Bridal Shower: sex toy sales shower

[C0mputerGeek]

I think using the phrase "that type of person", in this particular context, can have offensive connotations. I don't know if the OP meant it that way, but I can definitely understand why it is offensive.

I think that people are reading too much into the word, "type." I am not the type of person to enjoy camping. I am the type of person to enjoy massages. I am not the type of person to go skiing. I am the type of person that enjoys swimming.

While I consider the phrase grammatically clumsy, I don't see the offensiveness. It merely points out that certain groups of people enjoy some activities...and others don't.

[Jander]

I think using the phrase "that type of person", in this particular context, can have offensive connotations. I don't know if the OP meant it that way, but I can definitely understand why it is offensive.

I think that people are reading too much into the word, "type." I am not the type of person to enjoy camping. I am the type of person to enjoy massages. I am not the type of person to go skiing. I am the type of person that enjoys swimming.

While I consider the phrase grammatically clumsy, I don't see the offensiveness. It merely points out that certain groups of people enjoy some activities...and others don't.

But would it bother you if someone might have the tiniest hint that you were possibly the type of person to enjoy skiing? That is what people are objecting to. The suggestion that there is something wrong with being that "type" of person.

[C0mputerGeek]

I think that people are reading too much into the word, "type." I am not the type of person to enjoy camping. I am the type of person to enjoy massages. I am not the type of person to go skiing. I am the type of person that enjoys swimming.

While I consider the phrase grammatically clumsy, I don't see the offensiveness. It merely points out that certain groups of people enjoy some activities...and others don't.

But would it bother you if someone might have the tiniest hint that you were possibly the type of person to enjoy skiing? That is what people are objecting to. The suggestion that there is something wrong with being that "type" of person.

No, because my enjoyment of an activity does not mean that everyone around it has to enjoy it too.

I l love to travel. I used to work with someone that had never been out of his state. I was the type of person to travel. He was the type of person to not. Neither one of us were bothered by that. Why should we be?

[Paper Roses]

The difference, though, is that you said, "I am the type to travel." 

As opposed to, "Ewwwwwww!  I wouldn't want anyone to have the teensiest hint that I would be the type to not enjoy travel!"

It's not just the usage of the word, but the delivery.

[VorFemme]

Someone else (here?) mentioned the Kushiel's Dart, etc. series (liked that one, too) - at least it seemed that there was a cultural reason behind the way that their race/nationality approached Life, Love, and the pursuit of a partner (to use what seemed to be their measure for happiness). 

There was no constant repetition of the words throbbing, pulsing, stroking, or other "way past using my imagination" descriptions with Laurell K. Hamilton's over written prose.  Really, we get it - EVERY time any of "her" guys touches her, it is the best ever and it is magikal (well, in the Merry Gentry series, it is magikal - in the Anita Blake series it is something else........at least her vampires don't glitter   unless they are made up to dance that night.........)  

Sheesh - at least I had a wide range of GOOD choices on the ebook reader (Bujold, Norton, Clarke, Asimov, Cherryh, Pournelle, Robinson, and a few more - might as well have a choice of genres as well as writers).  

[C0mputerGeek]

The difference, though, is that you said, "I am the type to travel." 

As opposed to, "Ewwwwwww!  I wouldn't want anyone to have the teensiest hint that I would be the type to not enjoy travel!"

It's not just the usage of the word, but the delivery.

I assumed the, "Ewwwwwww!" referred to the notion of being at a sex party with one's coworkers. There's no, "Ewwwwwww!" in travel but there is an, "Ewwwwwww!" in having people with whom I share a professional relationship know my sexual kinks - and me knowing theirs.

I also would not want my coworkers to know whether I am the type to use sexual toys or not use them. It's not what I want them to think of me when I am presenting documents for review. I want them thinking of C0mputerGeek, the awesome intelligent woman with the well-thought ideas (that likes to travel).

I don't want them thinking of C0mputerGeek, the complete freak who likes to swing from the chandelier.

[marcel]

The difference, though, is that you said, "I am the type to travel." 

As opposed to, "Ewwwwwww!  I wouldn't want anyone to have the teensiest hint that I would be the type to not enjoy travel!"

It's not just the usage of the word, but the delivery.

I assumed the, "Ewwwwwww!" referred to the notion of being at a sex party with one's coworkers. There's no, "Ewwwwwww!" in travel but there is an, "Ewwwwwww!" in having people with whom I share a professional rel@tionship know my sexual kinks - and me knowing theirs.

I also would not want my coworkers to know whether I am the type to use sexual toys or not use them. It's not what I want them to think of me when I am presenting documents for review. I want them thinking of C0mputerGeek, the awesome intelligent woman with the well-thought ideas (that likes to travel).

I don't want them thinking of C0mputerGeek, the complete freak who likes to swing from the chandelier.

The ewwwwwww is not relevant, because even without the ewwwwww the sentence "I wouldn't want anyone to have the teensiest hint that I would be the type to not enjoy travel!" gives a negative connotation to thge type.

In the OP, formulating it as: "I wouldn't want them to even have a teensy hint that I own and use them." would have been completely different from what it actually said. This way she would not have said that there is a type of person with a negative connotation.

[TurtleDove]

Really? I've seen a number of comments from Ehelldame which, if posted by someone else, would be considered deliberately offensive. I have also noticed a judgmental attitude from her that other posters have been reprimanded for.
This is her forum and she can behave as she wishes, but some members seem to believe that she is a perfect model of politeness, which is not true for anyone.

