As the father of an 18 year old who can't hear himself swearing, it's getting very tiring. Having him playing online games with his mates consists of hearing at volume "You F****** C***, you C$$$$$$$ C****" all evening. God knows what the neighbours think.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@holidayloverxx,
Quote:
reference to a female part seems a violation to me, reference to a men's parts doesn't...can't explain it though
I hazard a wild guess that it's because you're a woman and not a man?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
@Hurtle, possibly. I recall calling my mam a Tw@t . After she had given me a good hiding I managed to say it meant twit. She put me right ...and it stayed with me
Should be fine. I met many people with young children in the back of a campervan sleeping in open air in places such as Val d'Isere (which is almost as high as Val Thorens), although probably older than the ages you are taking.
You would probably want to book the car park in advance so that you ensure a place. If there are electric chargers in the car park, you are sorted. They usually have a toilet nearby too in the car park.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Why is the naming of the "female part" worse than "cock"? Women, especially, shouldn't feel this, should be ready to own it, wear it with pride! It's not dirty and shameful. There is endless learned feminist analysis focussed on this topic - anyone interested to read some, in the context of literature, should google "representations of the vulva in D H Lawrence".
After all it is free
After all it is free
Oddly enough I don't feel drawn to reading feminist literature about the representation of the vulva. Perhaps I should try harder. Or not.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
holidayloverxx wrote:
@Hurtle, no
Edit...reference to a female part seems a violation to me, reference to a men's parts doesn't...can't explain it though
Maybe there's a bit of 'women are weaker and need to be protected and men are strong and should suck it up' away in the subconscious there somewhere that explains why culturally we have more of an aversion to *unt than *ock, maybe why dick jokes are considered silly and vag jokes a bit more taboo
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Isn't it in part because male genitalia are intrinsically more comic?
Plus some old fashioned nonsense about chivalry and fairer sex 'n all that. I'm currently trying to adopt "flute" more regularly into my vocabulary.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
That's a kind theory, @DaveyGTi, but I suspect it's wrong. Far from women being weaker, and in need of protection, in the western Church, following on from the monstrous Leviticus, women's bodies and their functions have been considered shameful and "impure". Not to mention the prime focus of temptation and sin for men. The ceremony of the "churching of women", still in the Book of Common Prayer, wasn't so much giving thanks for a safe confinement as "purifying" them after all that nasty stuff involving private parts. Although, like @Hurtle, I have no wish to read a Ph D on representations of the vulva, those feminists have a point.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
Hurtle wrote:
Oddly enough I don't feel drawn to reading feminist literature about the representation of the vulva. Perhaps I should try harder. Or not.
Me neither
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Although I suspect the Church has much to do with it, I've often wondered through sheer logic alone as to why the Middle English Germanic for a woman's genitalia should be the most offensive word in the English language.
You could quite easily argue that a woman's reproductive organs have been the greatest natural source of pleasure for the vast majority of humans (both sexes) for the vast majority of time and the source of all life. People like pleasure, the human race needs life.
So how is being referred to as a source of pleasure and life an "insult"?
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
@Je suis un Skieur, context is everything
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Quote:
You could quite easily argue that a woman's reproductive organs have been the greatest natural source of pleasure for the vast majority of humans (both sexes) for the vast majority of time and the source of all life
Well yes indeed and that's why we should glory in that word but........ the Church (and the ghastly Leviticus) tells us the opposite story, as did the trial of Lady Chatterley's lover. It was that word. Feminist and liberation theologists have debated the matter, as do the feminist literary semiotics which people don't want to read. . I do think that it's supremely interesting (and depressing) that the Church of England, now accommodating (if not happily) priests who would deny the divinity of Christ and the resurrection of the body, along with the virgin birth, is now tearing itself apart over left-over Leviticusisms about homosexuality. We are truly fucked up about sex
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
@phil_w,
Quote:
Isn't it something about slightly breaking some social boundaries for effect
This too
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Yes, it certainly is, and in my view the way to deal with that is to question the utility of social boundaries which only serve the purpose of the fictional notice board reading "It is forbidden to throw stones at this notice".
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
@Origen, I don't think your analogy is correct: social boundaries are surely meant, in most cases, to be consensually respected rather than simply dismissed for lack of effective sanction.
Sorry, if you think I'm arguing that they be dismissed for lack of effective sanction, I've not explained myself clearly. They are dismissed "consensually" when many people (doesn't have to be all) no longer sees any point in them. That's what happened with the church hat rules. Gradually. The Parochial Church Council didn't meet one day with "hats" on the agenda and decide to change the "rules". Gradually more women came without hats, because they didn't generally wear hats in the rest of their lives. The social boundaries about "dirty words" have been changing. A book with the "c" word wouldn't be prosecuted today. And there is masses of bad language on the telly, which at one point would not have been tolerated. "Sanctions" don't really come into it. The "sanction" was that "nice people wouldn't approve". Which kept many people in check but also provided an opportunity for those who simply wanted to shock, and upset people, to do so. Still no sanction - rather the reverse - the rush of knowing you were going against the flow. At one point no "respectable woman" would have gone out without a hat. And "nylons". Now you can wear a hat, or not, as you like. And go out with bare legs under your dress, skirt or shorts. Which personally, I think is progress. Some conventions are honoured more in the breach than in the observance (in the correct sense of that useful but oft-abused saying).
