It's a shame a derail can get a good post on cervixen deleted. June 4, 2008 1:20 PM   Subscribe

It's a shame a derail can get a good post on cervixen deleted.

It seems two or three people stated they found the link NSFW. Other than saying something is NSFW when I didn't think (and don't think...) it's NSFW, I don't know how I could have stopped the derail. The Mefi FAQ doesn't spell out the SFW/NSFW guidelines so I made a judgement call like anyone does when they make a post. Sorry if you don't agree with me. Can we repost it with a, "...Borderline NSFW?"
posted by pwb503 to Etiquette/Policy at 1:20 PM (118 comments total)

I take offense to being called a troll. This was a serious post. If I didn't think it was SFW I would have said it was. I put SFW in italics as that was the only part of the post that was my own writing, not taken from the page.
posted by pwb503 at 1:23 PM on June 4, 2008


Just post it again tomorrow with a "warning: medical closeups of insides of vagina" in small print and it will be ok.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:26 PM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


The NSFW or SFW thing aside people were kinda lady-parts-a-phobic in that thread.
posted by tkchrist at 1:28 PM on June 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


It's not that you didn't add NSFW, it's that you specifically said the post was SFW and it was, by many accounts, not. Then people debated that. Then you were sort of churlish about it. If you were really concerned an email to us might have been a decent idea. If you didn't have any indicators and the post just said "here there be photos of cervixen" we would not have this problem. Cervixen is not a word. Repost it tomorrow if you want.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:28 PM on June 4, 2008 [3 favorites]


yeah, give it a shot. In fact, I was set to hate the shit out of what I was sure would be a ridiculous narcissistic blog but was immediately impressed by the quality of work that went into the images and graphs.

Maybe if it had more Steampunk?

Anyway, give it a go. But yeah, people seem to be able to handle a massively manually distended asshole but not a speculum enhanced view of a cervix unless warned six ways from Sunday.
posted by docpops at 1:29 PM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


It's a serious post that didn't stand a shot at staying up after you made a bad call on it's SFW nature, game over insert another quarter for additional lives and try this level again.
posted by iamabot at 1:31 PM on June 4, 2008


Oh. Wow. There's something you don't see everyday. Kinda interesting in that 'oh-neat-anatomy!' way, and then "yawn, what else you got, internets?".

But yeah, that's so not SFW.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:34 PM on June 4, 2008


pwb503 was technically correct : NSFW means pornographic or violently gory, but these didn't show an exterior organs, and SFW is a reasonable way to communicate that fact. Early posters clearly read said comment as intended, ala "i don't think I'll click this one", etc. NSFW is would just be an enticing lie making it a deceptive shock post, i.e. humorously luring in guys looking for external organs. Well, you'd need to be fairly stupid to not grok the site from the text posted.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:35 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Photographs of reproductive organs are not safe for work. It's precisely what "NSFW" was invented for, actually.
posted by Sys Rq at 1:38 PM on June 4, 2008


Well, you'd need to be fairly stupid to not grok the site from the text posted.

Sure. Except for the explicit disclaimer that then followed said text.
The problem is that it's not cool to make value judgments on people based on what is or isn't kosher for their workplace. I might be the freakiest freak in Freakland -- and I can still work for Button-Up Conservative Corporation Inc., and they might not appreciate me looking at photos of vaginal cavities on their machines.

So if someone says, "whoa, hey, not exactly work-safe there," and the response is anything like, "If you think that's NSFW, therefore you are immature/uneducated/teh ghey/mouthbreather", then what's going on is a fundamental lack of respect for other users.
posted by pineapple at 1:39 PM on June 4, 2008 [8 favorites]


pwb503 was technically correct : NSFW means pornographic or violently gory

I don't want to be too pedantic, but "technically" NSFW means Not Safe For Work. Many things can fit that description, and pictures of cervixes certainly might. (Not for me, I work at an STD clinic, but, for many other workplaces.)

I pretty much think you messed up your own FPP, pwb503, so I don't have much sympathy for your plight.
posted by OmieWise at 1:40 PM on June 4, 2008 [4 favorites]


I'd define NSFW as whether or not a coworker looking into your cube as they walk by says "What in THE FUCK ARE YOU LOOKING AT?!" and I'd say in the case of saying upfront that all links are safe for work, I would beg to differ as I'm sure (lady parts or not) someone walking by would wonder what on earth you were looking at.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:41 PM on June 4, 2008 [7 favorites]


Cerdasher,
Cerdancer,
Cerprancer,
Cervixen,
Cercomet,
Cercupid,
Cerdonner,
Cerblitzen!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

So, as long as I'm here: pwb503, are you the boyfriend?
posted by pineapple at 1:43 PM on June 4, 2008 [5 favorites]


I agree with pineapple.

