# Help me recall a word...



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

You're a clever bunch, aren't you? 

Well, I'm having one of those frustrating moments when a word is on the tip of your tongue, but you simply can't remember what it is. I've been struggling with it since early yesterday evening, and it's really getting on my nerves!!

So, here's what I _think_ the definition is, or at least a nuance of it is:

A person obsessed with the sexual morality of other people OR
A sexual vigilante OR
An emotional peeping-tom

The word I'm thinking of may just be someone extremely nosy who is obsessed about the most intimate details of their neighbours, or it could be more high-and-mighty, morality based - I'm not sure.

I _know_ it's a noun. I _thought_ it may begin with 'p', but don't let this restrict you because I'm not sure. Definitely more than one syllable too.

HEEEEEEEEEEELP!!!


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I think it was "Brahms".


----------



## Chris (Jun 1, 2010)

Prurient (adjective) or prurience (abstract noun)?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Maybe it's Puritan.


----------



## Chris (Jun 1, 2010)

Prude? Perv? Priapic?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I'll go along with _Aramis_ - unless it's Presbyterian.

:devil:


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I'll go along with _Aramis_ - unless it's Presbyterian.
> 
> :devil:


You nearly made me choke to death. :lol:


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Republican?


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Busybody, scandalmonger...


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Voyeur, maybe.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

I'm with Aramis but it also may be 'sucio'


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Two ideas:

Buttinsky, or Kibitzer, they are nouns.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Pharisee.................?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Argus said:


> Voyeur, maybe.


THANK YOU ARGUS  You saved my day!!

It would have helped if I remembered a more accurate definition, and didn't throw you all off with the 'p', but thanks all for trying. I knew I'd get the answer here


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Polednice said:


> THANK YOU ARGUS  You saved my day!!
> 
> It would have helped if I remembered a more accurate definition, and didn't throw you all off with the 'p', but thanks all for trying. I knew I'd get the answer here


What? I had thought of voyeur but dismissed it because you said _emotional_ peeping-tom. A voyeur is a plain peeping-tom, or someone who experiences pleasure out of witnessing sexual acts. I don't think it exactly qualifies under the three definitions that you mentioned in your original post. It definitely has nothing to do with obsessing about the morality of other people.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Almaviva said:


> What? I had thought of voyeur but dismissed it because you said _emotional_ peeping-tom. A voyeur is a plain peeping-tom, or someone who experiences pleasure out of witnessing sexual acts. I don't think it exactly qualifies under the three definitions that you mentioned in your original post. It definitely has nothing to do with obsessing about the morality of other people.


I know it doesn't, which is why I feel guilty for not remembering the proper definition. Thankfully, Argus was ingenious enough to recognise that I probably didn't even know what I was talking about


----------



## Suwannee Tim (Jun 6, 2010)

Couchie said:


> Republican?


I'm a Republican and I couldn't care less what others do in their bedroom. I'm pretty sure none of my other Republican friends and associates would care anymore that I, except maybe for the voyeurs. What makes you think Republicans care more about such than, say, Democrats? I mean, other than "everyone knows".


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Suwannee Tim said:


> I'm a Republican and I couldn't care less what others do in their bedroom. I'm pretty sure none of my other Republican friends and associates would care anymore that I, except maybe for the voyeurs. What makes you think Republicans care more about such than, say, Democrats? I mean, other than "everyone knows".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Suwannee Tim said:


> I'm a Republican and I couldn't care less what others do in their bedroom. I'm pretty sure none of my other Republican friends and associates would care anymore that I, except maybe for the voyeurs. What makes you think Republicans care more about such than, say, Democrats? I mean, other than "everyone knows".


Hahahahaha! You make me laff...


----------



## Suwannee Tim (Jun 6, 2010)

I looked at the Wikipedia entry, I don't know what it proves. My interpretation of it is pretty much no one has any interest in regulating sexual behavior. I'm glad Polednice is amused, I'd like to know why. I would like to see some examples of Republicans opposing the repeal of laws that regulate sexual behavior or examples of Republicans promoting passage of laws that regulate sexual behavior. Of course, "everybody knows" but just to humor me, how about some examples? Specific examples. I can think of dozens of contentious issues debated over the last couple of decades, I'm sure you can too. I can't remember any debate on this subject. Help me out here.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Suwannee Tim said:


> I looked at the Wikipedia entry, I don't know what it proves. My interpretation of it is pretty much no one has any interest in regulating sexual behavior. I'm glad Polednice is amused, I'd like to know why. I would like to see some examples of Republicans opposing the repeal of laws that regulate sexual behavior or examples of Republicans promoting passage of laws that regulate sexual behavior. Of course, "everybody knows" but just to humor me, how about some examples? Specific examples. I can think of dozens of contentious issues debated over the last couple of decades, I'm sure you can too. I can't remember any debate on this subject. Help me out here.