POD. Thank you. One of the most important things I have learnt from this site is that nobody should be 'above' following the rules of etiquette as far as they are capable. Refusing to hold Ehelldame to this rule is silly and perhaps even a bit patronising, although I would not want to speak for her opinion.

Absolutely.  I have pointed this out before and have been disappointed that valid concerns or questions from posters are left unanswered and threads are locked when behavior is questioned, without an explanation for why some posters can get away with offensive posts but others cannot.

[rashea]

I don't want them thinking of C0mputerGeek, the complete freak who likes to swing from the chandelier.

And I think this makes the point. There is a moral judgement that comes with buying accessories that seems to imply that if you buy them, then you are "the complete freak who likes to swing from the chandelier." Okay, so that's probably a bit far if you're buying a "massager" but it is the way this judgement works. And that's why saying "I don't want people to think I'm the type to run a marathon is different." Though, I agree with PPs that the EWWWW isn't helping matters.

[VorFemme]

I'd go with "I don't want them remembering what I ordered at the party and wondering how/when I use THAT"!

As an example - a peacock feather fan might be to take apart for a Renaissance Faire costume,  a gift to a relative who collects & displays peacock themed items, or to use as a backdrop for a Barbie dressed as the goddess Hera, (Zeus' wife) who had as her symbol the peacock.  

Other items might be less likely to have other applications than the ones you would think of for where they were being sold (battery operated toys come to mind) - but I still don't like the idea of anyone thinking about me and that item at the same time.  There are people that I work with that the idea of them knowing my private bedroom proclivities is disturbing. 

I don't like the idea of starring in a mental pron movie of their fantasies because the item I picked up for a gag gift intrigues them.  I really don't like the idea of them offering to help me use anything that might be purchased at the party.  Seriously - most people that I have ever worked with I didn't think of what they did away from work - if they got pregnant, that was none of my business.  If they went to see the doctor, that was none of my business.  So forth and so on...........I don't want to think about what they do and I really don't want them speculating about what I do when we are not at work.

[C0mputerGeek]

The ewwwwwww is not relevant, because even without the ewwwwww the sentence "I wouldn't want anyone to have the teensiest hint that I would be the type to not enjoy travel!" gives a negative connotation to thge type.

In the OP, formulating it as: "I wouldn't want them to even have a teensy hint that I own and use them." would have been completely different from what it actually said. This way she would not have said that there is a type of person with a negative connotation.

This is where we differ. I see no judgement, just an expression of a personal preference that has no bearing on me or what I choose to do.

And I think this makes the point. There is a moral judgement that comes with buying accessories that seems to imply that if you buy them, then you are "the complete freak who likes to swing from the chandelier." Okay, so that's probably a bit far if you're buying a "massager" but it is the way this judgement works. And that's why saying "I don't want people to think I'm the type to run a marathon is different." Though, I agree with PPs that the EWWWW isn't helping matters.

This is where we differ. The sentence focuses on not wanting one's coworkers to know whether one uses sexual toys. This is a personal judgement and has no bearing on what others may choose.

[kingsrings]

ITA w/VorFemme, and computer geek as well. I don’t want to know anything about anyone else’s intimate life, nor do I want to divulge about mine. When someone starts telling me, I will politely tell them to cease as it’s an inappropriate subject matter IMHO. 

[rashea]

ITA w/VorFemme, and computer geek as well. I don’t want to know anything about anyone else’s intimate life, nor do I want to divulge about mine. When someone starts telling me, I will politely tell them to cease as it’s an inappropriate subject matter IMHO. 

Absolutely no one is saying there is anything wrong with that. The issue is with the statement that you wouldn't want someone to have the tiniest clue that you were the "type" of person who would even have accessories. Which implies (though possibly accidentally) that there is something wrong with being that "type" of person.

[gollymolly2]

Absolutely no one is saying there is anything wrong with that. The issue is with the statement that you wouldn't want someone to have the tiniest clue that you were the "type" of person who would even have accessories. Which implies (though possibly accidentally) that there is something wrong with being that "type" of person.

I'm not that invested in this discussion one way or another, but I think the issue here is getting confused. The issue is not that some people want others to know about their sex lives and some people don't, or anything like that. The issue is that there are two different statements that could be made:

1) I don't want my coworkers to know if I use sex toys or, if so, which ones I use.
or,
2) There's a "type" of person who uses sex toys and I don't want to be associated with them.

The use of the word "type" in the sentence in question makes this much more like the second one than the first. And the two statements communicate two very different things. The first is just a privacy preference. The second is a judgment of people who use sex toys.

I'm guessing it was just a poor choice of words, but I think Rashea's reaction is valid.

[TurtleDove]

Absolutely no one is saying there is anything wrong with that. The issue is with the statement that you wouldn't want someone to have the tiniest clue that you were the "type" of person who would even have accessories. Which implies (though possibly accidentally) that there is something wrong with being that "type" of person.

I'm not that invested in this discussion one way or another, but I think the issue here is getting confused. The issue is not that some people want others to know about their sex lives and some people don't, or anything like that. The issue is that there are two different statements that could be made:

1) I don't want my coworkers to know if I use sex toys or, if so, which ones I use.
or,
2) There's a "type" of person who uses sex toys and I don't want to be associated with them.

The use of the word "type" in the sentence in question makes this much more like the second one than the first. And the two statements communicate two very different things. The first is just a privacy preference. The second is a judgment of people who use sex toys.

I'm guessing it was just a poor choice of words, but I think Rashea's reaction is valid.

Well stated.