@Origen, I don't particularly disagree with any of that, but it really doesn't deal with repeated and pointless bad language which I personally find rather rude and unattractive, whilst you clearly don't. But one thing we're agreed on is that it's no huge deal either way. Anyways, the tennis is a lot more interesting than Leviticus at the moment. A la prochaine.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Quote:
repeated and pointless bad language which I personally find rather rude and unattractive, whilst you clearly don't.
Eh? I thought I'd said quite clearly that I did, but that I found it an aesthetic, rather than moral, issue. I don't like people who say "like" all the time either or start every other sentence with "so".
After all it is free
After all it is free
@Origen, and I can't recall saying it was a moral issue.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
Isn't it in part because male genitalia are intrinsically more comic?
Yours may be
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
@SnoodyMcFlude,
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Origen wrote:
[social boundaries] are dismissed "consensually" when many people (doesn't have to be all) no longer sees any point in them....
I think it depends which boundaries, and why they are there.
It may have changed, but when I worked in the factory the C word is either a term of abuse used by a male about a male, or it's a term of endearment when used in banter. The meaning isn't in the word it's in the context and tone with which it's used. You'd not use that term to refer to a woman at all, in her presence or otherwise. Hence despite the meaning of the word, it's used to mean some very different things.
It's never the word you'd use for a vulva. I think that the "born and bred to it" response of a male accused of being one is a joke which works because it points out the difference between the meanings of the word.
When I was a young person I'd often get into trouble because I would forget to code switch like traditional workers were supposed to around women. I just didn't see them as logically different in kind, and no one actually explained the rule to me until it was too late. I mean: I could have started conforming, but I didn't particularly think that the rule was reasonable or polite.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
Lot of pottymouths on this thread.
Dragging down the tone of this esteemed forum.
The C-word was an everyday term in the UK between the 1200s and 1600s. Not a profanity. England named streets with it.
It evolved into a swearword from the 1600s to 2000s. Mostly due to religious hysteria.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Whitegold wrote:
England named streets with it.
Indeed. My home city is one of those that formally had a Gropec**t Lane.
I like the irony that it is now directly beneath a FE College building. Seems rather apt for a bunch of horny students.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
I hate to say this, but if you can afford a Tesla, surely you can afford to get a cheap studio apartment for the week? Sounds like it will be a miserable experience for all involved otherwise!
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
phil_w wrote:
Origen wrote:
[social boundaries] are dismissed "consensually" when many people (doesn't have to be all) no longer sees any point in them....
I think it depends which boundaries, and why they are there.
If Typhoo put the T in Britain, who put the C*** in Scunthorpe....?
Anyone who has ever taken 3 and 5 year old on a ski trip (even in the poshest accommodation possible) will tell you that this a ridiculous idea to even contemplate.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
afterski wrote:
If Typhoo put the T in Britain, who put the C*** in Scunthorpe....?
Anyone who has ever taken 3 and 5 year old on a ski trip (even in the poshest accommodation possible) will tell you that this a ridiculous idea to even contemplate.
This.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Meanwhile.... Certainly you can enjoy helping them find their ski feet, but for their first few days use a smaller resort, stay down the valley and get a cheap room:
I can recommend the "Happy Lift" at Semmering, Austria https://www.bergfex.com/semmering-happylift/
Also Puchberg: https://www.bergfex.com/puchberg-schneeberg/ Must be similar places in France.
Teaching the kids IS doable, notwithstanding what's written here - and very rewarding if you are the patient type - I did it, local families do it, but most likely they are in the back garden or at a small drag lift of the local ski club - certainly they are not driving up to a Mega Resort for toddler's first day on skis.
@afterski, I reckon my parents would've been able to do it...just not dad on his own. With mum about you never spent too long moaning
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
taking kids for skiing for first time, and sleeping in a car will probably be a disaster
It is a good idea if the kids are 14-15 and the are passionate skiers etc.
With kids at this age, you have to think it as holidays with a little bit of skiing, and not as skiing with a little bit of eat and sleep.
Otherwise probably, the kids will hate skiing holidays.
However you know your kides better than anyone here...so....
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
turms2 wrote:
It is a good idea if the kids are 14-15 and the are passionate skiers etc.
No it's not!
After all it is free
After all it is free
DJL wrote:
turms2 wrote:
It is a good idea if the kids are 14-15 and the are passionate skiers etc.
No it's not!
honestly...no idea...probably is the best idea for some 20y old boys who who to leave the Van-Life in La Grave
but not for 3-5 Kids...and as you said not for 15 y old also (probably you know better than me
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
SnoodyMcFlude wrote:
@afterski, I reckon my parents would've been able to do it...just not dad on his own. With mum about you never spent too long moaning
But they can't ski
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
@crazy_dad, I'm not sure this is as daft as others think, the Tesla can definitely cope, and if you did it over the Easter holidays the temps and amount of daylight would be (theoretically) better.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