I'll leave that question to someone with more time and energy to waste than me.


----------



## Suwannee Tim (Jun 6, 2010)

No sir, I don't live in a hole. I have followed politics closely for 40 years and I know my history. My challenge to Couchie and now you is: facts. Give me some facts. Of course, if you don't have time for facts, I understand. Gratuitous assertions are quick and convenient, facts take a bit more time.

Looking over the Wikipedia entry, the pattern I see is the then Republican states, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska and so on, legislatively repealed their sodomy laws in the '60 and 70s. In that era the Southern states were solidly Democrat and did not repeal their sodomy laws. Their laws were overturned by later court orders. The Wikipedia entry proves that, historically, Republicans were more sexually permissive than Democrats.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Suwannee Tim said:


> No sir, I don't live in a hole. I have followed politics closely for 40 years and I know my history. My challenge to Couchie and now you is: facts. Give me some facts. Of course, if you don't have time for facts, I understand. Gratuitous assertions are quick, facts take a bit more time.


The problem is not that facts take time; ********


----------



## Suwannee Tim (Jun 6, 2010)

Do you dispute that Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska and other Republican states in the '60s and '70 legislatively repealed their sodomy laws? Or do you dispute that the states of the Old South which were solidly Democrat in that era did not repeal their sodomy laws? A lot of things people think are facts are really myths perpetuated by folks who find the truth inconvenient. I'll give you another example of that: Florida Democrat Congresswoman and Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Debbie Wasserman-Schultz recently stated "now you have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws". The problem with this is, Jim Crow, the legal framework for repressing blacks in the antebellum South was a Democrat institution. I don't need a Wikipedia article to know that, I lived in those days and know this from personal, first hand experience.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

_ST_, you may be putting too much weight on the 'antebellum' Democratic party, which was dominated by what were in effect Dixiecrats. On _another front_, sodomy laws were/are a function of religious fundamentalism, not party affiliation.

It's a reach, but 'All that glitters is not gold' applies here.


----------



## Suwannee Tim (Jun 6, 2010)

Of course, I greatly oversimplify but I am trying to make a simple point. That being, these political cliches are often false and often accepted at face value without any examination of the motives of the proponents. These motives are often very transparent, as in in the case of Congresswoman Wasserman Shultz. Some of these "cliches" are really malicious smears.

A lot of what is wrong with politics in America is too much malice and not enough facts, history, argument and reason.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Suwannee Tim said:


> Of course, I greatly oversimplify but I am trying to make a simple point. That being, these political cliches are often false and often accepted at face value without any examination of the motives of the proponents. These motives are often very transparent, as in in the case of Congresswoman Wasserman Shultz. Some of these "cliches" are really malicious smears.
> 
> A lot of what is wrong with politics in America is too much malice and not enough facts, history, argument and reason.


But what about gay rights? Wouldn't you think that Republicans have in various occasions voted to curtail gay rights, that is, to at least indirectly regulate what grown consenting adults do between four walls, under the guise of "defense of marriage?" My heterosexual marriage is doing very well, thank you, and is not threatened in any way, shape, or form by gays who want to marry as well, and is in no need of defense. These euphemisms are just a facade, but the core intention is that of regulating other people's sexual behaviors.


----------



## Suwannee Tim (Jun 6, 2010)

I'm a strong proponent of traditional marriage, that is a union between a man and a woman. I also support Civil Unions of some sort for the benefit of anyone needing such, not necessarily a gay couple. I do not regard the narrow definition of marriage as infringing anyone's rights, particularly if the Civil Union alternative is available. My argument is simple. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. If it is not that then it can and will be anything, two men, two women, a man and several women.... in which case marriage ceases to have any meaning. Marriage is an ancient fundamental and universal institution of civilization and deeply rooted in immutable biology. I fear we tamper with it at our peril. 

