#10
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 15:54:36 -0500 From: "Jarvis, Alexander J", Alexander.J.Jarvis "at" nspco.com Cc: coolkid "at" excite.co.uk Subject: I Love Studs ( a meme, not a virus ) So, I sent this email a little while ago, and I'm not sure if you got it, but it made me feel like succchhh aah ssstud, that I just had to resend it, so here goes................ Isn't a "Queen" the transvestite version of a "Fag". This may shed a little more lite..... Male bees are called Drones, they kick it with the "Queen" ( yeah, she gets more than her share, but she works hard for it, baby. ) Then, there's these other bees, females, but they don't reproduce ( no, not the hoes, it would "bee" nice if they were, though ). Do you know what they are called? ( I's the female equivalent of a "Queen", in case you can't figure it out. ) If "Queens" were women, they'd be blocking rivers, Dammit. If they wore men's clothes I'd be runnin'. DO YOU KNOW WHAT I'M GETTING AT HERE? Actually, I guess "Queens" do deserve better than the "Stud" rank, Shit a lot of 'em even got me fooled...................... How about you, ...........SSSSSSStudresponse: I'm a little confused by this message but I'll do my best to address your concerns.
It's starting to become apparent from reading the feedback that Rule #8: The Queen is still a source of controversy. It is clear that there are still some unresolved issues there.
The Queen terminology was inaugurated into the Rules of Stud® circa 1996. At this time I believe the slang for the "Queen" as in "Drag Queen" was not popular. Certainly no one on our committee was aware of such a term at the time. Perhaps this rule needs to be updated seeing as how "the Queen" now has new meaning quite disjoint from to way we're discussing it here.
As for your discussion involving the female bees I'm afraid I do not fully understand that feedback at the time of this writing. Perhaps you could have another go at clearing this up for me. Or perhaps someone else understands and could clear that up for those of us who do not understand.
#11
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 21:54:20 -0700 From: demitria monde thraam, monde "at" thraam.com Subject: stud question I have a question. In certain contexts isn't the interjection of "Stuuuud" more or less a compliment to, and not a subtle deriding of, someone's egotism? I have definitely seen it used in this context ps: your form does not work - hadda cut and paste this into my email proggie. -dmt demitria monde thraam transmits at: http://thraam.comresponse: Indeed, in certain contexts it is a compliment. It in fact depends on the context. A person well practiced with stud theory may use it to their advantage and, respond with a loud "Thank You!", in anticipation of being called a stud.
This brings up a whole other issue, id est, The
Foresight Observation which has yet to be documented and added to
the list of observations. Look for that one in extenso
* coming soon!
"LesBee", now I get it. We can continue on that jeu de mots
* with, "LesBee
friends." I'm used to hearing "Lesbo" nowadays. Thanks for clearing
that up!
PS I've been processing your feedback in
feedback #9 and my current thoughts
are even more in alignment with your observation(s). I'm going to have
to add another response soon. 'Tis a valuable contribution.
"Take me to wherever. I'm a rebel who lives life on the edge."
Your description paints a vivid picture.
This observation is a very strong candidate for
the list of important observations. Indeed, sometime in the
not-to-distant future I can see it graduating.
We would love to hear about your observation(s) about stud behavior
in threatening group situations. That sounds even more intriguing
than the hitchhiking observation(s) -another valuable contribution.
'Gotta brush up on my HTML. Hope the form works now. P.S. Are you a
computer graphics person?
PS On a historical note, I answered this email twice, by
accident. Since I answered it differently each time, I thought
I would leave them both in. Thanks to those who noticed.
When
Rule #9, Stud
Ettiquette (formerly Observation #3)
is combined with
Observation #2, The
Action-Reaction Observation,
something magical happens:
you learn something about the person you deemed a stud.
If the person is truly arrogrant, the response is often
associated with anger.
And If the person is not arrogrant, the response is often
associated with happiness.
This dual nature of stud is one of the amazing qualities it
has, and we'd like to keep it this way.
I completely agree with your observations about the female equivalent
of stud.
For a female, frequent copulation with the opposite sex is not something
that is generally admired from a societal standpoint, thus a term
that is perfectly symmetric to stud is inappropriate.
'The Queen' is in line with this
observation.
'The Queen' is also positive.
'Star' by itself is not a bad candidate.
It is somewhat ambiguous however, and it does not really have a
gender connotation.
These are major stikes against the term.
Don't get me wrong, I really do want to find a solution
for this problem!
Thank you very much for your contribution Colin!
-cheers, bob
These are excellent questions.
As far as I know, no thought has been given to stud as it applies to e-mail.
The idea is somewhat hinted at in
Rule #5: Stud Volume in that
STUD was typed insted of stud.
I might suggest that this is actually beyond the scope of the Rules
themselves in that, the world wide web (and email) have an etiquette
unto themselves.
For example, when I want to yell at someone via email, I TYPE IN
OBNOXIOUS CAPITAL LETTERS.
I would therefore pass the buck of the Rules of Stud® and
how they apply to email onto another authority for example
www.lepak.com or
www.iwillfollow.com.
Inasmuch as whatever the content of an email is, that it be consistent
with both the existing email etiquette and the
Rules of Stud® already in place.
However, this still doesn't address the kicker you mentioned.
In cases of indeterminate gender the proper default is
stud.
What it comes down to is the default gender you may address someone
in general.
Like you pointed out, there may be numerous reason why you would not
know someone's gender.
Another reason is that someone doesn't want you to know.
Whatever the reason, choose a default.
In my case, the default is male.
But for a feminist, the default may be female
i.e. the Queen.
However, I would not recommend calling someone the default of
it.
This might be more insulting than defaulting to the wrong gender.
As for stud being a compliment, I always interpret stud as a
compliment when it is directed towards me.
See
Rule #9: Stud Etiquette
(formerly Observation #3)
for more about this. In fact, often times I will say "Thank you"
before being labeled a stud. This is yet another observation
that has to be added to the list (the Forsight Observation).
#12 -a follow up to #10
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:47:52 -0500
From: "Jarvis, Alexander J", Alexander.J.Jarvis "at" nspco.com
Subject: RE: I Love Studs ( a meme, not a virus )
So, I probably should have had a friend or two proofread that email before I
sent it. Sometimes I get so confused by that old, dated lingo ( Stud, Drag
Queen, etc. ) that my brain gets all scrambled ant things just don't come
out right. I'll elaborate, although that "philly" email should have cleared
everything up for you.
The "Bee" thing was a joke, ( not so ) cleverly disguised as to send an
educational message, and make you laugh at the same time. I forgot the
answer, so it didn't work.
The answer is.............."LesBee" , ( or gay woman, in case that is
confusing to you ) Gay women in these parts, tend to dress like men, so the
parallel
( on a man's lif line ) would be a "Queen". Now do you get it? It would
have worked had I planned out my message.
So now the meme is apparent, and I will recompile all the information I have
sent you into an amusing and educational message, if you like.
response: I do not believe I received any "philly" email,
unless that is
feedback #10.
#13 -a follow up to #9
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 17:47:02 -0500
From: "Black, Robert E.", RobertBl "at" baylordallas.edu
Robert,
I agree with your assertion that pointing is very aggressive. I
originally gave an ambiguous description. Instead of the hands pointing
down, the PALMS should be facing down, sort of like you are pushing a box
away. I hope this clarifies the gesture.
Robert E. Black
Anesthesia Research
Baylor University Medical Center
(214) 820-1577
response: Here, here, thanks for clearing that up!
#14 -Hitchhiking Stud notes
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 15:24:32 +0100
From: Nick Blackmore, NBlackmore "at" axent.com
Hi, (Short, choppy, stud greeting - or SCSG as they are more frequently
known)
Hitchhiking Stud notes
For a driver it is easy to spot hitching stud or not. Temporarily setting
aside that stud should have their own totally impractical but brutishly
large means of transport.
Non-stud sits on a large beaten-up suitcase, away from the road, in a
dejected position as if to convey the message that if you stop to pick him,
and the scantily clad nymph with him who is doing the traditional hand
gesture and beseeching look at the traffic, then they are in a state of
discord such that you (if male) may then start a relationship with said
lady, when if fact she will jump in the back and he will jump in the front
stopping any such thoughts.
Stud stands right at the verge, apparently a potato has been stuffed down
the front of the tight jeans, hips are thrust out into the traffic flow,
head is held tilted back and to one side displaying confidence, free hand
usually hooked casually into pocket or belt. Stud's companion will be sitting
on the suitcase apparently studying her hands, but in fact wishing that he
would get tired and sit down so that she could get them a lift.
Under no circumstances should stud write the destination required in crayon
on a piece of card and wave it about, or make beseeching, praying gesture
with hands.
That is all for now, stud behaviour in threatening group situations can also
be explained (with a fine example) if you wish.
Nicholas
response: I must admit, I have never thought of The
Rules of Stud® as they apply to hitchhiking. Your detailed
observation(s) are a clear indication of one who understands them
well. I really like the bit about a stud not communicating
his prospective destination.
In not doing so, it's as if there's an implicit communication
taking place i.e.
#15 -stud question
From monde "at" thraam.com
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 21:54:20 -0700
Subject: stud question
I have a question. In certain contexts isn't the interjection of "Stuuuud"
more or less a compliment to, and not a subtle deriding of, someone's
egotism? I have definitely seen it used in this context
ps: your form does not work - hadda cut and paste this into my email proggie.
-dmt
demitria monde thraam
transmits at:
http://thraam.com
response: Yes, this is true in certain contexts.
I believe this is the context when a minimum of 3 conditions are
coincident (or not so coincident):
Would you agree? Thanks for the good question.
#16 -Comments
From: Shadow Fox, shadowfox_alt "at" hotmail.com
To: rlaramee@cisunix.unh.edu
Subject: Comments
"'You mean there are rules?'"
"Now there are."
Stud
-The Cat in the Hat
Shadowfox_alt@hormones... oops,... hotmail.com
response: Thank you.
#17 Comments after reading your 'Readers comments' section...
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:50:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Colin S, colins_kiev "at" email.com
To: rlaramee@cisunix.unh.edu
Subject: Comments after reading your 'Readers comments' section...
Two of the principle problems of 'stud':
- 1) 'Stud' being taken as a compliment by the arrogant speaker, as
opposed to being received as a warning that the speaker is allowing
himself or herself an excessive display of immodesty.
- 2) A lack of 'Oomph' in deriving a feminine version of 'stud.'
Both can be attributed to deeper set cultural traits, that one may or may
not see as problems:
'Stud' (You are a stud) as a phrase alludes to the term 'Stud' used in
horse breeding and therefor piggy-backs off the cultural notion that a
breeding stallion is an exemplary symbol of masculine sexuality. 'Stud'
is therefor an attempt to embarrass the aragantor by implying, via ad
absurdum, that the aragantor is in fact the opposite of a 'Stud.' The
cultural basis of this derives from the commonly accepted view of
masculinity insofar as that frequent and vigorous sex with multiple
partners is a desirable trait in males, and therefor something to aspire
to... and lack thereof to be worthy of shame. Currently, it seems to me
that an increasingly socially acceptable means of showing (or attempting
to show) said masculine virility is not by proclaiming ones conquests, or
otherwise chest-pounding, but instead by displaying "attitude."
This addresses problem number 1) above, in that if "attitude" is an
admired trait then judging the appropriateness of 'Stud' becomes an
exercise simply in determining whether the level of "attitude" displayed
was warranted in that given circumstance, with that given individual. In
other words, a beauty contest for "attitude."
Therefor 'Stud' runs the risk on being incorporated into popular culture
as simply the latest theosaurical fashion for "cool," "radical," "Dood,"
"You da man," or any similar exclamation used to praise a display of
"attitude."
The problem with devising a 'Stud' variant for female aragantors [2)]
derives again from cultural expectations. When you really get down to the
nuts and bolts of it females derive 'studliness,' (for lack of a better
term) not from frequent and vigorous sex with multiple partners, but from
being sexually desirable, socially popular, socially experienced, and in
possession of [here is that word again] "attitude."
My personal take on this is that despite modern (or post modern as some
like to see it) society, post sexual revolution, etc. there still lingers
in the society the notion that a woman is somehow harmed or sullied by
frequent and vigorous sex with multiple partners.
If you doubt this, then pick the most 'studly'(again: for lack of a better
term)famous female you can think of. Then try to think of the most famous
female that you can who is known for having frequent and vigrous sex with
multiple partners. Now are they one and the same person?
Now, lacking social pressure to be promiscuous with sexual prowess, how
can one embarrass a female with a term designed to ad absurdum embarrass a
male about a lack of said behaviour?
Therefore I suggest seeking a term for females more directly related to
what females are encouraged to aspire to (past or present) in a POSITIVE
sense, because it is useless to apply ad absurdum to a term with negative
connotations.
To that end I propose "Star" as in "your the/a star" since female movie
stars are often the epitome of the traits society values in females.
Stars are arguably the modern heirs to such historical positions of social
envy, such as "princesses" for example, and therefor more worthy of ad
absurdum.
Though it still lacks the same Oomph because the average female does not
strive to be a star nearly as much as the average male strives to be a
stud.
Hummm maybe Modest would be better.
Well that's my two cents, good luck hunting for the right term.
- Colin
P.S. I was thinking of showing your site to some of the local language
schools as an example of how Americans create new colloquial
English. :-)
response:
First let's address 1) 'Stud' being taken as a compliment rather than an
insult. The way I see it, this is part of the beauty of stud -the
multiple interpretations and the flexibility of meaning that can come
with such a dialog. Stud can in fact be viewed as a compliment as
evidenced by
Observation #3, Stud
Ettiquette.
This observation states that the proper response to being called a
stud is 'thank you'.
#18 -I once played Antigone in high school. I was good.
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 13:44:17 -0600
From: Gwynn Kirkaldy, gwynn.kirkaldy "at" stormworks.com
To: rlaramee@cisunix.unh.edu
Subject: I once played Antigone in high school. I was good.
(nb. I attempted to use your response form, and after reading others'
statements lacking faith in its efficacy, decided also to mail you.
Apologies in advance if I have, therefore, spammed you.)
A most enjoyable read.
I wonder, however: has thought been given to e-mail rules? i.e. Proper
spelling, amount of carriage returns to indicate appropriate pause before
delivery, and -- here's the kicker -- dealing with questions of
indeterminate gender (due to oblique screen handles or unisex names)?
Also, are there circumstances where "stud" can be in some way
complimentary?
For instance, stating all these Stud rules unilaterally could be taken as
an act of supreme arrogance. Yet, they are Good, and Funny.
Stud (lovingly).
response:
No apology necessary. Does anyone know what is wrong with my form?