked about windmill turbines, but other than that, no
conversation.

I wonder what (if anything) that guy's tattoo represented. Hmmm.

http://www.tekmom.com/buzzwords/binaryalphabet.html

Interesting!

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

Curt James schrieb:
> The Queen of Did You and Say Something? wrote:
>> Jim Haynes <haynes@alumni.uark.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> I saw a guy the other day with a long string of 1s and 0s tattooed
>>> around his arm - a long enough number that it made about 1-1/4 turns.
>>> I didn't ask him what the number means, tho I suppose someone with
>>> a tattoo like that is just asking for people to ask him what it
>>> means.
>> lots of peo<snip>
>
> So, anyway.
>
> Unusual tattoos and large gauge piercings are often considered (well,
> seemingly) an open invitation for conversation. I had some new students
> in my summer school class and I noticed the one seven-year-old staring
> at my earlobe intently. She did not, however, start a conversation.
> Well, we talked about windmill turbines, but other than that, no
> conversation.
>
> I wonder what (if anything) that guy's tattoo represented. Hmmm.
>
> http://www.tekmom.com/buzzwords/binaryalphabet.html
>
> Interesting!


*LOL* Probably "quit looking at my tattoo you pathetic
squeege"!

The Queen of Cans and Jars schrieb:
> Jim Haynes <haynes@alumni.uark.edu> wrote:
>
>> I saw a guy the other day with a long string of 1s and 0s tattooed
>> around his arm - a long enough number that it made about 1-1/4 turns.
>> I didn't ask him what the number means, tho I suppose someone with
>> a tattoo like that is just asking for people to ask him what it
>> means.
>
> lots of people get tattoos for themselves and not only don't give a shit
> whether they get asked about them but would rather not explain them to
> you at all.


This has its own folder in my unanswerable shit file along
with women with huge tits wearing tight shirts and getting
angry when men look at them.

LC <LC@fakemail.com> wrote:

> The Queen of Cans and Jars schrieb:
> > Jim Haynes <haynes@alumni.uark.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> I saw a guy the other day with a long string of 1s and 0s tattooed
> >> around his arm - a long enough number that it made about 1-1/4 turns.
> >> I didn't ask him what the number means, tho I suppose someone with
> >> a tattoo like that is just asking for people to ask him what it
> >> means.
> >
> > lots of people get tattoos for themselves and not only don't give a shit
> > whether they get asked about them but would rather not explain them to
> > you at all.
>
>
> This has its own folder in my unanswerable shit file along
> with women with huge tits wearing tight shirts and getting
> angry when men look at them.

so ... you think everyone who has a tattoo is obligated to tell anyone
who asks what it is, why they got it, etc.? you think everyone who has
a tattoo is just waiting around for people to come up and ask them about
it? you think that's why people get tattoos?

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:56:40 +0200, LC <LC@fakemail.com>wrote:

>The Queen of Cans and Jars schrieb:
>
>> Jim Haynes <haynes@alumni.uark.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> I saw a guy the other day with a long string of 1s and 0s tattooed
>>> around his arm - a long enough number that it made about 1-1/4 turns.
>>> I didn't ask him what the number means, tho I suppose someone with
>>> a tattoo like that is just asking for people to ask him what it
>>> means.
>>
>> lots of people get tattoos for themselves and not only don't give a shit
>> whether they get asked about them but would rather not explain them to
>> you at all.
>
>This has its own folder in my unanswerable shit file along
>with women with huge tits wearing tight shirts and getting
>angry when men look at them.

Why? I could understand your inclusion if it was someone with a
visible tattoo getting shirty because people are looking at it, but I
don't equate that sort of silliness with a reluctance to discuss or
explain aspects of one's personal appearance to strangers, or even to
anyone for that matter.

I think that asking someone about their tattoo or bodypiercing is no
more appropriate than asking a person if their breasts are silicon,
why they have a comb-over, have black and rotten teeth, if they've had
a nose job, or any other comment about their choices in personal
appearance; it requires a very particular context to be anything other
than rude and intrusive.

nj"I like it"m





--
"See, here he comes stealing through the undergrowth, his face shining with the light of
pure intelligence. There are no limits to Jeeve's brain power. He virtually lives on fish."

The Queen of Cans and Jars schrieb:
> LC <LC@fakemail.com> wrote:
>
>> The Queen of Cans and Jars schrieb:
>>> Jim Haynes <haynes@alumni.uark.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I saw a guy the other day with a long string of 1s and 0s tattooed
>>>> around his arm - a long enough number that it made about 1-1/4 turns.
>>>> I didn't ask him what the number means, tho I suppose someone with
>>>> a tattoo like that is just asking for people to ask him what it
>>>> means.
>>> lots of people get tattoos for themselves and not only don't give a shit
>>> whether they get asked about them but would rather not explain them to
>>> you at all.
>>
>> This has its own folder in my unanswerable shit file along
>> with women with huge tits wearing tight shirts and getting
>> angry when men look at them.
>
> so ... you think everyone who has a tattoo is obligated to tell anyone
> who asks what it is, why they got it, etc.? you think everyone who has
> a tattoo is just waiting around for people to come up and ask them about
> it? you think that's why people get tattoos?


No.

N Jill Marsh schrieb:
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:56:40 +0200, LC <LC@fakemail.com>wrote:
>
>> The Queen of Cans and Jars schrieb:
>>
>>> Jim Haynes <haynes@alumni.uark.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I saw a guy the other day with a long string of 1s and 0s tattooed
>>>> around his arm - a long enough number that it made about 1-1/4 turns.
>>>> I didn't ask him what the number means, tho I suppose someone with
>>>> a tattoo like that is just asking for people to ask him what it
>>>> means.
>>> lots of people get tattoos for themselves and not only don't give a shit
>>> whether they get asked about them but would rather not explain them to
>>> you at all.
>> This has its own folder in my unanswerable shit file along
>> with women with huge tits wearing tight shirts and getting
>> angry when men look at them.
>
> Why? I could understand your inclusion if it was someone with a
> visible tattoo getting shirty because people are looking at it, but I
> don't equate that sort of silliness with a reluctance to discuss or
> explain aspects of one's personal appearance to strangers, or even to
> anyone for that matter.
>
> I think that asking someone about their tattoo or bodypiercing is no
> more appropriate than asking a person if their breasts are silicon,
> why they have a comb-over, have black and rotten teeth, if they've had
> a nose job, or any other comment about their choices in personal
> appearance; it requires a very particular context to be anything other
> than rude and intrusive.


I can't speculate on how you understood what I wrote or how
it applies to you personally. I can only say it confuses me
when people do things that seem meant to gain attention to
the unknowing bystander then get angry when attention is
given. I use the phrase "confuses me" literally, not in a
sarcastic way meant as a put-down. This is a real issue in
my life lately.

If you'll permit me an example. There is a lesbian couple I
know of who became parents. One of the couple was
artificially inseminated. She carried successfully and gave
birth to a beautiful baby not long ago. The baby attracts
constant attention from people who want to praise it when
they're out, and some will stop and make small talk. In
doing so they'll inevitably be asked which one of them is
the mother.

Now, at first it isn't obvious to anyone they're lesbians or
even a couple so I think this is an understandable question
and not meant to offend, but for some reason it does offend
them. They'll answer "both of us" and begin to feel upset.
They complain they've even been pressed to tell which one
carried the baby and this is an unforgivable encroachment on
their privacy.

For me their baby represents the same example as a tattoo.
I believe most people aren't asking questions because they
intend to insult but are merely curious or want to praise or
share or whatever. For the parents however, the baby
represents a deeply personal choice, something the person
asking couldn't possibly recognize as an emotional tripwire
and so bumbles into it innocently. See what I mean?

The question for me is how to get around this problem. I
see people have the right to mod their bodies as they
please, live as they please, do what they please as long as
their actions don't harm others and especially the right to
privacy. But is it right to be so intolerant of innocent
curiosity we jump on anyone who shows an interest in us?
And by innocent curiosity I mean people who ask without the
intent to insult, which is most people in my opinion. Just
lately I've been trying to define these boundaries for myself.