If anyone is a threat to rights it is the left. Speech codes on US college campuses, in Canada and Europe are an outrage against liberty.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Suwannee Tim said:


> I'm a strong proponent of traditional marriage, that is a union between a man and a woman. I also support Civil Unions of some sort for the benefit of anyone needing such, not necessarily a gay couple. I do not regard the narrow definition of marriage as infringing anyone's rights, particularly if the Civil Union alternative is available. My argument is simple. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. If it is not that then it can and will be anything, two men, two women, a man and several women.... in which case marriage ceases to have any meaning. Marriage is an ancient fundamental and universal institution of civilization and deeply rooted in immutable biology. I fear we tamper with it at our peril.
> 
> If anyone is a threat to rights it is the left. Speech codes on US college campuses, in Canada and Europe are an outrage against liberty.


Do civil unions afford to couples the full gamut of rights afforded to married couples?
What you said about the escalation of the definition is a fallacy of the slippery slope kind.
Society has tampered with marriage already - look around and see the number of couples who live together without being married, the number of single-parent families, and the number of gay couples. Updating the law is just a matter of reflecting societal evolution. Societies don't remain the same along the centuries.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Suwannee Tim said:


> Marriage is an ancient fundamental and universal institution of civilization and deeply rooted in immutable biology.


How is it deeply rooted in immutable biology? I'm a biologist, and I'd be interested to know. The animal kingdom encompasses just about every different mating strategy that you could possibly imagine (and that includes homosexual behaviour).

What you are really talking about is not biology, but your own idea of sexual morality. That's fine, but don't try to use science to justify it.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> Do civil unions afford to couples the full gamut of rights afforded to married couples?
> What you said about the escalation of the definition is a fallacy of the slippery slope kind.
> Society has tampered with marriage already - look around and see the number of couples who live together without being married, the number of single-parent families, and the number of gay couples. Updating the law is just a matter of reflecting societal evolution. Societies don't remain the same along the centuries.


Civil Unions, at least of the design Vermont came up with, proffer couples the same _*civil*_ rights as couples who obtain a marriage license and complete the process. There is no federal civil unions legislation, so some states refuse to recognize civil unions created in other states; or same-sex marriages from states that have them, for that matter.

It is important, I think, to consider religious marriage separately from civil processes. The civil contract is recognized by civil authority, the religious contract by religious authority. Much of the current fracas is due to a confused commingling of those authorities.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

And I note that, with the above harangue, I have officially reach 500 posts. Seems like I should get a bonbon for that.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> ... *a confused commingling* ...


I think it is wonderfully appropriate, considering the title of the thread, that you chose to use such fabulous words in your 500th post.

:tiphat:


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Suwannee Tim said:


> No sir, I don't live in a hole. I have followed politics closely for 40 years and I know my history. My challenge to Couchie and now you is: facts. Give me some facts. Of course, if you don't have time for facts, I understand. Gratuitous assertions are quick and convenient, facts take a bit more time.
> 
> Looking over the Wikipedia entry, the pattern I see is the then Republican states, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska and so on, legislatively repealed their sodomy laws in the '60 and 70s. In that era the Southern states were solidly Democrat and did not repeal their sodomy laws. Their laws were overturned by later court orders. The Wikipedia entry proves that, historically, Republicans were more sexually permissive than Democrats.


I won't pretend that my one-word tongue-in-cheek post was a totally qualified statement on Republicanism as a whole. I can however supply you with the 2010 Texas GOP platform, which you'll see on pages 13-14 calls for criminalization of gay marriage, opposes the legalization of sodomy, legal enforcement of anti-pornograpy measures, banning sex-orientated businesses...
http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2010RPTFinalPlatform.pdf


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Civil Unions, at least of the design Vermont came up with, proffer couples the same _*civil*_ rights as couples who obtain a marriage license and complete the process. There is no federal civil unions legislation, so some states refuse to recognize civil unions created in other states; or same-sex marriages from states that have them, for that matter.
> 
> It is important, I think, to consider religious marriage separately from civil processes. The civil contract is recognized by civil authority, the religious contract by religious authority. Much of the current fracas is due to a confused commingling of those authorities.


In Canada gay marriage is performed by religious authorities all the time, where gay couples are united under God in accordance with their biblical beliefs. I don't see how marriage as a religious institution justifies barring people who, in your view, don't meet the requirements, let people have gay marriage if they want it, or not get gay marriage if they don't want it, in accordance with each of their beliefs. This is freedom. If you want a singularly defined state-issued theocracy, move to Saudi Arabia.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Suwannee Tim said:


> If anyone is a threat to rights it is the left. Speech codes on US college campuses, in Canada and Europe are an outrage against liberty.