If a movie is called Evil Death Zombie Apocalypse, I'm going to assume it has zombies in it.

Oh, unless it's followed with the tagline - NO ZOMBIES INVOLVED.

In which case, yeah. If you had left out the SFW tag, I think everything would have been cool.
posted by kbanas at 1:44 PM on June 4, 2008


I'm with mathowie on this one. Whether something is safe for work is not whether it is strictly pornographic or gory or violent or lots of curse words.

It's whether you would not fear loading up the page with your boss looking over your shoulder (assuming web browsing is ok at work in the first place).
posted by chimaera at 1:46 PM on June 4, 2008


Cerdavidattenborough
posted by katillathehun at 1:46 PM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


To those 'faked out' by SFW: ok, so tell us what you thought that it would be. The text describes a picture of a cervix, and then says SFW. How are people parsing this? Cervix like artwork in store?

The person on the other end of the tubes has no idea what's safe at your workplace, and their judgment is advisory at best. Is this page NSFW? What about this post? This is way more gross and beyond the description carries no explicit NSFW.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 1:53 PM on June 4, 2008


Cerevixens from Outerspace!
posted by Burhanistan at 1:53 PM on June 4, 2008


I re-used a plastic speculum (order one here) and macro function of normal digital camera (and a very talented boyfriend with a headlamp).

Awesome.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:56 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


ok, so tell us what you thought that it would be.

I thought it was written diary, particularly since it said "All Links SFW". If it had explicitly said that it was a photo diary, that would have been a clearer explanation.

The person on the other end of the tubes has no idea what's safe at your workplace, and their judgment is advisory at best.

Then they should default to NSFW.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:59 PM on June 4, 2008


A SFW posts about cervixes would probably just be text maybe with links to photos, was what I was thinking. The to posts you linked to, meatrobot, are very explicit about what is behind their links.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:03 PM on June 4, 2008


Cerloin of beef.
posted by Dizzy at 2:03 PM on June 4, 2008


It does take naval gazing to a new high (or low depending on your perspective) though doesn't it?
posted by Pollomacho at 2:04 PM on June 4, 2008


I wasn't at work, I just thought it was retarded to say that all the pics were SFW, because they aren't. SFW means "if I have a standard, modern-civilization office job, where risque topics are not discussed, and my boss was staring at my monitor, he or she would not go 'what in the fuck are you looking at?'"

I am sure you could go through some legalistic hand-wringing for a while to try and convince the entire internet otherwise, but it won't help: you will still be wrong.
posted by Super Hans at 2:05 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


To those 'faked out' by SFW: ok, so tell us what you thought that it would be. The text describes a picture of a cervix, and then says SFW. How are people parsing this? Cervix like artwork in store?

off the top of my head how about NO PICS?

also, it doesn't read like a description of a picture. it reads like a quote from a blog describing something for which there would not be a picture on a SFW link.
posted by shmegegge at 2:08 PM on June 4, 2008


a robot made out of meat writes "What about this post? This is way more gross and beyond the description carries no explicit NSFW."

Neither of those posts said they were SFW, people could use their own judgement from the description (yet another reason to hate on mystery meat). The post in question claimed SFW status overriding the apparent NSFWness of the description. Now maybe pwb503 is completly clueless the site would be NSFW. Fine. All they have to do is repost it tomorrow leaving off the misleading classification.

Stuff gets deleted all the time from the front page for operation foot-bullet behaviour by the poster. At least this one is an easy fix (simple repost) rather than something requiring a complete reworking.
posted by Mitheral at 2:08 PM on June 4, 2008


Naval gazing
posted by Burhanistan at 2:09 PM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


There is a straightforward solution to this kind of problem: simply require that every member of Metafilter reads and memorizes, in full, the web policies that are in operation in the workplaces of every other member.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 2:17 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Please post this again without the commentary - it is an INCREDIBLE site, and so informative and educational - it should be, like required in schools or something. I'm serious - everyone should know this stuff. What a great opportunity for education.

PS - the plural is "cervices"
posted by tristeza at 2:21 PM on June 4, 2008


SFWity rounds upwards. If there's serious debate, it's not SFW.
posted by Plutor at 2:22 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Naval gazing

In cervix of a grateful nation...

Now that's what I call a little man in a boat!
posted by Pollomacho at 2:23 PM on June 4, 2008


I'd like to apologize to the MeFi community for engaging in pointless internet arguing. As soon as I hit post on that last message, the gods sent me a sign and overheated my graphics card.

