Aren't we over-interpreting a spur-of the-moment comment that did not get enough forethought to even assume that the words actually fit whatever thought led to their utterance?

I know that in similar circumstances I have blurted things out and realized after the fact that the actual meaning of the words did not match what I intended. Sometimes my meaning got across because of the context, sometimes I had to work after the fact to clear up misunderstandings.

The audience hooted because he slammed the peanut gallery.

The natural reading is NOT that the take down will be done by the heckler. I don't see how you get there at all.

Anonymous wrote:The fact that you think this is a clear or even likely reference to oral sex makes me question MWUN's judgement.

Oh no! I take it all back! Don't lose your faith in me.

Is anyone even going to attempt to answer the question that I've been asking: if it was a fight reference, who was supposed to be going down "tonight," and why?

Anonymous wrote:That's why it's not an oral sex reference. There was no who/whom in his statement.

? That would apply to either a sex reference or a fight reference. The entire point of that rhetorical device - innuendo or not - is to leave it to the listener to fill in the blank.

I'm saying that the clear implication was that the heckler would be going down on someone. To whom do you claim he was referring - who was going to go down (for the count, etc.) that night? Someone answer that question, because I couldn't find an answer from any of the bloggers who thought that this was just super cool.

Even if one of his apologists can provide any reasonable answer to that question - and apparently no one can - look at the context. In the same sentence he calls the heckler "sweetheart," and then immediately afterwards goes on to praise the "Jersey girls" in the audience. Could he have displayed his virgin/whore complex any more obviously? He started off on a patriarchal riff, and clumsily reached for what he considered a sexually charged insult.

BTW, you might want to listen to the audio. The audience certainly thought it was a sexual reference - they hooted like the old Married with Children canned audience. And look at the childish smirk on Christie's face.

Anonymous wrote:I think he was referring to his plans to go down on a tub of butter later that evening.

funny as hell!

The fact that you think this is a clear or even likely reference to oral sex makes me question MWUN's judgement.

I think he was referring to his plans to go down on a tub of butter later that evening.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/01/09/chris_christie_responds_to_female_hecklers_with_offensive_oral_sex_joke_video_.html

The article pretty much covers my thoughts, but one thing it missed: exactly why is it an insult to suggest that someone will be giving oral sex in the near future? Christie obviously implied that it is.

This strikes me as a very dangerous position to take not only for someone who will continue to seek election, but for anyone who wants to receive oral sex ever again. "You're a loser for blowing me" isn't very encouraging.

Because he is so goddamn hot, I read into it, too. yummy

Sorry, 17:37 here, I don't know why the text markers are visible. It's like using Word Perfect! (And now you know how old I am).

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I HATE the "sweetheart," and I'm not a Christie fan, but this is not an oral sex reference. It's a "I'm ready to rumble" statement.

Woman here, if that matters.

With whom? I.e., who was going to go down "tonight?"

That's why it's not an oral sex reference. There was no who/whom in his statement. When "something goes down" it's a fight or a ruckus or an event. When someone goes down, that can be oral sex or it can be a take down, i.e. in context, "he's going down," for he's getting fired or busted or whathaveyou.

Anonymous wrote:I HATE the "sweetheart," and I'm not a Christie fan, but this is not an oral sex reference. It's a "I'm ready to rumble" statement.

Woman here, if that matters.

With whom? I.e., who was going to go down "tonight?"

I HATE the "sweetheart," and I'm not a Christie fan, but this is not an oral sex reference. It's a "I'm ready to rumble" statement.

Woman here, if that matters.

Anonymous wrote:I read the comment and thought going down as in losing, not as in oral sex. Are people reading too much into that comment?

The statement was: “You know, something may be going down tonight, but it ain’t going to be jobs, sweetheart.”

Who would be losing "tonight" on that date, after the debate and before the primary? And what's with the "sweetheart?"

Anonymous wrote:I have no idea where Slate got that. He is from NJ so isn't it more likely using that slang (the deal is going down at 12 tonight)-- I don't think anyone thought he was going to eat her out after the presser.

Where Slate got what? - I don't follow what you think he meant. FYI, I think he was saying that she would be going down on some unspecified man, not that Christie would be going down on her. (I don't think he meant anything more specific than that, because I think he's just a thoughtless gasbag who has overcommitted to his Jersey tough guy persona.)

I have no idea where Slate got that. He is from NJ so isn't it more likely using that slang (the deal is going down at 12 tonight)-- I don't think anyone thought he was going to eat her out after the presser.

I read the comment and thought going down as in losing, not as in oral sex. Are people reading too much into that comment?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/01/09/chris_christie_responds_to_female_hecklers_with_offensive_oral_sex_joke_video_.html

The article pretty much covers my thoughts, but one thing it missed: exactly why is it an insult to suggest that someone will be giving oral sex in the near future? Christie obviously implied that it is.

This strikes me as a very dangerous position to take not only for someone who will continue to seek election, but for anyone who wants to receive oral sex ever again. "You're a loser for blowing me" isn't very encouraging.