Word choice and implied/inferred connotation...

[ShelbyDawn57]

I'm working on a story where two childhood best friends finally realize the true nature of their relationship. As part of the discussion, I've written the following line of dialog:

“I told April I was bi. She is, too, and said she that as long as I told her before, I could fuck boys. She would do the same if she found a girl she wanted to be with..."

As I'm reading it for the eighteenth time, I'm noticing the use of the words 'boys' and 'girls' carries a connotation of possibly too young. What I find interesting is that the youthful connotation of 'boys' seems to be stronger that that for 'girls.'

Of course, this is all inferred by me at the time of reading, and boys is often used in the context of 'Boys night out' just as 'girls' is, both of which are perfectly fine.

I'm posting this here because I find it an interesting writers paradox and possibly worthy of discussion.

How does context affect word choice, and what should we as writers worry about?
How much of this is our responsibility and how much can we put of on our readers filthy imaginations?
Are there other words that fit this paradigm?

Let's discuss...

FWIW, I haven't decided if I'm going to change it or not... yet.

 

[ElectricBlue]

How does context affect word choice, and what should we as writers worry about?
How much of this is our responsibility and how much can we put of on our readers filthy imaginations?

Context should always clarify potentially "misreadable" words.

What can be a hassle is when commonly used words, such as boys and girls, get other connotations layered on top, and you need to think about it. For a second.

There are also culture overlays, too, but I don't worry about them. I write in Oz parlance, and what goes here, stays in my story.

 

[Djmac1031]

I suppose it depends on the age of the characters themselves? Young adults might say boys and girls while older adults might lean towards men and women.

Although there's no rules to that obviously. My girlfriend is in her 40s and says she's going out with "the girls."

But, since there is sexual context here, I personally would lean towards the side of caution.

Perhaps go with "Guys" and "gals" or "women" or something.

 

[filthytrancendence]

I expect this is pretty culture-dependent. This being the usage of boy/girl to refer to an adult. Here is my experience in the context of the US.

There's a transitional age, late teens-early 20's where a lot of people still use those words as the generic term for a person of that gender. As adulthood sets in, people are brought up to speed to the use of those terms to enforce gendered expectations. This has very different effects on men and women.

A man will not refer to another man he respects as 'boy', unless there is some kind of mitigating circumstance or familiarity. That is an explicitly inflammatory thing to do in the context of masculinity. This is a very, very common vector of insult from an older man toward a younger man. This is why most men do not use the term in an analogous way to how many adult women use girl almost interchangeably with woman. 'Boy' is used to police non-conformance of gender expectations. Even teen boys will bristle at being called boy, as they are striving to be recognized as a man.

There's a kindof opposing force at play when the terms are used in a heterosexual direction. Because of the cultural pressure for women to appear as young as possible, regardless of their age, 'girl' often has a positive connotation when a man says it to a woman. 'She's my girl.' 'Girl' is used to compliment her adherence to gender expectations.

Because of that cultural reality, the positive connotation of 'girl' extends much further into adulthood for women than 'boy' does for men.

To an extent this is true regardless of the gender of the speaker, but there are nuances there, obviously. A man calling a woman girl probably indicates some level of intimacy or at least attraction. A woman calling a man boy is an unambiguous insult. A woman referring to a man to another woman as boy is close to neutral. Et cetera. It's real complicated.

In any case, age is a factor in the usage of those words, but there are many, many other factors. The way your particular line of dialogue parses to me is as a common way for one adult woman to talk to another adult woman about a non-age-specific person. I think it's fine.

 

[Bamagan]

I'm working on a story where two childhood best friends finally realize the true nature of their relationship. As part of the discussion, I've written the following line of dialog:

“I told April I was bi. She is, too, and said she that as long as I told her before, I could fuck boys. She would do the same if she found a girl she wanted to be with..."

As I'm reading it for the eighteenth time, I'm noticing the use of the words 'boys' and 'girls' carries a connotation of possibly too young. What I find interesting is that the youthful connotation of 'boys' seems to be stronger that that for 'girls.'

Of course, this is all inferred by me at the time of reading, and boys is often used in the context of 'Boys night out' just as 'girls' is, both of which are perfectly fine.

I'm posting this here because I find it an interesting writers paradox and possibly worthy of discussion.

How does context affect word choice, and what should we as writers worry about?
How much of this is our responsibility and how much can we put of on our readers filthy imaginations?
Are there other words that fit this paradigm?

Let's discuss...

FWIW, I haven't decided if I'm going to change it or not... yet.