It was definitely NSFW for some values of W. OTOH I don't think that a generic SFW forall W exists, and that people should interpret that statement with caution.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 2:24 PM on June 4, 2008


pwb503, do repost though with the here there be photos of cervixen warning, as that was a very neat little blog. I had never seen a photo of a cervix before.
posted by dabitch at 2:27 PM on June 4, 2008


Oooohhhh... now I understand the comments in the giant vagina bicycle taxi thread. I probably should have mentioned NSFW, but people seem to have figured it out.

Also, no one has yet posted the video taken of intercourse shot from inside the vagina... that would be great F(a)PP material.
posted by GuyZero at 2:27 PM on June 4, 2008


simply require that every member of Metafilter reads and memorizes, in full, the web policies that are in operation in the workplaces of every other member.

gwtter, I realize you're likely just being droll -- but unfortunately, I think that some people really do assume that this is what is being asked of them.

Instead of just "let's please use a bit more common sense when posting photos of people's innards."
posted by pineapple at 2:30 PM on June 4, 2008


Yeah: good link, bad presentation, thread doomed by the latter, do-overs are always an option.

Go summarizing!
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:32 PM on June 4, 2008


NSFW See also. NSFW
posted by everichon at 2:36 PM on June 4, 2008


Oh yeah, it should totally be reposted with a bit of warning.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:38 PM on June 4, 2008


that would be great F(a)PP material

Or anyway it would be if you fantasize about being attacked by an enormous, cyclopean worm.
posted by dersins at 2:39 PM on June 4, 2008


I thought that Ch. 4 program was a posted here and people called it out for being cheesy.
posted by Burhanistan at 2:41 PM on June 4, 2008


"I take offense to being called a troll."

Don't. You'll get farther in life if you spend less time getting offended and less time caring what other people think.

(Ironically, I don't think I've ever been called a troll on MeFi. Someone can check the archives and/or an infodump for confirmation. Maybe, despite my generally churlish and iconoclastic demeanor on the site, an undercurrent of honesty shines through. Or maybe I'm just not trying hard enough to draw attention to myself.)
posted by Eideteker at 2:45 PM on June 4, 2008


Also, we know it's not a self-link because there was no sand.

I know, I know, cheap shot.
posted by Eideteker at 2:46 PM on June 4, 2008 [4 favorites]


I pretty much think you messed up your own FPP, pwb503, so I don't have much sympathy for your plight.

Ditto.
posted by languagehat at 2:51 PM on June 4, 2008


Eideteker, you are a troll.
posted by everichon at 2:53 PM on June 4, 2008


pwb503: "I take offense to being called a troll."

I only accused you of trolling because of this:

Sorry if the SFW tag is incorrect for some. In my opinion, if you need to be told what you're looking at is "dirty" then it's SFW.

Which I took to mean that you knew full well that many would find the images problematic, and added the emphatic SFW to make a point. I agree with your point about photos of cervixes not being 'dirty' in any way, and thought that the site you linked to was well worth posting, but find it very hard to believe that when you added that 'all links SFW' it wasn't a deliberate bid to provoke a reaction from folk - pretty much the definition of trolling, that.

Before anyone else points it out, yeah, I linked to a video featuring a convicted paederast's flaccid cock the other week and forgot to mention that it was NSFW.
posted by jack_mo at 2:56 PM on June 4, 2008


I agree with noted Metafilter troll Eideteker.
posted by mrnutty at 2:59 PM on June 4, 2008


Someone can check the archives and/or an infodump for confirmation.

Well, now, there was that one time when you linked to your own comment in a thread that had "troll" in the url. But that doesn't count unless you were like really, really obliquely zinging yourself.

Another time, in the dhoyt revelation thread, davy used your username and the word "troll" in the same comment, but not in any semantically related way. I will link to the comment, but not without first warning any potential clickers that that thread is frickin' huge and thus it is only at their own peril that they click here.

Also, you once restrained yourself for fear of becoming one. But that hardly counts either.

I can't be sure no one ever referred to you pronominally or otherwise indirectly—"what a troll he is!" or such—but I'm willing to give you a clean bill of health barring any revelations.

On the other hand, crash has totally called you an asshole. But, dammit, you're our asshole.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:59 PM on June 4, 2008


To those 'faked out' by SFW: ok, so tell us what you thought that it would be. The text describes a picture of a cervix, and then says SFW. How are people parsing this? Cervix like artwork in store?

Necks.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:03 PM on June 4, 2008


"I don't think that a generic SFW forall W exists, and that people should interpret that statement with caution."

Surely you don't mean this. There's not a SINGLE page on all of the internet that would be SFW? As has been alluded to above, "SFW" doesn't mean "Your boss would read the contents of the page and consent to you visiting the site on the company computer."

