> What if that email was to a female kernel dev?

So it is okay to swear at men but not at women? Why in this context?

Really, this is ridiculous. Why would something become acceptable/inacceptable simply because of the gender/religion/haircolour/height/taste in music of the recipient?

It's not OK for anyone (in my opinion). However, because it's a sexualized email sent from a man it would have a not insignificant chance of being interpreted as sexual harassment (i.e., meeting the legal definition for creating a hostile work environment) towards a woman.

So I can send such an email to a woman as I am gay? But if I sent it back to Linus, it’s sexual harassment?

As I said, ridiculous.

> So I can send such an email to a woman as I am gay?

No, probably not. I painted in broad strokes, but the situation is more murky. I don't know of any situations where legal action for this kind of behavior has come from men doing it to men.

> But if I sent it back to Linus, it’s sexual harassment?

Possibly. That may depend on the state? I'm not terribly familiar with same-sex sexual harassment issues, I'm afraid. Need to re-read up on it, I guess.

Sadly, it's not about what you intended. It's about how things are perceived on the receiving end. That's the only thing that matters.

If you work in California, you might want to check out the laws on workplace harassment. Here's a not-bad summary: http://www.ehow.com/list_6006205_california-workplace-harass...

If one employee repeatedly causes offense or discomfort to another, especially on the basis of protected categories like race, religion, or sexual preference, and the management is aware of the offense but doesn't do anything about it, the company is opening itself to a lawsuit.

If management became aware of the remarks above, and they were within a workplace context (the above ones were out of the workplace), management would have to do something. They are making crude sexual references and could reasonably be regarded as offensive.

It does not matter if you think it is ridiculous, although it would be smart to reflect that the reason we have these laws is because, historically, there has been real and pervasive harassment.

> Why would something become acceptable/inacceptable simply because of the gender/religion/haircolour/height/taste in music of the recipient?

There are some things that might (for instance, a reference that had a widely accepted meaning in general usage but also a specific use in the context of a particular group might be less appropriate to use to a member of that group where the context might be ambiguous enough to support both the group-specific and the more general use, while being perfectly fine otherwise), but I don't really see that being the case for the particular email in question.

> What if that email was to a female kernel dev?

Are you saying men can't suck dick?

You 're implying that women don't swear?

I think you missed the point.

Go ahead and repeat that quote to the nearest woman and see if they share your view.

I think you missed the point. Go ahead and repeat that quote to every male around you and see if they all approve.

The particular quote doesn't ring particularly sexist or homophobic. It's NSFW, but the linux kernel is not exactly kindergarten material.

I understand what you're saying but you are making the classic "protect the kiddies" argument and I'm not sure I can accept your position. I'd rather not live in such a world. Linus' mailing list is different from an email at work.

"anywhere else you would get summarily fired" Speak for yourself. I've never worked anywhere where someone got fired for speaking English.

"What if that email was to a female kernel dev?" What if it was man? A martian? A lickle putty tat? I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here saying here.

"What if a whizkid reads ... deepthroating means?" Whizkid? Doesn't know what deepthroating means? Were you home-schooled?