not masculine/queer

[RonButters at AOL.COM]

In a message dated 1/27/06 3:37:55 PM, zwicky at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU writes:

[about two guys talking in the gym, one using the term "brokeback" to 
characterize some kind of cosmetic product that he was using]

> odd.  that's exactly the interpretation i put on it.
> 

Which interpretation, (1) 'I'm not lacking in masculinity' or (2) 'I'm not 
gay'? I guess that Arnold believes the former, but that seems to me to violate 
one or another Gricean principles. 'I'm not lacking in masculinity' is 
unnecessary information in a couple of ways: (a) that is not information that one 
needs to convey to a stranger in the gym and (b) presumably there are presumably 
all sorts of other obvious indications to the contrary (except of course for 
the offending product) so that no speech would be needed at all.

On the other hand, men in locker rooms are constantly indicating to each 
other that they are in a safe place, i.e., that despite the nudity and proximity 
there is no sexual subtext to actions, glaze, and the like. This is not 
conveyed directly, of course, and very seldom by direct statements. But an oblique 
reference connecting a movie about masculine men in a gay encounter with a 
cosmetic product would be intended as a reassurance about sexual intent. No 
straight guy in a locker room cares if another guy is 'lacking in masculinity' per 
se, but it does seem to make most guys uncomfortable to think that they are some 
other guy's sex object while shaving in a public place wearing nothing but a 
towel and a nervous smile.

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org