It means "if you open this link when a co-worker or boss is walking by, they are unlikely to be overtly offended."

Wall of text? Fine. Nobody walking by is going to read it.

Wall of text with a large header which reads "PENIS AND VAGINA"... doubtful.

Pictures of puppies and kittens? Sure.

Pictures of puppies and kittens being mauled by tigers... probably not so much.


This isn't a "Oh, it's all relative so who cares" issue... it's an intensely practical one.
posted by toomuchpete at 3:05 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Cervixen is not a word.

It is if we start using it, right guys? Let's do it!
posted by adamdschneider at 3:08 PM on June 4, 2008


Cervixen is not a word.

That does not mean it shouldn't be, because it so totally should. It is now.

I guess it's remotely NSFW. I clicked on it from home expecting at least one full-on vag image, given all of the hullabaloo, but instead it was like the gynecological version of the Stargate sequence from 2001. I'm not sure the casual over-the-shoulder-glancer-at-your-screen would realize what that was. I'm almost certain they would have absolutely no idea. They might think you were kinda weird for looking at pics of internal organs, though.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:09 PM on June 4, 2008


"So, as long as I'm here: pwb503, are you the boyfriend?"

To set the record straight, no. I found it through an RSS feed of del.icio.us/tag/biology.
posted by pwb503 at 3:12 PM on June 4, 2008


To those 'faked out' by SFW: ok, so tell us what you thought that it would be. The text describes a picture of a cervix, and then says SFW. How are people parsing this? Cervix like artwork in store?

Cervix like described in text form, as in the example in the FPP, is what I would take the SFW to imply. I'm a big believer in the general principle of Click At Your Own Risk, but the lack of a "NSFW" on a post that says "cervix" isn't the same as the presence of a "SFW" in the way that a lot of people, I expect, make decisions about clickery.

It seems like "SFW" here was used in the context where folks more often actually say something like "possibly NSFW, {clear statement of what might be nsfw}".
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:12 PM on June 4, 2008


Google "cervixen" and see what you get.
posted by puke & cry at 3:13 PM on June 4, 2008


steampunk cervix?
posted by boo_radley at 3:19 PM on June 4, 2008


Maybe all the post needs is some mystery 'n' intrigue. Something like:

"hey guys guess what bodily orifice i stuck a camera up and hey whats this gunk"
posted by Sys Rq at 3:22 PM on June 4, 2008


"But that doesn't count unless you were like really, really obliquely zinging yourself."

That sounds like something I'd totally do.

"But, dammit, you're our asshole."

Well, that explains roughly half the shit that passes through my mind on a given day.
posted by Eideteker at 3:36 PM on June 4, 2008


I think everyone needs a good ass kicking.
posted by Burhanistan at 3:36 PM on June 4, 2008


"Cervixen" is punny and unremarkable. It would be troubling to me for linking female reproductive organs with sexuality in referring to "vixen," which means "seductress," in a reiteration of one of the chronic offenses of anti-female sexism: sexualization as Job One in represenation of anything female. However, in the promotion of awareness and acceptance of said organs and their function, portraying them as sexually exciting is A-OK with me, because sex parts should be wet and happy, inviting and familiar, not taboo. Of course, I have been charged with oversexualizing feminism by, oh, everyone I know, so.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 3:38 PM on June 4, 2008


"Cervixen" is punny and unremarkable.

For what it's worth, and this may or may not apply to the commenter, but it's punny and unremarkable in a completely non-sexualized way for anyone who is a big unix dork and who has thus run various unices on their boxen over the years.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:46 PM on June 4, 2008


*hugs eideteker*
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:47 PM on June 4, 2008


pwb503 said: "To set the record straight, no. I found it through an RSS feed of del.icio.us/tag/biology."

Damn. I was going to high-five you for skill in anonymous cervical photography.

And I was going to tell you to thank the model for willingly submitting to the speculum, daily. For 33 days.
posted by pineapple at 3:52 PM on June 4, 2008


I don't know why but this reminded me of a local artist here that took yummy dessert items, invited people to eat about half, and then took close up photos. Then while you walked around looking the slides show he played the audio of the people eating the desserts. With few exceptions every photo looked and sounded like an orgy. In a couple of cases - like the cherry pie - it was intensely revolting.
posted by tkchrist at 3:56 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


For what it's worth, and this may or may not apply to the commenter, but it's punny and unremarkable in a completely non-sexualized way for anyone who is a big unix dork and who has thus run various unices on their boxen over the years.