LC <LC@fakemail.com> wrote:

> The Queen of Cans and Jars schrieb:
> > LC <LC@fakemail.com> wrote:
> >> The Queen of Cans and Jars schrieb:
> >>> Jim Haynes <haynes@alumni.uark.edu> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I saw a guy the other day with a long string of 1s and 0s tattooed
> >>>> around his arm - a long enough number that it made about 1-1/4 turns.
> >>>> I didn't ask him what the number means, tho I suppose someone with
> >>>> a tattoo like that is just asking for people to ask him what it
> >>>> means.
> >>> lots of people get tattoos for themselves and not only don't give a shit
> >>> whether they get asked about them but would rather not explain them to
> >>> you at all.
> >>
> >> This has its own folder in my unanswerable shit file along
> >> with women with huge tits wearing tight shirts and getting
> >> angry when men look at them.
> >
> > so ... you think everyone who has a tattoo is obligated to tell anyone
> > who asks what it is, why they got it, etc.? you think everyone who has
> > a tattoo is just waiting around for people to come up and ask them about
> > it? you think that's why people get tattoos?
>
> No.

allrighty then!

LC <LC@fakemail.com> wrote:

> I can't speculate on how you understood what I wrote or how
> it applies to you personally. I can only say it confuses me
> when people do things that seem meant to gain attention to
> the unknowing bystander then get angry when attention is
> given. I use the phrase "confuses me" literally, not in a
> sarcastic way meant as a put-down. This is a real issue in
> my life lately.

i think the problem is that you think people are getting tattoos to gain
attention. i'm sure that's true of some people, but it most certainly
is not true of all of us. i didn't get tattoos for you, or for anyone
else. i got them for me. and as jill pointed out, just because they're
visible doesn't make them public property.

going back to the original post that started the conversation, i don't
care if people see my tattoos, but i absolutely am not hoping they'll
come up to me and ask me what they mean. one of them is quite personal
and not something i care to explain to anyone i'm not very close to, so
i have a standard line ready - it's not a lie, but it's also not the
true meaning behind the piece.

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 23:26:29 +0200, LC <LC@fakemail.com>wrote:

>N Jill Marsh schrieb:
>
>> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:56:40 +0200, LC <LC@fakemail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> The Queen of Cans and Jars schrieb:
>>>
>>>> lots of people get tattoos for themselves and not only don't give a shit
>>>> whether they get asked about them but would rather not explain them to
>>>> you at all.
>>>
>>> This has its own folder in my unanswerable shit file along
>>> with women with huge tits wearing tight shirts and getting
>>> angry when men look at them.
>>
>> Why? I could understand your inclusion if it was someone with a
>> visible tattoo getting shirty because people are looking at it, but I
>> don't equate that sort of silliness with a reluctance to discuss or
>> explain aspects of one's personal appearance to strangers, or even to
>> anyone for that matter.
>>
>> I think that asking someone about their tattoo or bodypiercing is no
>> more appropriate than asking a person if their breasts are silicon,
>> why they have a comb-over, have black and rotten teeth, if they've had
>> a nose job, or any other comment about their choices in personal
>> appearance; it requires a very particular context to be anything other
>> than rude and intrusive.
>
>I can't speculate on how you understood what I wrote or how
>it applies to you personally.

I understood what you wrote to mean you consider a person having a
visible tattoo to be offended when asked personal questions about it
to be in the same category of weird shit as a girl with huge tits
choosing to wear a tight shirt being offended when she gets guys
staring at her.

Those two things are not automatically the same to me, I wondered why
they appear to be the same to you. I took none of your comments
personally; I was adressing a general point of etiquette and my
opinions on that point.

> I can only say it confuses me
>when people do things that seem meant to gain attention to
>the unknowing bystander then get angry when attention is
>given.

I characterized such reactions as "silliness" in my previous post.
But do you automatically classify a person's choice to get a body mod
that is visible to be something meant to gain attention? Your
previous posts in this thread appear to be doing that.

>If you'll permit me an example. There is a lesbian couple I
>know of who became parents. One of the couple was
>artificially inseminated. She carried successfully and gave
>birth to a beautiful baby not long ago. The baby attracts
>constant attention from people who want to praise it when
>they're out, and some will stop and make small talk. In
>doing so they'll inevitably be asked which one of them is
>the mother.
>
>Now, at first it isn't obvious to anyone they're lesbians or
>even a couple so I think this is an understandable question
>and not meant to offend, but for some reason it does offend
>them. They'll answer "both of us" and begin to feel upset.

