(no subject)

[darcydodo]

Apparently it was drabble, not sleep. Having fed my muse just enough to keep her slender, will now go sleep.

[Surgeon General's Warning: Reading this drabble may cause squickiness.]

Comments

[liv]

Are you calling it squicky cos you're doing unpleasant things with consent? I don't think 'squicky' is quite the right word for that, but ok.

[darcydodo]

That was the one. What would you call it?

[neonchameleon.livejournal.com]

I certainly wouldn't use a word as strong as "squicky" for that. Mildly unpleasant, possibly- but very little stronger than that.

[liv]

I think it's morally nasty, rather than disgusting, and 'squick' to me implies more the latter. Thanks for the warning, anyway.

[darcydodo]

Hmm. Possibly. I just don't know what exactly squicks people (obviously), so I thought I'd put the warning in case.

[darcydodo]

Possibly so. But, as I said in my response to neonchameleon above, I thought it was better to be on the safe side.

I think squick can cover both of those, though, in any case; for example, some people might think that eating pickled pigs feet or brains (not human!) with capers is disgusting, but that doesn't mean that reading about someone having had that for dinner will squick them. Whereas something like S&M isn't disgusting (depending on the content, at least), but it most assuredly squicks some people.

[fengshui.livejournal.com]

Yeah. The original meaning of squick describes a highly disgusting and somewhat impractical sex act. As its usage has grown it's come to be more associated with discomfort, sometimes extreme discomfort. However, some people still associate it with the sex act.

If you're curious about the original meaning, let me know or do a google search.

[darcydodo]

OK, thanks, I had been wondering. So, um, yeah, fire away. You're more interesting than Google. ;)

[liv]

Those are good usage examples, thanks.

Hm, I use 'squicky' of stuff that I find (extremely; I agree with neonchameleon that it's a strong term) unpleasant to imagine. Your Willow / Faith scene isn't unpleasant to imagine, it's more the implications of the situation that are unpleasant. To take a more extreme example, if I read in a news article that someone had been murdered, that would be upsetting, but not squicky; it would only be squicky if the journalist chose to go into detailed descriptions of how the victim was tortured and mutilated, you see?

[liv]

To be honest (sorry, darcydodo), I think it's more than mildly unpleasant. There's certainly a possible reading (and a short piece like that leaves a lot of room for interpretation) where what's going on is rape or something pretty close to it. The fact that Willow potentially fancies Faith if anything makes that interpretation worse. I hope I don't need to justify that view too much!

[neonchameleon.livejournal.com]

Explanation given in white font so you don't have to read it if you have a weak stomach (it is very squicky...)

Squicking involves drilling a hole in the front of the skull of the victim, and fucking them between the two lobes of the brain.

[fengshui.livejournal.com]

Okay. AFAIK, Squicking is the act of trans-cranial intercourse. Stimulation is provided via the gap between the lobes of the brain. Theoretically, such an act would be performed through a trepanation hole or other skull injury.

I've also seen it used to describe trans-orbital intercourse, but that's less common.

Thankfully, I doubt that anyone has ever actually squicked someone. It's most commonly used as an insult or threat, although I'm sure there's some erotic fiction based around squicking somewhere on the net.

[darcydodo]

No, I agree. It was meant to be potentially unpleasant, hence the warning.

[darcydodo]

OK, but then (and apologies for this in advance, but I need to make my point), suppose that eyeballs were a common delicacy in some part of the world, and I'd said eyeballs instead of brains in my example. That wouldn't be any more disgusting, in principle, but I'm guessing it would squick you if someone said they'd eaten eyeballs. Even without a detailed description.

[liv]

No, the fact that I personally am more squeamish about eyes than brains doesn't really clarify anything. Obviously these things are going to vary between different individuals.

(Actually, I don't mind eyeballs in isolation, I dissected one at school and it was really pretty. I am only bothered about people doing nasty things to eyes that are attached to people.)

But let's not play 'see how much we can squick livredor', hm? I think we all broadly agree about the usage of the word, which is really the best you can hope with using language.