Also as someone pointed out randomly in the thread it is also the Dutch plural for "cervix" which seems like a real niche term because the thing is hidden away and it is hard enough to see one, never mind several at the same time.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 3:57 PM on June 4, 2008


It is the responsibility of the person browsing the internet at their workplace, not the rest of the entire fucking internet who all have to try and crouch and keep quiet so that Joe Blow in human resources doesn't get the sack for looking at pictures of "coupious, watery, eggwhite texture" cervical fluid. This NSWF crap has gone on way too long.

PENIS
posted by fire&wings at 4:01 PM on June 4, 2008 [2 favorites]


Man, I can't believe no one has yet used the word "douche" in this thread.

Anyway, the OP had a great link and I would have favourited -- except for the intentional editorializing of the "SFW."

A simple "graphic photos" would have been the correct approach.
posted by seanmpuckett at 4:07 PM on June 4, 2008


"Cervixen" is punny and unremarkable. It would be troubling to me for linking female reproductive organs with sexuality in referring to "vixen," which means "seductress," in a reiteration of one of the chronic offenses of anti-female sexism: sexualization as Job One in represenation of anything female.

The "cervix + vixen = cervixen" equation had occurred to me, but I quickly dismissed it as basically redundant -- it doesn't really add anything to "vixen" (unless by "cervixen" we mean the actual cervix of a vixen). I do, though, think it's an awesome plural of "cervix."
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:21 PM on June 4, 2008


PENIS

Man oh man could we have some sort of great version of The Penis Game if we still had IMG tags, though eventually browsers would start crashing.

If I wasn't lazy I would try to figure out some increased font size or old-fashioned page widening exploit but I am lazy.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 4:31 PM on June 4, 2008


GuyZero writes "no one has yet posted the video taken of intercourse shot from inside the vagina... that would be great F(a)PP material."

Somebody did, I remember being ticked because it was either US or UK only.
posted by Mitheral at 4:40 PM on June 4, 2008


Cervixen

Your "cervices" will no longer be required!
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 4:54 PM on June 4, 2008 [4 favorites]


"Photographs of reproductive organs are not safe for work. It's precisely what "NSFW" was invented for, actually."

Wrong. I'm more likely to get in trouble if I don't have photographs of reproductive organs.

" It would be troubling to me for linking female reproductive organs with sexuality in referring to "vixen," which means "seductress,".

"Vixen" means "fox," which has significantly less of a negative connotation than "seductress."

I'd also like to note that people bitch about NSFW at the drop of a hat here, even when they're told that something involves erotic nude photography.
posted by klangklangston at 4:59 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


so, when women are called vixens, what is implied? Wily tricksy, animal sexuality, no?
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 5:22 PM on June 4, 2008


I knew this was somehow about furries.
posted by puke & cry at 5:26 PM on June 4, 2008


I'd also like to note that people bitch about NSFW at the drop of a hat here, even when they're told that something involves erotic nude photography.

Uh, klangklangston, there's no bitching at all in the thread you linked to. In fact, you even remarked on the lack of bitching within the thread itself.
posted by dersins at 5:39 PM on June 4, 2008


* drops hat, experimentally *
posted by everichon at 5:43 PM on June 4, 2008


I think MeFi is usually remarkably sane on NSFW indicators (when they're needed, when they're not) and pretty self-policing in that regard which is why this was so pesky, as an incident.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:45 PM on June 4, 2008


Hey- I thought it was a wicked post. But then, I am at no risk of embarrassing myself/compromising my job because I don't surf the internet all day while I'm at work.
posted by sunshinesky at 6:08 PM on June 4, 2008


Uh. Why couldn't the mods have just added an "N" to the post and left it up?
posted by transona5 at 6:12 PM on June 4, 2008


I would just like to point out that the OED has no etymology for cervix: none at all. It's just the Latin word for neck, used analogously for other the 'necks' of other organs, and apparently it just sprang out of nowhere, fully formed, like Athena from the head of Zeus.

So disappointing.
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:23 PM on June 4, 2008


I forgot to add: despite the creatio ex nihilo of cervix, there's clearly no relationship to vixen, from *fyxen (= MHG. vühsinne, G. füchsin), fem. of fox FOX. Cf. OE. fyxen adj. ‘of a fox,’ which the OED asserts that some scholars plausibly connect with Sanskrit puccha, "tail."

Unless neck = tail ? Hmmm. Shame on the OED for leaving us hanging on such weighty matters!
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:28 PM on June 4, 2008


Could someone please describe in text with as much detail as possible the pictures in question? I'm sick of fake latin in my templates and this would go perfectly. Extra points if you somehow work in the word "pecunious." TIA
posted by waraw at 6:41 PM on June 4, 2008


American Heritage Third Ed gives it as from the Latin, too, but traces that to the Indo-European root ker-1 for which important derivatives are horn, cornea, corner, cornet, migraine, cerebrum, cervix, carat, among others. II. Suffixed form ker-wo-. 1. cervine, serval from Latin cervus, deer. 2. Cervix, from Latin cervix, neck.

