
In Defense of Teasing - robg
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/magazine/07teasing-t.html?ref=magazine&pagewanted=all
======
naish
Interesting article. I particularly liked this comment towards the end:

 _We must remember, though, that teasing, like so many things, gets better
with age. Starting at around 11 or 12, children become much more sophisticated
in their ability to hold contradictory propositions about the world — they
move from Manichaean either-or, black-or-white reasoning to a more ironic,
complex understanding. As a result, as any chagrined parent will tell you,
they add irony and sarcasm to their social repertory. And it is at this age
that you begin to see a precipitous drop in the reported incidences of
bullying. As children learn the subtleties of teasing, their teasing is less
often experienced as damaging._

~~~
Chocobean
It was an interesting article indeed, but I disagree with him that it "gets
better with aging". Think about work-place verbal abuses disguised as jest, or
parental "funny" put-downs spoken to adult children, or when an adult jokes
about his/her spouses' performance in intimate situations or lack of financial
prowess, or that he/she's "still chasing that making it big dream". It could
still hurt, even when the subject of teasing realizes that it is meant to be
funny.

The only thing that changes with age is our ability to laugh at ourselves
along with them, or to laugh back, or the ability to distance ourselves from
the abuser. The author has taken the acquiring of fight/flight defense
mechanisms which comes with age for granted.

My other comment on this thread: the luxury of being able to fight is what
distinguishes good teasing from bad teasing. Those of us who have ever been
teased will know what I mean.

------
steveplace
I feel like throwing a red Voit dodgeball at the author's face, to see if he
falls out of his ivory tower.

~~~
jaycee
Two things:

1) I don't really know that this feels like an ivory tower tone. I mean, it
was grounded in legit research or anecdotal evidence, not a lot of "this is
how it ought to be" talk.

2) I'm pretty sure instances where someone is singled out to have dodgeballs
thrown at one's face would be in the 'bullying' category, not 'teasing' which
the author admits can be a difficult distinction.

Just saying.

~~~
steveplace
Looks like you're next.

Unless I get some lunch money.

------
Jem
I was bullied as a kid and I still think this is a great article.

I want to be able to tease my friends affectionately without being labelled a
bully, or poke fun at my partner without having people lecturing me on
'respect'.

In fact, I totally agree with what was said in the article about couples who
tease - I DO have a happier relationship with my partner because we know each
other well enough to feel comfortable taking the piss, and can laugh at each
other and ourselves. (Most people don't seem to understand the dynamic of our
relationship, but we've been together for 7 years so must be doing something
right :) )

------
tome
Confusion is the result of giving two different things (being playful and
being hurtful) the same name (teasing).

~~~
yummyfajitas
The confusion comes from the fact that "playful" and "hurtful" are, to a great
extent, properties of the teasee rather than the teaser.

 _Fabienne [Pulp Fiction French Girl]: A pot. A pot belly. Pot bellies are
sexy.

Butch [Bruce Willis]: Well you should be happy, 'cause you do [have a pot
belly]._

The net result of that conversation is NSFW in a positive way (here is the
script <http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/7606/pulpscri.htm>).

I've had a similar conversations, and it doesn't always go so well. In
retrospect, I believe the reason is that Fabienne considered herself beautiful
and knew Butch was merely trying to get a reaction from her. Previous
ladyfajitas didn't all feel the same way about themselves.

~~~
scott_s
It's worth remembering that Fabienne reacted the way she did because that's
what Quentin Tarrintino wanted her to do.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I realize that. But I've also had positive reactions under similar
circumstances. The movie quote just refers to a scene most of us can easily
picture.

Another example; I'm a bit homophobic, and I get teased for it occasionally. A
friend of mine from years ago also behaved homophobically, but reacted badly
to the same teasing. He came out of the closet last year.

His bad reaction was due not to the input, but his own internal state.

------
timcederman
I miss the culture of acceptable teasing in Australia.

------
omarchowdhury
Well, judging by the lack of replies this seems like a sensitive issue with
the nerds (geeks?).

~~~
Chocobean
totally. I read the title of the post and I winced. Not even because I was
especially teased.

the gist of the article: "Where teasing provides an arena to safely explore
conflict, it can join people in a common cause. Especially when they’re
allowed to tease back."

I would change that to say that teasing is an arena to safely explore conflict
and bring about positive benefits ONLY when the teasing is two-directional.
This is the difference between brothers punching each other and a bully
punching you in the gut -- if you're not allowed or unable to punch back or
throw back a punchline, it's bullying.

Unlike physical hurt, teasing can be used as a tool to tie a group closer
together by highlighting its contrast with another group, or more hurtfully,
specific things about a single individual. Greasers and preppies, nerds and
jocks, boys and girls, Inners and Outers...etc. The punchlines are often
something the group has in common, but which the excluded individual(s) lack.
In other words, hurtful teasing aims to alienate; helpful teasing aims to bind
together. Unfortunately, sometimes the two can happen simultaneously.

Again, the difference here is the ability to counter. The article brings in
all these cases where people are on retaliate-able positions, even when
inequality exists. The situation with the frat boys would've resembled the
Stanford Prison Experiment if the Inners were allowed to tease the Outers but
not vice versa.

~~~
derefr
When I read the title, I thought it was going to be an ironic post by the NYT
about post-barriers ("teasers.")

------
bemmu
The article was too painful to read through, but the example given at the
start seems like normal play, not teasing as I understand it.

~~~
scott_s
Teasing is a part of the normal play. The author tries to distinguish between
playful teasing and abusive teasing.

~~~
Chocobean
actually no, the author cited example after example of helpful, positive,
team-building, playful teasing, but never actually said what separates that
from abusive teasing. The closest he gets to doing so is to imply with "age"
it doesn't hurt anymore because we are able to perceive the playfulness and
not the hurt. Which we all know is not true.

~~~
scott_s
Fifth paragraph:

 _The reason teasing is viewed as inherently damaging is that it is too often
confused with bullying. But bullying is something different; it’s aggression,
pure and simple. Bullies steal, punch, kick, harass and humiliate. Sexual
harassers grope, leer and make crude, often threatening passes. They’re pretty
ineffectual flirts. By contrast, teasing is a mode of play, no doubt with a
sharp edge, in which we provoke to negotiate life’s ambiguities and conflicts.
And it is essential to making us fully human._

~~~
Chocobean
nononononono he defined bullying as we understood it, and then defined
"teasing" in the narrow context of "a mode of play, ... with a sharp edge".
Nowhere in the article does he explicate when teasing is done with intention
to humiliate or embarrass, or teasing is done to someone whose social standing
or physical attributes make it difficult for them to "play back", or when real
harm is done despite best intentions. He seem to think that teasing is wholly
a subjective game, where it's what you think it means that determines whether
it is in seriousness or in jest, whether the joke is on your or with you. In
other words he either intentionally ignored the defining line between good and
bad teasing to make his "defense of teasing" point, or he actually believes
that they are one and the same, that it's all in how you look at it, and how
old you are. In the first case he is hiding evidence that counters his thesis
intentionally, in the latter, he is disconnected with actual experiences of
life.

~~~
scott_s
He provides no examples of "this is bullying" and "this is teasing." But I'm
able to figure out for myself which is which from the distinction he makes in
the beginning.

The point of his article is to explore the good kinds of teasing, why it
exists, and the benefits it has. I think you're faulting him for not doing
something he never set out to do.

