Let me see how many people click on this blog. Its really an experiement.
Certain phrases are more a Hollywood creation than reality I think. 'Sleeping With' is one such. It immediately brings negative connotation to mind when used in a sentence or read in a book or watched as part of a movie dialog. It titillates some gland somewhere I bet.
But why is that? Why is 'sleeping with' misconstrued as such? We are brainwashed is why. You could logically be sleeping with someone meaning just that. Sleeping. The 'With' is the culprit I think. So now let us focus on that word.
The dictionary merely describes it (I mean With) as 'accompanied by'. Demi glazed chicken with asparagus. Coffee with whipped cream. With. Nothing more nothing less.
I slept with Amanda. Amanda accompanied me in the act of sleeping. Or vice versa. What is the problem? Frankly I am not even sure I slept with Amanda since I am not sure if she slept before or after me. I was sort of asleep all the time. I would only have been construed to have slept with Amanda if we ended up sleeping at the exact same time and therefore the 'with' held water.
If not its a bust you see? You don't eat the demi glazed chicken and then go and have some asparagus or walnuts or whatever the 'With' ingredient was do you? So its together at the beginning and ends together.
So how come people jump to conclusions and the wrong ones about having committed another act when the only thing being said is that I slept with someone?
So the next time you hear that phrase - think for a minute - decipher the exact verbiage - are you sleeping with him is an even stupider question because unless the askor is asking the askee this when they are literally found sleeping (together mind you) the question makes no sense. Moreover the askor has to be really daft to ask it of the askee since the chance of getting a response in the affirmative is well nigh impossible if the askee is indeed asleep with the secondary subject involved with the sleeping.
Now go to sleep you idiots - I am (With my pillow)!
Certain phrases are more a Hollywood creation than reality I think. 'Sleeping With' is one such. It immediately brings negative connotation to mind when used in a sentence or read in a book or watched as part of a movie dialog. It titillates some gland somewhere I bet.
But why is that? Why is 'sleeping with' misconstrued as such? We are brainwashed is why. You could logically be sleeping with someone meaning just that. Sleeping. The 'With' is the culprit I think. So now let us focus on that word.
The dictionary merely describes it (I mean With) as 'accompanied by'. Demi glazed chicken with asparagus. Coffee with whipped cream. With. Nothing more nothing less.
I slept with Amanda. Amanda accompanied me in the act of sleeping. Or vice versa. What is the problem? Frankly I am not even sure I slept with Amanda since I am not sure if she slept before or after me. I was sort of asleep all the time. I would only have been construed to have slept with Amanda if we ended up sleeping at the exact same time and therefore the 'with' held water.
If not its a bust you see? You don't eat the demi glazed chicken and then go and have some asparagus or walnuts or whatever the 'With' ingredient was do you? So its together at the beginning and ends together.
So how come people jump to conclusions and the wrong ones about having committed another act when the only thing being said is that I slept with someone?
So the next time you hear that phrase - think for a minute - decipher the exact verbiage - are you sleeping with him is an even stupider question because unless the askor is asking the askee this when they are literally found sleeping (together mind you) the question makes no sense. Moreover the askor has to be really daft to ask it of the askee since the chance of getting a response in the affirmative is well nigh impossible if the askee is indeed asleep with the secondary subject involved with the sleeping.
Now go to sleep you idiots - I am (With my pillow)!
I thought Sleeping with the enemy was the most creative movie title in this war of (misconstrued) words.
ReplyDelete