No connection to vixen.
posted by OmieWise at 6:47 PM on June 4, 2008


I'm really glad this went to MeTa, because otherwise I'd not have seen it. See, I grew up in a household where pictures of cervices just like this would be lying scattered all over the living room table. Next to an orange or apple with laser burns on it. See, my stepdad was learning how to perform laser surgery to remove pre-cancerous cervical cells. (SFW, if you can read a description of a medical procedure done on a cervix. Both the word vaginal and the word discharge occur.)

This was sometime in the 80s. I had a perm.

Who knew that a series of well-done cervical portraits would be so nostalgia-inducing??

I'm totally going to email it to him as well as my colleagues. (It's extremely SFW in my job...)
posted by Stewriffic at 6:54 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


No connection to vixen.

Dude. There is no literal connection. Do not have Asberger's. Please stop having it. Thank you. Okay. "Vixen," as used in common parlance, is a chick who is all lusty and stuff. There is no good reason to alter the word so as to incorporate mention of her chickly parts. Because. It is already noted by use of the term "vixen" that her chickly parts are relevant. What does the perfix "cer-" then add? Dude. It does not add anything. I will give you an example of a time when this is not true. Suppose you have a girl who is promiscuous and wanton in her ways! (I am supposing this now.) Someone might call her a "prostitute." This is actually horrible and not funny, because it is crazy okay for women to be exactly this way, and even theoretically okay for women to prostitute themselves, although usually in real life this is not very cool at all for a variety of reasons. For the prostitutes, I mean. But! Suppose she is also crazy young! Not illegally so, but in a way that's notable. Suppose then that someone calls her a "prosti-tot!" This is funny, even if it is horrible in its implications, because it is a clever play on words, combining two common terms into a unique and memorable third!!! Therefore. Yes.

...Um. My point is that "cervixen" in place of "vixen" does not do this. It means pretty much the same thing as "vixen." Hence, it is redundant. That means that it serves the same function as something else.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:29 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


Uh. Why couldn't the mods have just added an "N" to the post and left it up?

Because almost half the comments in the thread were about the "all links SFW" designation and I'd rather he repost tomorrow than I delete 17 comments.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:39 PM on June 4, 2008


There is no good reason to alter the word so as to incorporate mention of her chickly parts.... What does the perfix "cer-" then add? Dude. It does not add anything.

Geeks are good. Let us now celebrate their geekiness. This, however, has hopelessly confused the matter and I say we all just trade jokes. Here, I'll start:

A couple had two little boys, ages eight and ten, who were excessively mischievous.

The two were always getting into trouble and their parents could be confident that if any mischief occurred in their town, their two young sons were involved in some capacity. The parents were at their wit's end as to what to do about their sons' behavior.

The parents had heard that a clergyman in town had been successful in disciplining children in the past, so they contacted him, and he agreed to give it his best shot. He asked to see the boys individually, so the eight-year-old was sent to meet with him first. The clergyman sat the boy down and asked him sternly, "Where is God?"

The boy made no response, so the clergyman repeated the question in an even sterner tone, "Where is God?"

Again the boy made no attempt to answer, so the clergyman raised his voice even more and shook his finger in the boy's face, "WHERE IS GOD?"

At that, the boy bolted from the room, ran directly home, and slammed himself in his closet. His older brother followed him into the closet and said, "What happened?"

The younger brother replied, "We are in BIG trouble this time. God is missing and they think we did it!"

posted by anotherpanacea at 7:50 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]



Because almost half the comments in the thread were about the "all links SFW" designation and I'd rather he repost tomorrow than I delete 17 comments.


Whoops, missed the part where you told him to repost.
posted by transona5 at 7:53 PM on June 4, 2008


...Um. My point is that "cervixen" in place of "vixen" does not do this. It means pretty much the same thing as "vixen." Hence, it is redundant.

You've got it confused. What was done was "cervixen" in place of "cervices." I actually think I find the first a more aesthetically pleasing word.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 8:06 PM on June 4, 2008


Your "cervices" will no longer be required!

MINE HASN'T BEEN REQUIRED FOR MANY YEARS!

oh shit. i'm drunk and about to post about uterine cancer in detail to metafilter.

time to punt and go to sleep.
posted by rmd1023 at 8:45 PM on June 4, 2008


im in ur cervix filmin' ur cycle!
posted by Sailormom at 9:14 PM on June 4, 2008 [1 favorite]


I didn't even notice the SFW thing, but the "Notice blood spot near os and brown clot near cervix (right)" quote made it clear that there'd be pictures of woman parts.

