[ Kaveh might not want to let the semantics of love go, but Alhaitham is perfectly willing, because he thinks that in the first place... nobody should ever give him the authority to talk about love-tangential topics. He doesn't want to talk about them, either...
Alhaitham takes every single one of those enunciated "fuck"s with remarkable placidity, holding eye contact without showing any reaction. He gets what Kaveh is trying to do here, and were he a lesser man, this would be a great place to go for the "ugh, you are so vulgar" punchline. But a lesser man he is not, he's going to debate Kaveh into a corner fair and square!! ]
To start, I'll make it clear that I'm not arguing we were ever having an education conversation. But your argument would seem to imply that what really bothered you is less the verbiage, and more the connotation. What you've told me just now is that "sexual intercourse" is a term that should be used when one wants to detach the act from the speaker... as it would be if it were an educational situation. And what I hypothesize from the rest is that what you actually wanted was for me to signal that I was treating this as a conversation amongst friends or lovers. [ The mirroring of language is, of course, very deliberate. ] In that context, sex is being discussed as something that actively relates to one or both of us. Therefore, you want me to use a phrasing that shows that I've drawn a distinction between situations where sex is an act between unrelated parties... and situations where sex is an intimacy to at least one person in the conversation. Am I following?
[ It's kind of almost tangential to decency for him to even ask if he's on track or not... but it's not, because Alhaitham believes he's on track either way. In his mind, Kaveh is a person who cares about these distinctions that he personally doesn't assign much weight to, so all of that would be consistent with the impression he's always had of Kaveh. ]
If I have to use that dichotomy, then no. I don't have any problems at all with talking about fucking someone, Kaveh. But I don't think that's what you actually wanted to hear me say... is it?
[ Is he baiting? Oh hell yeah. But Alhaitham feels like it can't be considered a cheap move, considering he refrained from calling Kaveh out from starting off his "universal appropriateness" argument by immediately ruling out a huge chunk of situations. ]
and another thing, (rambles on for a full wikipedia article)
Alhaitham takes every single one of those enunciated "fuck"s with remarkable placidity, holding eye contact without showing any reaction. He gets what Kaveh is trying to do here, and were he a lesser man, this would be a great place to go for the "ugh, you are so vulgar" punchline. But a lesser man he is not, he's going to debate Kaveh into a corner fair and square!! ]
To start, I'll make it clear that I'm not arguing we were ever having an education conversation. But your argument would seem to imply that what really bothered you is less the verbiage, and more the connotation. What you've told me just now is that "sexual intercourse" is a term that should be used when one wants to detach the act from the speaker... as it would be if it were an educational situation. And what I hypothesize from the rest is that what you actually wanted was for me to signal that I was treating this as a conversation amongst friends or lovers. [ The mirroring of language is, of course, very deliberate. ] In that context, sex is being discussed as something that actively relates to one or both of us. Therefore, you want me to use a phrasing that shows that I've drawn a distinction between situations where sex is an act between unrelated parties... and situations where sex is an intimacy to at least one person in the conversation. Am I following?
[ It's kind of almost tangential to decency for him to even ask if he's on track or not... but it's not, because Alhaitham believes he's on track either way. In his mind, Kaveh is a person who cares about these distinctions that he personally doesn't assign much weight to, so all of that would be consistent with the impression he's always had of Kaveh. ]
If I have to use that dichotomy, then no. I don't have any problems at all with talking about fucking someone, Kaveh. But I don't think that's what you actually wanted to hear me say... is it?
[ Is he baiting? Oh hell yeah. But Alhaitham feels like it can't be considered a cheap move, considering he refrained from calling Kaveh out from starting off his "universal appropriateness" argument by immediately ruling out a huge chunk of situations. ]