Given that it's essentially dialogue between the characters, I doubt many people will automatically assume that they're referring to underage folks, unless you inexplicably decided to set the conversation at youth choir or a scout meeting or something like that. For anyone that does make such an assumption, I'd hazard a guess that many colloquial language conventions might trip them up, and there's not necessarily anything you can do for those people; maybe add a pile of explanatory footnotes like in Shakespeare (not that that's an option on Lit anyway). I think it's generally good for an omniscient narrator to be precise with terminology, but a certain degree of imprecision in speech often helps make characters seem more authentic.

 

[Cagivagurl]

It's a small sample of the story. Difficult to decipher.
Their ages have probably already been established by other things...
Employment, Education, Partner status...
Their are alternatives. 'Dude,' 'Guy.' 'Bro.'

Cagivagurl

 

[TheLobster]

“I told April I was bi. She is, too, and said she that as long as I told her before, I could fuck boys. She would do the same if she found a girl she wanted to be with..."

As I'm reading it for the eighteenth time, (...)

I'm reading it for the first time and I'm pretty sure that the bolded word is extraneous and should be removed

As for the main question: yes, boys here sounds awkward unless the characters are in high school or maaaaybe in college. "Guys" and "girls" would be what older adults use.

 

[StillStunned]

“I told April I was bi. She is, too, and said she that as long as I told her before, I could fuck boys. She would do the same if she found a girl she wanted to be with..."

If they're young when they're having the conversation (up to mid- to late-20s, perhaps), it's fine. Even if they're older, it can be fine if the conversation has a playful tone to it. Maybe something along the lines of, "I knew from an early age that I liked boys as much as girls. When I finally got round to telling April..."

 

[Kelliezgirl]

It is definitely a cultural thing, but in my experience "girls" has a much less age specific connotation than "boys".

It's "girl's night out" and "guy's night out".
Boy depends a great deal on context. Males can refer to another male friend as "my boy".

And it isn't insulting, but in other contexts it's pretty derogatory.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Nothing about that sentence reads right.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

I agree it's very culture-dependent. My impression is there's a lot less casual usage of boy to mean man in the US than in the UK, where referring to 'the boys' is standard for groups of male contestants on game shows, along with 'the girls', your husband has a night out with the boys, etc. Lad and lads might be more common but the word means boy in exactly the same way. It's a bit less common to say boys/lads than girls, because the word guy exists. Given 'guy' used to be an insult, implying someone looked like a stuffed set of old clothes fit for the bonfire, etymology doesn't get us far.

I believe boy has also been used as an explicitly racist insult in the US - and then there's good ol' boys. Brits do get warned not to call people 'boy' when visiting America.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Context should always clarify potentially "misreadable" words.

What can be a hassle is when commonly used words, such as boys and girls, get other connotations layered on top, and you need to think about it. For a second.

There are also culture overlays, too, but I don't worry about them. I write in Oz parlance, and what goes here, stays in my story.

I agree, and this is what I was considering when I wrote this post. So, as a writer, how far does our responsibility go to alleviate any inferred sense of inappropriateness by our readers, and can you think of any pother words that have this issue?

 

[Bamagan]

I agree, and this is what I was considering when I wrote this post. So, as a writer, how far does our responsibility go to alleviate any inferred sense of inappropriateness by our readers, and can you think of any pother words that have this issue?

I would say that there are a variety of basically innocuous words that are also racial or ethnic slurs, some of which can be relatively obscure depending on where you're from and how diverse the population was. Apologies to anyone who gets offended, but for example, while you can have a chink (narrow crack) in your armor or in a wall or so forth, it's not necessarily the best choice of synonyms. There are numerous other examples, but there's no need to belabor my point. I am rather ambivalent about attempting to avoid such words. I don't want to offend, but I also don't want to double-check every word just to make sure some bigot somewhere hasn't co-opted it for derogatory purposes.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I would say that there are a variety of basically innocuous words that are also racial or ethnic slurs, some of which can be relatively obscure depending on where you're from and how diverse the population was. Apologies to anyone who gets offended, but for example, while you can have a chink (narrow crack) in your armor or in a wall or so forth, it's not necessarily the best choice of synonyms. There are numerous other examples, but there's no need to belabor my point. I am rather ambivalent about attempting to avoid such words. I don't want to offend, but I also don't want to double-check every word just to make sure some bigot somewhere hasn't co-opted it for derogatory purposes.

The issue with potentially offensive words is that sometimes they are the correct words.

"Chink in the armor" is a old expression, and changing it on the off chance someone might be offended lessens the work. I would agree with a character saying "there's a crack in the wall" and avoiding the word in that context.

There are plenty of places where retard is the correct term and it has nothing to do with a person's mental capability.

Context is the issue.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I agree, and this is what I was considering when I wrote this post. So, as a writer, how far does our responsibility go to alleviate any inferred sense of inappropriateness by our readers, and can you think of any pother words that have this issue?

If it would feel natural for you to say it, I think that's good enough. You can twist yourself into a knot about how someone somewhere could possibly interpret something. Frankly, it's a waste of time you could spend writing.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

I expect this is pretty culture-dependent. This being the usage of boy/girl to refer to an adult. Here is my experience in the context of the US.

There's a transitional age, late teens-early 20's where a lot of people still use those words as the generic term for a person of that gender. As adulthood sets in, people are brought up to speed to the use of those terms to enforce gendered expectations. This has very different effects on men and women.

A man will not refer to another man he respects as 'boy', unless there is some kind of mitigating circumstance or familiarity. That is an explicitly inflammatory thing to do in the context of masculinity. This is a very, very common vector of insult from an older man toward a younger man. This is why most men do not use the term in an analogous way to how many adult women use girl almost interchangeably with woman. 'Boy' is used to police non-conformance of gender expectations. Even teen boys will bristle at being called boy, as they are striving to be recognized as a man.

There's a kindof opposing force at play when the terms are used in a heterosexual direction. Because of the cultural pressure for women to appear as young as possible, regardless of their age, 'girl' often has a positive connotation when a man says it to a woman. 'She's my girl.' 'Girl' is used to compliment her adherence to gender expectations.

Because of that cultural reality, the positive connotation of 'girl' extends much further into adulthood for women than 'boy' does for men.

To an extent this is true regardless of the gender of the speaker, but there are nuances there, obviously. A man calling a woman girl probably indicates some level of intimacy or at least attraction. A woman calling a man boy is an unambiguous insult. A woman referring to a man to another woman as boy is close to neutral. Et cetera. It's real complicated.

In any case, age is a factor in the usage of those words, but there are many, many other factors. The way your particular line of dialogue parses to me is as a common way for one adult woman to talk to another adult woman about a non-age-specific person. I think it's fine.

Good points, but they seem to focus on a second person usage of the words; me specifically calling you a boy or a girl. The context applied to the connotation is provided by our relationship and your actual age leaving less room for ambiguity. There's also tone of voice if it's an in person conversation.

In the sample, the usage is third person and generic. In the sample I offered, the people in the conversation are early twenties, which offers some context, but still leaves the age of the boys being fucked open to interpretation. The point I hoped we could discuss( and you touched on this) is excessively context specific. I can have a male character say "That's my boy." and it can mean so many different things depending on the ages, genders, races of the people speaking and being talked about.

Make the speaker an alpha black male and the subject a diminutive white beta, it means one thing, and can still be a compliment depending on textual context; subject did a good job. Of course if his doing that good job is sucking the speakers cock, well, it gets muddier, doesn't it? In this example, the age of the 'boy' isn't an issue because in this medium, he has to be of age.

Switch it around and make the speaker white and the subject black. Yeah, whole different context. I don't even want to go there.

If both the speaker and subject are contemporaries, you'd have to go to the relationship of the two as defined by the rest of the story, and it's still open to interpretation.

In the usage I offered; "yada yada... fuck boys." the context is almost entirely up to the reader; speaker is a pedo, or speaker enjoys sex with male partners.

What I was mulling over was, how much responsibility do I have as a writer to alleviate the readers confusion? How far should I go to mitigate offending them? Sure, that's my job as a writer, but it has to have limits or I'm risking taking the reader out of the story to clarify something. i.e.. "yada yada... fuck boys.(Authors note; X is not a pedo. he's just Bi. 'Boys' is used as a non age specific generic)". That doesn't read well, does it?

It also occurred to me that there are probably other words that offer the same contextual problem, I just couldn't think of them off the top of my head.

 

[filthytrancendence]

What I was mulling over was, how much responsibility do I have as a writer to alleviate the readers confusion? How far should I go to mitigate offending them? Sure, that's my job as a writer, but it has to have limits or I'm risking taking the reader out of the story to clarify something. i.e.. "yada yada... fuck boys.(Authors note; X is not a pedo. he's just Bi. 'Boys' is used as a non age specific generic)". That doesn't read well, does it?

I think we have responsibility to eliminate ambiguity in certain circumstances. Age of consent is one of those circumstances. The overlong essay I wrote about the specific usage of boy/girl as it pertains to age and enforcing gender expectations was intended as an illustration of why you cannot rely solely on those words, regardless of how you use them, to eliminate the ambiguity. The story is a web of context in which that line of dialogue is only one part. On its own, it is basically neutral to me, in terms of what it says about the subject's age. It neither helps nor hinders the ambiguity.

I had a situation with my latest story where I had to confront the same question. My love interest is explicitly a young woman, and this is central to the way I characterized her. I felt that the way I wrote it, even though part of her core character is being a young woman, made it clear she is on the correct side of the age problem. She acted child-like in some circumstances, but she is also very adult-like. Like young people do.

I ended up deciding, as one of my final edits, to add 2 lines of dialogue that make her age textual and unambiguous (24, for the record). This is because I felt that the character who was talking to her, and preparing to have sex with her, had something of an obligation to ask how old she was. Because he is an older (30's) man, and I had given her some traits that made her age slightly ambiguous, on purpose.

So the characters' responsibility mirrored my responsibility as the author. He could not be 100% certain, even if he was 99% certain, without just saying the words out loud, "how old are you." And so I made him ask.

Everybody has to decide how to manage that ambiguity. That's where I landed for that story. But the more problematic the ambiguity itself can be, the more difficult it is to justify mostly eliminating it with context cues, rather than biting the bullet and making it explicit.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I agree, and this is what I was considering when I wrote this post. So, as a writer, how far does our responsibility go to alleviate any inferred sense of inappropriateness by our readers, and can you think of any pother words that have this issue?

For me, not far. There are some words that I'm never going to use because I can't ever imagine writing a story set in America's deep south in the 1950s, but I don't get offended when I see them in print. Similarly, I'm not going to use the Australian equivalent for Aboriginal people, which is flat out blatant racist and always has been.

But I'm not going to get my knickers in a knot about the American inability to understand knickers versus panties, for example, and every woman has a cunt even if folk (again, mostly Americans) get offended when one uses that word.

All this hand-holding that seems to go on in case the delicate get upset is ridiculous. If those folk are so easily offended, what on earth are they doing on a smut site?

Having said that, it's never hard to provide clarity through context. At the end of the day, if a writer repeatedly writes "little" before "girl", it's probably not too hard to figure out what they're actually on about.

 

[SkyBubble]

I expect this is pretty culture-dependent. This being the usage of boy/girl to refer to an adult. Here is my experience in the context of the US.

There's a transitional age, late teens-early 20's where a lot of people still use those words as the generic term for a person of that gender. As adulthood sets in, people are brought up to speed to the use of those terms to enforce gendered expectations. This has very different effects on men and women.

A man will not refer to another man he respects as 'boy', unless there is some kind of mitigating circumstance or familiarity. That is an explicitly inflammatory thing to do in the context of masculinity. This is a very, very common vector of insult from an older man toward a younger man. This is why most men do not use the term in an analogous way to how many adult women use girl almost interchangeably with woman. 'Boy' is used to police non-conformance of gender expectations. Even teen boys will bristle at being called boy, as they are striving to be recognized as a man.

There's a kindof opposing force at play when the terms are used in a heterosexual direction. Because of the cultural pressure for women to appear as young as possible, regardless of their age, 'girl' often has a positive connotation when a man says it to a woman. 'She's my girl.' 'Girl' is used to compliment her adherence to gender expectations.

Because of that cultural reality, the positive connotation of 'girl' extends much further into adulthood for women than 'boy' does for men.

To an extent this is true regardless of the gender of the speaker, but there are nuances there, obviously. A man calling a woman girl probably indicates some level of intimacy or at least attraction. A woman calling a man boy is an unambiguous insult. A woman referring to a man to another woman as boy is close to neutral. Et cetera. It's real complicated.

In any case, age is a factor in the usage of those words, but there are many, many other factors. The way your particular line of dialogue parses to me is as a common way for one adult woman to talk to another adult woman about a non-age-specific person. I think it's fine.

Men go out with "the boys," women go out with "the girls."

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Men go out with "the boys," women go out with "the girls."

Women can also put 'the girls' on display, or cover them up.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Women can also put 'the girls' on display, or cover them up.

Some of us push the boys up out of the way to complete the illusion, too.

 

[filthytrancendence]

Men go out with "the boys,"

unless there is some kind of mitigating circumstance or familiarity

My overall premise was that the two words in question are extremely complicated in terms of how meaning is derived. And that age is, at best, a secondary component of their meaning. Listing every permutation could fill an entire book.

And, as it pertains to the question at hand, they are at best useless at eliminating uncertainty about underage characters.