In lieu of commenting in the FPP, thanks pwb503 for the interesting link, and jeers to the illiterate knee-jerk brigade.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:37 PM on June 4, 2008


As Armitage Shanks pointed out in thread, cervixen is the plural for cervix in Dutch (supposedly).
posted by BrotherCaine at 5:36 AM on June 5, 2008


You've got it confused. What was done was "cervixen" in place of "cervices." I actually think I find the first a more aesthetically pleasing word.

What we talk about when we talk about cervixen:

I was speaking in reference to the stated lack of connection between the words "vixen" and "cervix," which I took as a commentary on the stated redundancy of the term "cervixen" when used in its invented-on-the-spot slang form, to wit --

Man. Never mind!
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:11 AM on June 5, 2008


jeers to the illiterate knee-jerk brigade.

Repeated with all the love I do have for you, Alvy:

"So if someone says, 'whoa, hey, not exactly work-safe there,' and the response is anything like, 'If you think that's NSFW, therefore you are immature/uneducated/teh ghey/mouthbreather', then what's going on is a fundamental lack of respect for other users."

If not divining that the OP seemed to be Making A Point when I read his blatant "All Links SFW" label is what makes me illiterate, then sure, I'll wear that badge.

If you're implying that I'm illiterate because I read the text, then the disclaimer, and assumed that I could trust the disclaimer,

well,

I suppose at least I'm in good, illiterate, uneducated, stupid, ignorant company.
posted by pineapple at 6:19 AM on June 5, 2008


If a movie is called Evil Death Zombie Apocalypse, I'm going to assume it has zombies in it.

Oh, unless it's followed with the tagline - NO ZOMBIES INVOLVED.


I'm going to use this as an excuse to plug one of my favorite webcomics, Terror Island, on the grounds that at one point it carried the (accurate) tagline "actually has nothing to do with terror and is not set on an island." It has a loosely serial nature, so it might best be appreciated starting at the beginning.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:13 AM on June 5, 2008


I re-used a plastic speculum (order one here) and macro function of normal digital camera (and a very talented boyfriend with a headlamp).

I'm looking forward to the 'The making of' feature, when the full DVD finally gets released.

Not for me, I work at an STD clinic

I didn't know that, OmieWise. Would you mind taking a look at this for me? I accidentally tripped up while hanging up my best suit one morning and ever since, I've been missing a coathanger and have been getting some pretty nasty discharges that I *think* might be sexually transmitted.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:34 AM on June 5, 2008


American Heritage Third Ed gives it as from the Latin, too, but traces that to the Indo-European root ker-1 for which important derivatives are horn, cornea, corner, cornet, migraine, cerebrum, cervix, carat, among others. II. Suffixed form ker-wo-. 1. cervine, serval from Latin cervus, deer. 2. Cervix, from Latin cervix, neck.

With all due respect to the AHD, which I love dearly (but everyone should get the Fourth Edition, Now With a Semitic-Roots Appendix!), it is way too eager to lump things together. They've gotten a tad more restrained since the First Edition, which saw the delightful suggestion that *ekwo- 'horse' might be *kwon- 'dog' with a prefix, so that horse = "big dog," but still, don't take their non-obvious etymological links on trust. The Latin word might be from that PIE root, but there's really no way of knowing.
posted by languagehat at 11:05 AM on June 5, 2008


Dershins—

Ah, yeah, this is the one I meant, even though I did write NSFW in there (though small).

"so, when women are called vixens, what is implied? Wily tricksy, animal sexuality, no?"

Well, no. Traditionally, it's been a way to call women bitchy, with a slide into "sexy" after the 20th century American slang of "foxy," which, according to the 1967 dictionary of American Slang refers to a girl with a "happy and alert personality." I see it used more here for its alliterative value ("vivacious vixen" being one of the managing ed's favorite phrases). And, like "chick," it carries more connotation of youth than of wiles (note that "fox" was a term for college freshmen for a hundred years before it applied to women, though since the term apparently entered via black American English, I won't speculate that the two are de facto related).
posted by klangklangston at 11:48 AM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


Now With a Semitic-Roots Appendix

I thought that said Now With a Semitic-Robots Appendix, and now I'm disappointed.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 12:08 PM on June 5, 2008


What he meant is that Monster Island is actually a peninsula.
posted by SpiffyRob at 12:17 PM on June 5, 2008


Coming in late to the party, I mysteriously feel compelled to clarify that the original play on words was not intended to be "Cervixen, like Cervix + Vixen" but, rather "Cervixen, like Ox->Oxen". Common hacker / geek in-joke, as Cortex mentioned above, to pluralize Ox as Oxen, and therefore Box as Boxen, VAX as Vaxen, &c. &c.