I think they are too sensitive about that, because most people are
going to assume that they are sisters or friends rather than a couple
so it's a question that any two females of child bearing age with one
kid between them are likely to get, but I can understand their
frustration with that assumption, as it's probably something they come
up against constantly, in other aspects of their lives as well, and
they'd really rather society was different than that. I suspect that
answers like "/we/ are her parents" or "she is /our/ child/" are
better than "both of us", as it makes it very obvious that they are a
couple and the child's parents, whereas "both of us" makes me think of
that kooky "I can't operate on him, he's my son!" sort of mind bender
story.

> They complain they've even been pressed to tell which one
>carried the baby and this is an unforgivable encroachment on
>their privacy.

And it is. That's extremely rude.

>For me their baby represents the same example as a tattoo.

It does to me as well, but I think it's a different example than it is
to you. I don't think either choice - to have a visible tattoo or to
appear in public as a same sex couple with a kid - should imply
anything other than the fact that the person has a tattoo or the
couple has a kid, the default assumption should not be that they
appear to be doing something to gain attention thus it's okay to quiz
them about that choice and that it's not okay for them to be offended
by that.


>I believe most people aren't asking questions because they
>intend to insult but are merely curious or want to praise or
>share or whatever. For the parents however, the baby
>represents a deeply personal choice, something the person
>asking couldn't possibly recognize as an emotional tripwire
>and so bumbles into it innocently. See what I mean?

Yes. However, the fact that the intrusion is not meant in a malicious
or insulting manner does not make it any less of an intrusion, though
if I was sure of the intent it could change the manner in which I
would respond.

I can't speak to anyone else's experience, but I'm of the opinion that
most people ask questions about my visible mods because they are
curious and that I am approachable enough for them to satisfy that
curiosity - I'm female, I'm older, I'm conventionally dressed, and I'm
working in an environment that involves a lot of questions and answers
and conversation - I'm probably one of the safest looking modded
people they have ever met, and many seize that opportunity.

Even the people that ask me about them who find them repellent, even
the people who explicitly tell me that they do, even the people who
continue on to ask me what body mods I have that aren't publicly
visible, even the people who use this as a springboard to tell me some
horror story about their uncle's jailhouse tattoo, I think that in
general they have no intent to offend, they are oblivious to how rude
they seem and many would be horrified if they realized it.

>The question for me is how to get around this problem. I
>see people have the right to mod their bodies as they
>please, live as they please, do what they please as long as
>their actions don't harm others and especially the right to
>privacy. But is it right to be so intolerant of innocent
>curiosity we jump on anyone who shows an interest in us?

I don't endorse such a response. I'm pretty much of the opinion that
in most cases, correcting adults' rudeness is generally rude in
itself, and that there are usually polite and respectful ways in which
one can respond to intrusive questions without necessarily positively
reinforcing their behaviour.

>And by innocent curiosity I mean people who ask without the
>intent to insult, which is most people in my opinion. Just
>lately I've been trying to define these boundaries for myself.

Personally I set the boundaries in such a manner that I consider my
choices in body mod to be no different than other personal choices.
If it's inappropriate for a stranger to ask me if I colour my hair,
it's inappropriate for them to ask me why I'm wearing so many
earrings. If the context is inappropriate for someone to ask me what
kind of underwear I have on, then it's inappropriate for them to ask
me what kind of non-visible mods I have.

I have no interest in offending innocently intrusive people. The
challenge is providing a response that isn't rude or confrontational
but that encourages no further intrusion, and, if they are
sufficiently socially adept to pick up on it, hints to them that they
have asked a question that they wouldn't have dreamed of asking if it
had been about a slightly different subject.

Of the two 'innocent' questions I am asked most often, the majority of
people won't pursue the topic after "I like them" and "yes, it hurt",
is said in a polite tone with a 'final' rather than a '...'
inflection. If they follow those up with a "why?", I say "because",
and "often things you want hurt, ask anyone who's delivered a baby".
If they insist on pursuing the conversation, I say "personal reasons".
I very seldom get anyone more insistent than that who has no sort of
negative intent.

