Acronym junction, what's your function?

[Lemur]

It reduces a person into an object intended for another's gratification.

Here we wander into the whole "objectification" realm of rhetoric, which I have always found to be a misleading cul-de-sac of thought. People do objectify one another, pretty much on an hourly basis. Or did you look at your garbage collector this morning and think to yourself, "There's a three-dimensional human being with his own needs and thoughts, and I'm not going to move from this spot until I gain a greater understanding of him"? Pshaw. Objectification is neither negative nor positive. It just is. If we tried to grok every human being we saw or heard during the day we'd be unable to get anything done, hence the brain's reflexive protective maneuver; treat some people like objects. They are outside the monkeysphere. Attempting to police our language to prevent objectification strikes me as exactly as productive as calling money "coconuts" to prevent greed.

The f-word has nothing but negative tones in a sexual context

"Subjective" doesn't begin to do this assertion justice. If the f-bomb had nothing but negative connotations, surely we would not have needed to coin the word "rape."

[Beskar]

"Subjective" doesn't begin to do this assertion justice. If the f-bomb had nothing but negative connotations, surely we would not have needed to coin the word "rape."

Doesn't really work, since they are different but related things. Even then, if it was the same thing, there are like 10 very negative terms for the female body part in one episode of inbetweeners.

[frogbeastegg]

Or did you look at your garbage collector this morning and think to yourself, "There's a three-dimensional human being with his own needs and thoughts, and I'm not going to move from this spot until I gain a greater understanding of him"?

No. I saw a human. Nothing more, nothing less. Same as I see when I look at anyone. And yes, I try to gain understanding of people, good and bad.

I'm not going to respond to the objectification thing. Suffice it to say I disagree completely, entirely, and fully. Also, the important part is the last part: intended for another's gratification.

"Subjective" doesn't begin to do this assertion justice. If the f-bomb had nothing but negative connotations, surely we would not have needed to coin the word "rape."

Two entirely different words for two entirely different things, both of them bad but one many times worse than the other.

[Lemur]

Two entirely different words for two entirely different things, both of them bad but one many times worse than the other.

I would question the basis of the assertion that the f-word is uniformly negative. (Crude, yes, but that's not the same thing as bad.) Your earlier breakdown of f-word v. sex v. love-making seems subjective, aesthetic and personal in nature. Such definitions have real power to an individual, but they aren't a basis for etymological understanding or usage in general. Really, that's my main point of disagreement.

[frogbeastegg]

I would question the basis of the assertion that the f-word is uniformly negative. (Crude, yes, but that's not the same thing as bad.) Your earlier breakdown of f-word v. sex v. love-making seems subjective, aesthetic and personal in nature. Such definitions have real power to an individual, but they aren't a basis for etymological understanding or usage in general. Really, that's my main point of disagreement.

That's how the words and labels apply where I live. It's not personal. Someone wrote WTF as part of a memo intended only for their viewing at the office I work in. Someone else noticed. There was uproar. Not a single person thought it acceptable, funny or harmless. This in an office of 70+ people who do swear and make crude or lewd remarks.

It's not the crudity that's the problem. Much like a certain word used to describe black people, it's not the crudity that causes the outrage, it's the baggage and connotations which go with it. That particular word is viewed lightly in some areas and very gravely in others. For crudity I can think of several words for sex that are worse, none of which carry the same baggage and so are overall more acceptable.

The org's a global site. What's acceptable in one country isn't always in another. We have to strike the best balance. That's why I chimed in; I don't know how many others live in areas where it has the same meaning as mine. However many there are they deserve to be represented as much as those who live in areas which have it as no more than a crude word.