Which is not to say that certain amount of vixen connotation didn't follow, unintentionally. But context seemed important. Not that anyone is still reading down here...
posted by Squid Voltaire at 12:19 PM on June 5, 2008


I'd also like to point out that "cervix" is just about as bad as "context" for words that make threads really confusing for me to parse:
cortex
context
cervix
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:42 PM on June 5, 2008


Sir Vic's House of Constricted Envelopes
posted by Burhanistan at 1:13 PM on June 5, 2008


New version with "NSFW" added.
posted by pwb503 at 2:31 PM on June 5, 2008


So, what have we learned?

bitch = female dog :: vixen = female fox

cervix != deer (female or otherwise) :: cortexen != female administrator (giant donut or no)

Also, some posts are cooler the first time around, when they get deleted before any of the not-cool kids get to see them and mess them up with all their eye-juice, which can contain Phlogiston-Transmitted Diseases. Yuck.
posted by anotherpanacea at 3:11 PM on June 5, 2008


female administrator (giant donut or no)

My cervix is NOT A GIANT DONUT.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:40 PM on June 5, 2008


I had a rant going, then I suddenly realized I could get paid for it. So I'll save my ostensible witticisms for the column and instead sum up here:

Hey, everyone, why not stop using stupid acronyms and actually tell people what to expect?
posted by lore at 4:53 PM on June 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


But, but . . . horses are big dogs.
posted by FelliniBlank at 5:30 PM on June 5, 2008


My cervix is NOT A GIANT DONUT.

Is its name Steve?
posted by middleclasstool at 8:59 PM on June 5, 2008


The new thread sucks, too.
posted by chuckdarwin at 3:51 AM on June 6, 2008


The new thread sucks, too.

I don't think so, actually. If you don't like the topic (you mentioned in-thread that you thought it sucked even though you didn't actually look at the linked website) maybe it's not the thread for you. However, there's a world of difference between an actual MeFi trainwreck -- which in my estimation and by our generally accepted matrixen, that thread is NOT -- and a lighthearted thread with a bit of jocular grabass in it. I'm not the arbiter of all that is good or bad around here, certainly, but I thought the reposted thread is actually going pretty well and I've been enjoying it which I didn't really think was likely to happen, I'll admit.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:37 AM on June 6, 2008


I was on about the boyzone stuff (let's all label the sex organs!). It gets tiring.

Also, you're a pretty good arbiter. Better than I; my patience for snarkery has waned drastically.
posted by chuckdarwin at 5:46 AM on June 6, 2008


Well see that's the thing, and I get where you're coming from, but I feel that it was like anti-boyzone in some ways. A few things

- lots of women contributing talking about girly parts without people being like "ewwww" or "let me tell you about my favorite styles of pubic hair..."
- when a few people did say "wow that is squicky" and a few people asked "why, do you think girly parts are squicky?!?!" (uhoh!) and responses were more like "nah just looking at my insides or anyone's insides squicks me out" and I felt like it was a little teeny move towards greater understanding, etc.
- no one, I don't think, did a whole bunch of stupid making fun of the woman who made the website
- lots of people said it was cool which is always what makes me happy about any MeFi thread
- people were happy that pwb503 reposted and the thread wasn't mired in crap like the last one. Brand New Day sometimes works.

So realistically on a site that is mostly men, I don't think there's any way to really not have threads on boobie/sexy/lady topics, but I do feel like it's possible to have threads that can be about these topics without the women of metafilter being like "oh shit here we go again" and abandoning the thread/site in droves. Maybe my standards have just gotten so hopelessly lowered that we're in "pay you to stay out of jail" territory, but I feel like it went okay.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:26 AM on June 6, 2008 [1 favorite]


test for echo
posted by Dreamghost at 10:08 PM on June 6, 2008


Looks like you're unbanned.
posted by dersins at 10:27 PM on June 6, 2008


I'm pretty ashamed of how much we suck sometimes.
posted by Dizzy at 12:55 PM on June 7, 2008


What's really shameful is that the rest of the world very often manages to suck even more than us.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 12:59 PM on June 7, 2008



I had a rant going, then I suddenly realized I could get paid for it.


That really is a sweet gig you've got going there. No one ever pays *me* to rant.
posted by tkolar at 11:02 AM on June 11, 2008


« Older Quarters for PhatLobley!   |   Related questions are awesome. Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments