Misogynistic and problematic route names in rock climbing

Suburban Roadside wrote:

Aw how cute, wanna-be good parents concerned about creativity & slack morals that words carry...while exhibiting anti-social dangerous activities as something of value.... 

As an aside to H T F U

DEATH & TRANSFIGURATION 
Some of the best routes are named to convey the seriousness that would result in failure

This route is not scary or dangerous. Probably over bolted. I'll save that name for something more fitting then.

Mike Lane wrote:

BOHICA is a well known acronym mostly related to political or sports talk. Been around for decades.

I've learned something new today! Thanks for explaining. For all I know, the route name was an abbreviation from the start, named by FA, and not a subsequent abbreviation by the guidebook author.

I've used inappropriate words for route names. A guidebook author renamed one of the most egregious ones. Turns out, the route is pretty popular and being designed for entry level climbers attracts a lot of kids and families. Although I have a irritating dark sense of humor, I am relieved that no one has to explain to their kid what a Dirty Sanchez is.

Part of adulting is learning that your actions have consequences. Fortunately for me there was an editor between my juvenile self and the public.

The tyranny of Cancel Culture does what all tyranny does: incentivises an adverse response. Contrarians such as myself are more likely to engage in obnoxiousness if I know it will provoke people I don't like in the first place.

What prevented that obnoxious name ultimately sullying my name was editing. He told me the name was inappropriate and I agreed. It was a transaction. He persuaded me to change my mind, although he did hold final say what went into his  book. The important thing is that he and I made decisions as individuals. There wasn't some panel or governing body in place reflexively censoring.

Good point. Most people would have no way of knowing how many route names had been changed in the process of publishing the guidebooks, by private discussion between the publisher/FA, or by simple miscommunication. or lack of knowledge, or because a route was known by duplicate names, etc.

In the days before social media, if the FA had called the name something sleazy, and didn't announce it on  Instagram, maybe only a handful of people even knew, or cared. Changing name under those circumstances, after a suggestion from a guidebook author, was (probably) a low-pressure situation. When the discussion about possible route name change is happening with 1000s of spectators taking sides, it can result in the opposite effect, with people digging in/grandstanding, in order not to lose face by 'giving in' to pressure.
   

A problem I have seen continuously over my 20 years in this community is far too many keep using the tactic of an Appeal to Authority. Instead of embracing your responsibilities as an adult for your actions, you'd rather have an authority dictate how to behave. Authoritarianism never works. It feeds revolt. If you want people to stop spraying inappropriate or even aggressive names around, use persuasion against it. If the author finds the name missing from a guidebook and people ridiculing him online and at the crags and gyms, the less likely it is others will follow. 

I'm not sure that people who want some route names changed are appealing to authority.

The problem, as I see it, is that some people point out that certain names are offensive/problematic, and then the other side is saying, how would you decide, anybody can be offended by anything, if you change one route name, then "they" will come back and demand that all names be changed.

This obviously isn't true, just like all the other "slippery slope" arguments ("if you allow gay marriage what's next? Polygamy? Incest? bestiality? where's the line?"), but the question of who decides, and how can this be implemented in a way that takes consensus into account, is an interesting one. And the one I don't have an answer for.

Ma Ja wrote: This is off topic, but curious about a name that I'd considered but then realised no one would climb it based on the name. Would you climb a route called 'The Deadly Rhythm"? Seems like having 'deadly' in the name would be less than appealing. It's one of the best Refused songs, and is in reference to that.

I don't think any sane person pick or doesn't pick a route because of its name. 

Side note: Did you know the EDK has "death" in the name and its a very common and safe knot but if you want to call it "a offset overhand bend" to feel safer when you use it you are free to do so...

Lena chita wrote: I've learned something new today! Thanks for explaining. For all I know, the route name was an abbreviation from the start, named by FA, and not a subsequent abbreviation by the guidebook author.

Good point. Most people would have no way of knowing how many route names had been changed in the process of publishing the guidebooks, by private discussion between the publisher/FA, or by simple miscommunication. or lack of knowledge, or because a route was known by duplicate names, etc.

In the days before social media, if the FA had called the name something sleazy, and didn't announce it on  Instagram, maybe only a handful of people even knew, or cared. Changing name under those circumstances, after a suggestion from a guidebook author, was (probably) a low-pressure situation. When the discussion about possible route name change is happening with 1000s of spectators taking sides, it can result in the opposite effect, with people digging in/grandstanding, in order not to lose face by 'giving in' to pressure.
   

I'm not sure that people who want some route names changed are appealing to authority.

The problem, as I see it, is that some people point out that certain names are offensive/problematic, and then the other side is saying, how would you decide, anybody can be offended by anything, if you change one route name, then "they" will come back and demand that all names be changed.

This obviously isn't true, just like all the other "slippery slope" arguments ("if you allow gay marriage what's next? Polygamy? Incest? bestiality? where's the line?"), but the question of who decides, and how can this be implemented in a way that takes consensus into account, is an interesting one. And the one I don't have an answer for.

All great route names that would somehow offend people. 

Lena chita wrote: I've learned something new today! Thanks for explaining. For all I know, the route name was an abbreviation from the start, named by FA, and not a subsequent abbreviation by the guidebook author.

Ever been on a sail boat?  There is life - and a world of words - beyond climbing.  Hard to imagine I know....

J T wrote:

All great route names that would somehow offend people. 

Would they though?

Ma Ja wrote: This is off topic, but curious about a name that I'd considered but then realised no one would climb it based on the name. Would you climb a route called 'The Deadly Rhythm"? Seems like having 'deadly' in the name would be less than appealing. It's one of the best Refused songs, and is in reference to that.