Sometimes, depending as usual upon the context, I am quite a lot more
forthcoming, but I probably preface any extra information I offer with
a "well, it's very personal but...", which I think subtly points out
that their question is being answered in spite of.

nj"looking benign and saying nothing also works"m

--
"See, here he comes stealing through the undergrowth, his face shining with the light of
pure intelligence. There are no limits to Jeeve's brain power. He virtually lives on fish."

LC <LC@fakemail.com> wrote:
L> I can't speculate on how you understood what I wrote or how
L> it applies to you personally. I can only say it confuses me
L> when people do things that seem meant to gain attention to
L> the unknowing bystander then get angry when attention is

sometimes, the garnering of attention is an unwanted but
unavoidable side effect of doing something to yourself that makes you
happy. thing is, when you do something to yourself that can be
publically seen, even when it's truly just for you, you have to accept
that it's GOING to garner that attention. while it's not a requirement in
any way that you respond to the interested parties with the information
they seek, you DO need to have a polite way to respond that doesn't
further our own stereotype. "thank you, but i don't discuss the meanings
with strangers" works fine for me.

lish "how sad it is for other people
crank@got.net that they cannot appreciate our genius." -hc
43.9% / 30 RANA 125 / 68

The Queen of Cans and Jars schrieb:
> LC <LC@fakemail.com> wrote:
>
>> I can't speculate on how you understood what I wrote or how
>> it applies to you personally. I can only say it confuses me
>> when people do things that seem meant to gain attention to
>> the unknowing bystander then get angry when attention is
>> given. I use the phrase "confuses me" literally, not in a
>> sarcastic way meant as a put-down. This is a real issue in
>> my life lately.
>
> i think the problem is that you think people are getting tattoos to gain
> attention.


Not exactly. I think getting a tattoo or a piercing draws
attention and it shouldn't be a surprise if people pay
attention to it, nor should it make a person angry. I think
attention is something to be expected. Within certain limits.

My big-boobed woman example was a bad way of putting it, but
using that example since it's already out there... if a
woman with a large chest puts on a tight shirt she shouldn't
feel self-conscious if people notice her. She *should*
expect that looking is as far as it goes, though. No
staring, no touching, no stepping over the boundaries and
invading personal space.


> i'm sure that's true of some people, but it most certainly
> is not true of all of us. i didn't get tattoos for you, or for anyone
> else. i got them for me. and as jill pointed out, just because they're
> visible doesn't make them public property.


Another new situation for me. I didn't realize body mod's
had reasons or issues that went along with those reasons
until now. I knew when I had my nose done people would
notice and look, and they have.


> going back to the original post that started the conversation, i don't
> care if people see my tattoos, but i absolutely am not hoping they'll
> come up to me and ask me what they mean. one of them is quite personal
> and not something i care to explain to anyone i'm not very close to, so
> i have a standard line ready - it's not a lie, but it's also not the
> true meaning behind the piece.


Does the public ever ask you what it means? I didn't
realize tattoos had meanings until my participation in this
thread. That's how little thought I put into it. I guess
everyone has their reasons for any action. If I were to get
a tattoo I would get it because I liked the way it looked
and not particularly because I attached any significance to
it beyond that. I guess this is the reason I don't have any
tattoos.

Well, as a result of all this is I've looked (not stared) at
tattoos in the past and now if I catch myself noticing I'll
feel guilty over it. But there it is. And if I'm looking I
find it attractive. So what's the polite thing to do? You
can't help noticing but when you catch yourself looking
force yourself to turn away? Or is it okay to look just
don't open my mouth about it other to say "beautiful work"
or... ?

N Jill Marsh schrieb:
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 23:26:29 +0200, LC <LC@fakemail.com>wrote:
>
>> N Jill Marsh schrieb:
>>
>>> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 10:56:40 +0200, LC <LC@fakemail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Queen of Cans and Jars schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>> lots of people get tattoos for themselves and not only don't give a shit
>>>>> whether they get asked about them but would rather not explain them to
>>>>> you at all.
>>>> This has its own folder in my unanswerable shit file along
>>>> with women with huge tits wearing tight shirts and getting
>>>> angry when men look at them.
>>> Why? I could understand your inclusion if it was someone with a
>>> visible tattoo getting shirty because people are looking at it, but I
>>> don't equate that sort of silliness with a reluctance to discuss or
>>> explain aspects of one's personal appearance to strangers, or even to
>>> anyone for that matter.
>>>
>>> I think that asking someone about their tattoo or bodypiercing is no
>>> more appropriate than asking a person if their breasts are silicon,
>>> why they have a comb-over, have black and rotten teeth, if they've had
>>> a nose job, or any other comment about their choices in personal
>>> appearance; it requires a very particular context to be anything other
>>> than rude and intrusive.
>> I can't speculate on how you understood what I wrote or how
>> it applies to you personally.
>
> I understood what you wrote to mean you consider a person having a
> visible tattoo to be offended when asked personal questions about it
> to be in the same category of weird shit as a girl with huge tits
> choosing to wear a tight shirt being offended when she gets guys
> staring at her.
>
> Those two things are not automatically the same to me, I wondered why
> they appear to be the same to you. I took none of your comments
> personally; I was adressing a general point of etiquette and my
> opinions on that point.


Those two situations appear the same to me from the
attention perspective, literally. They're there (the
breasts and a visible tattoo), they're out of the ordinary,
other people will notice this. Nothing more.


>> I can only say it confuses me
>> when people do things that seem meant to gain attention to
>> the unknowing bystander then get angry when attention is
>> given.
>
> I characterized such reactions as "silliness" in my previous post.
> But do you automatically classify a person's choice to get a body mod
> that is visible to be something meant to gain attention? Your
> previous posts in this thread appear to be doing that.


I see. No, I meant the mod itself gains attention simply by
being there and visible. Didn't mean to say the person
getting it does it to get attention.


>> If you'll permit me an example. There is a lesbian couple I
>> know of who became parents. One of the couple was
>> artificially inseminated. She carried successfully and gave
>> birth to a beautiful baby not long ago. The baby attracts
>> constant attention from people who want to praise it when
>> they're out, and some will stop and make small talk. In
>> doing so they'll inevitably be asked which one of them is
>> the mother.
>>
>> Now, at first it isn't obvious to anyone they're lesbians or
>> even a couple so I think this is an understandable question
>> and not meant to offend, but for some reason it does offend
>> them. They'll answer "both of us" and begin to feel upset.
>
> I think they are too sensitive about that, because most people are
> going to assume that they are sisters or friends rather than a couple
> so it's a question that any two females of child bearing age with one
> kid between them are likely to get,


Exactly. It took me a while to realize they were a couple,
I suspect other people need time to work it out also.


> but I can understand their
> frustration with that assumption, as it's probably something they come
> up against constantly, in other aspects of their lives as well, and
> they'd really rather society was different than that.


I think you're right about that. Sensitivity about their
lifestyle and all the baggage that goes with enduring what
they've had to endure to be couple is influencing their
reaction to a degree. What makes me the most frustrated is
they ask "why do people do this? what can we do about it?
don't they realize this is offensive?", and when others try
to help, make comments, give suggestions, they react like
they're being attacked. Like the world should know they're
lesbians simply by looking at them and no one should ask
questions. And wouldn't that be a wonderful world where no
one assumed anything about anyone else, but we're obviously
not there yet.

Back to how this relates to mods, I think you can't assume
people know how sensitive you are to anything before they
know you. And I guess this also means the public shouldn't
ask personal questions before they know it's acceptable.

Work, work, work. I'll get to a decision about this for
myself sooner or later. Then I'll be prepared.

So far I'm down to: don't ask personal questions of anyone
you don't know - don't answer personal questions from anyone
you don't know.


> I suspect that
> answers like "/we/ are her parents" or "she is /our/ child/" are
> better than "both of us", as it makes it very obvious that they are a
> couple and the child's parents, whereas "both of us" makes me think of
> that kooky "I can't operate on him, he's my son!" sort of mind bender
> story.
>
>> They complain they've even been pressed to tell which one
>> carried the baby and this is an unforgivable encroachment on
>> their privacy.
>
> And it is. That's extremely rude.


You really think so? If I were out with my son and someone
asked if I were his biological mother I'd say "yes" and
think nothing of it. I can't imagine why that would be
offensive.


>> For me their baby represents the same example as a tattoo.
>
> It does to me as well, but I think it's a different example than it is
> to you. I don't think either choice - to have a visible tattoo or to
> appear in public as a same sex couple with a kid - should imply
> anything other than the fact that the person has a tattoo or the
> couple has a kid, the default assumption should not be that they
> appear to be doing something to gain attention thus it's okay to quiz
> them about that choice and that it's not okay for them to be offended
> by that.
>
>
>> I believe most people aren't asking questions because they
>> intend to insult but are merely curious or want to praise or
>> share or whatever. For the parents however, the baby
>> represents a deeply personal choice, something the person
>> asking couldn't possibly recognize as an emotional tripwire
>> and so bumbles into it innocently. See what I mean?
>
> Yes. However, the fact that the intrusion is not meant in a malicious
> or insulting manner does not make it any less of an intrusion, though
> if I was sure of the intent it could change the manner in which I
> would respond.
>
> I can't speak to anyone else's experience, but I'm of the opinion that
> most people ask questions about my visible mods because they are
> curious and that I am approachable enough for them to satisfy that
> curiosity - I'm female, I'm older, I'm conventionally dressed, and I'm
> working in an environment that involves a lot of questions and answers
> and conversation - I'm probably one of the safest looking modded
> people they have ever met, and many seize that opportunity.
>
> Even the people that ask me about them who find them repellent, even
> the people who explicitly tell me that they do, even the people who
> continue on to ask me what body mods I have that aren't publicly
> visible,


Now *that's* gone too far. All of that. Questions are one
thing but pushing negative opinion on another person is
wrong unless they asked for it specifically.


> even the people who use this as a springboard to tell me some
> horror story about their uncle's jailhouse tattoo, I think that in
> general they have no intent to offend, they are oblivious to how rude
> they seem and many would be horrified if they realized it.
>
>> The question for me is how to get around this problem. I
>> see people have the right to mod their bodies as they
>> please, live as they please, do what they please as long as
>> their actions don't harm others and especially the right to
>> privacy. But is it right to be so intolerant of innocent
>> curiosity we jump on anyone who shows an interest in us?
>
> I don't endorse such a response. I'm pretty much of the opinion that
> in most cases, correcting adults' rudeness is generally rude in
> itself, and that there are usually polite and respectful ways in which
> one can respond to intrusive questions without necessarily positively
> reinforcing their behaviour.
>
>> And by innocent curiosity I mean people who ask without the
>> intent to insult, which is most people in my opinion. Just
>> lately I've been trying to define these boundaries for myself.
>
> Personally I set the boundaries in such a manner that I consider my
> choices in body mod to be no different than other personal choices.
> If it's inappropriate for a stranger to ask me if I colour my hair,
> it's inappropriate for them to ask me why I'm wearing so many
> earrings. If the context is inappropriate for someone to ask me what
> kind of underwear I have on, then it's inappropriate for them to ask
> me what kind of non-visible mods I have.
>
> I have no interest in offending innocently intrusive people. The
> challenge is providing a response that isn't rude or confrontational
> but that encourages no further intrusion, and, if they are
> sufficiently socially adept to pick up on it, hints to them that they
> have asked a question that they wouldn't have dreamed of asking if it
> had been about a slightly different subject.


This all sounds wise to me.
I don't know why this should come up now but lately it's
been a real issue for me. I've even ordered a book on
manners and how to handle these situations gracefully and
I'm eager to hear what it advises.


> Of the two 'innocent' questions I am asked most often, the majority of
> people won't pursue the topic after "I like them"


As in you saying you like them? Or them saying they like
them? Because I can't imagine someone going up to another
person and saying something like "look there, that big
butterfly on your arm - do you like that?" I mean, where
does it go from there? "No, not at all, but I was tied up
and it was forced on me".


> and "yes, it hurt",


:)


> is said in a polite tone with a 'final' rather than a '...'
> inflection.


Aha. Yes. Tone is important.


> If they follow those up with a "why?", I say "because",
> and "often things you want hurt, ask anyone who's delivered a baby".
> If they insist on pursuing the conversation, I say "personal reasons".
> I very seldom get anyone more insistent than that who has no sort of
> negative intent.
>
> Sometimes, depending as usual upon the context, I am quite a lot more
> forthcoming, but I probably preface any extra information I offer with
> a "well, it's very personal but...", which I think subtly points out
> that their question is being answered in spite of.
>
> nj"looking benign and saying nothing also works"m


Works especially well when the native language is not your
mother tongue.