Most of the hate-speech legislation attempts to curtail the above-average suicide rates for gay and other marginalized youths who suffer abuse. Some are worried about the precedent this sets, but I think it is very easy to limit: No hate speech about people or aspects of people that they didn't choose, and can't change. This includes sexual orientation, disabilities, race, and gender. It shouldn't include religious or other beliefs that people hold and are free to change about themselves. I have to ask what's so bad about losing the "right" to campaign for genocide?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

*(The Italian usage)*



Couchie said:


> In Canada gay marriage is performed by religious authorities all the time, where gay couples are united under God in accordance with their biblical beliefs. I don't see how marriage as a religious institution justifies barring people who, in your view, don't meet the requirements, let people have gay marriage if they want it, or not get gay marriage if they don't want it, in accordance with each of their beliefs. This is freedom. If you want a singularly defined state-issued theocracy, move to Saudi Arabia.


I am familiar with people like you who fail to read the message as written. It is a symptom of the malady called 'righteousness'.

The 'Liberal Left' is poisoned with it about as much as is the 'Religious Right'. 
Advising me to leave the country is a remedy commonly used by extremists at both ends of the political spectrum.

Moderate Independence is the most despised of all political 'positions'.

:tiphat:


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I am familiar with people like you who fail to read the message as written. It is a symptom of the malady called 'righteousness'.
> 
> The 'Liberal Left' is poisoned with it about as much as is the 'Religious Right'.
> Advising me to leave the country is a remedy commonly used by extremists at both ends of the political spectrum.
> ...


As I'm not chained to a tree somewhere on a hunger strike I don't really consider myself a liberal "extremist". However all societal change (both good and bad) is heralded by such "extremists" who given enough time eventually corral enough moderate (who are often functionally indistinguishable from apathetic) sitting sheep in one direction or another.

Also I can tell you that the extreme bigots like Westboro Baptist Church are easily ignored as the imbeciles that they are and have no real influence or harm. It is the moderate, enabling bigots that get under the skin and do they real damage because there is power in numbers and they can't be brushed aside as easily, the effect is overwhelming. If you've ever been teased, you know that the bully irritates you, but it's the bystanders who crush you.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

Couchie said:


> I won't pretend that my one-word tongue-in-cheek post was a totally qualified statement on Republicanism as a whole. I can however supply you with the 2010 Texas GOP platform, which you'll see on pages 13-14 calls for criminalization of gay marriage, opposes the legalization of sodomy, legal enforcement of anti-pornograpy measures, banning sex-orientated businesses...
> http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2010RPTFinalPlatform.pdf


Ah beat me to it! And I as well don't think it's fair to generalize Republicans as a whole for interfering with gay rights. I'll instead do some _slightly_ narrower generalizing and say it's primarily the deeply religious, the black population, and the elderly that are against it... the first belonging mostly to the Republicans, the second to the Democrats, and the third to both. Civil Union is just a politicians word that attempts to insure that gays get entitled rights while keeping the groups mentioned above from getting all riled up.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Nix said:


> Ah beat me to it! And I as well don't think it's fair to generalize Republicans as a whole for interfering with gay rights. I'll instead do some _slightly_ narrower generalizing and say it's primarily the deeply religious, the black population, and the elderly that are against it... the first belonging mostly to the Republicans, the second to the Democrats, and the third to both. Civil Union is just a politicians word that attempts to insure that gays get entitled rights while keeping the groups mentioned above from getting all riled up.


Yes, how sad is it to see black people and women taking the side of "traditional marriage", even with the undeniable sanctity of such holy unions.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Nix said:


> [...]
> Civil Union is just a politicians word that attempts to insure that gays get entitled rights while keeping the groups mentioned above from getting all riled up.


Wrong. "Civil Union" is an attempt to keep separate church and state. If I hadn't witnessed this crap so many times before, I would be surprised at your contention. As it is I am unsubscribing to this thread, in hopes of avoiding contretemps with the moderators; they do have the forum equivalent of the iron fist, y'know.

:tiphat:


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Wrong. "Civil Union" is an attempt to keep separate church and state.


Really? I didn't know there was a dispute that non-christians shouldn't be allowed to marry either.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

This thread has been permanently closed. It derailed completely from the initial query, and members have posted messages that contained several violations of the Terms of Service (they should consider themselves lucky that we have only closed the thread, without more drastic measures).


----------