Why wouldn't I?

just off the top of my head, routes at the Red:

Dead on Arrival
Death by Chocolate
Death Certificate
Death wish
Dead baby

Do you think that people are less likely to climb at the Morgue or the Graveyard, because of the crag names?

I think in general thematic route names that echo/relate to the name of the crag are pretty cool. Miller Fork developers have done a nice work with that. But at the end of the day, for most climbers route names are simply a way to distinguish one route from another. That's all I need route names for.

One of the best route names out there is "Spread your legs and Trust the Rubber" Makes me chuckle like a teenager every time… Someday I will be good enough to climb it.

Lena chita wrote:

Would they though?

yes, I'm offended. 

In all reality though, the meaning of the word "bestiality" should be more offensive than the meaning of "asshole" or "pussy", no?

IMO, what makes something offensive is up to the individual.  Personally, something that translates to "Black Ladies Asshole" is way more offensive, given the context, than "Tinder P*ssy" to me, but clearly not to the AAC.....you mentioned BOHICA in the RRG, this route can have two connotations. One in a sexual context and one in a very unlucky context depending on how you want to interpret. 

Lena chita wrote:

Why wouldn't I?

just off the top of my head, routes at the Red:

Dead on Arrival
Death by Chocolate
Death Certificate
Death wish
Dead baby

Do you think that people are less likely to climb at the Morgue or the Graveyard, because of the crag names?

I think in general thematic route names that echo/relate to the name of the crag are pretty cool. Miller Fork developers have done a nice work with that. But at the end of the day, for most climbers route names are simply a way to distinguish one route from another. That's all I need route names for.

I agree about MF developers. I will say that if "Tinder P*ssy" is as classic as the article makes it seem I don't think anyone is less likely to climb it based on an "offensive" name, which some people are failing to realize   

Sanitizing route names has about as long a tradition as the naming itself.  A number of names in the trad bastions of CT and NY have been watered down over the years (although a few of the more obscure names survive).  Look at the history of the Decadent Wall names at the City (of Rocks). Ultimately the name just reflects on the namer.  Anyone else can choose to be offended or just ignore.  This back and forth dynamic - "Sticks and Stones..." obviously extends way beyond our little climbing bubble.  Your opinion will just correlate to where on the PC spectrum you fall.  

Ma Ja wrote: This is off topic, but curious about a name that I'd considered but then realised no one would climb it based on the name. Would you climb a route called 'The Deadly Rhythm"? Seems like having 'deadly' in the name would be less than appealing. It's one of the best Refused songs, and is in reference to that.

Good band. “Deadly” doesn’t seem like a big deal. You have your “Coffin” and “Hospital”, etc., references to make climbs sound dangerous too.

Eric Engberg wrote: Sanitizing route names has about as long a tradition as the naming itself.  A number of names in the trad bastions of CT and NY have been watered down over the years (although a few of the more obscure names survive).  Look at the history of the Decadent Wall names at the City (of Rocks). Ultimately the name just reflects on the namer.  Anyone else can choose to be offended or just ignore.  This back and forth dynamic - "Sticks and Stones..." obviously extends way beyond our little climbing bubble.  Your opinion will just correlate to where on the PC spectrum you fall.  

Out of curiosity, how long ago were these routes becoming "watered down"? In my experience I feel as if the sanitizing of routes, as you called it, is a thing that has only occurred in the past 10 years (not as much to do with media, but rather an increase in sensitivity as a whole). 

J T wrote:

I agree about MF developers. I will say that if "Tinder P*ssy" is as classic as the article makes it seem I don't think anyone is less likely to climb it based on an "offensive" name, which some people are failing to realize   

The TP route was renamed NOT because there was concern that people wouldn't climb it, if it had offensive name. It was renamed for reasons listed in that R&I article.

 The "if you don't like the name, don't climb the route" is a really bullshit comeback (which some people used in this thread)

I was just responding to Ma Ja regarding the question about whether the route name makes someone more likely, or less likely to climb a route. In most cases, I would say it doesn't matter at all. But I can think of some cases where it might. For example, if a route is called "Crumblies" or "Dirt in Eye" I would take a real hard look at the star rating!

J T wrote:

Out of curiosity, how long ago were these routes becoming "watered down"? In my experience I feel as if the sanitizing of routes, as you called it, is a thing that has only occurred in the past 10 years (not as much to do with media, but rather an increase in sensitivity as a whole). 

1984 CT guidebook had the names "Animal Crack" and "The Good Book" - those were not the original name.  ~2000 Gunks guide (maybe it is slightly more recent) just left out a route with an offensive (to the author) name.  The City of Rocks Decadent Wall names were changed (in the guidebook) in the  1990's

Eric Engberg wrote:

1984 CT guidebook had the names "Animal Crack" and "The Good Book" - those were not the original name.  ~2000 Gunks guide (maybe it is slightly more recent) just left out a route with an offensive (to the author) name.  The City of Rocks Decadent Wall names were changed (in the guidebook) in the  1990's

Interesting. What's the the history behind "Animal Crack" and "The Good Book"? 

J T wrote:

Interesting. What's the the history behind "Animal Crack" and "The Good Book"? 

Not that sordid actually. The author, Ken Nichols (who went on to infamy for other reasons but was/is the epitome of an OCD personality),  is a bit of a prude.  Animal Crack was Anal Crack and The Good Book was The Porno Book (I had a vested interest in that one as I got the FA and naming rights - oh-oh now I'm in trouble).

Fritz Nuffer wrote:

Named for the cocrophagia passage from Gravity’s Rainbow? 

You have won the beer and a rocketship.  And I’ll throw in this neurotic octopus as a bonus.

How has nobody mentioned the actual name for “Hot Beach,” aka “Hot Bitch on a Beach,” at Shelf? An all time classic!

Not say'n, but just say'n boys, being more understanding to others sensitivities might get you laid more often.