The end of banter

Banter, wordplay, teasing, double entendre, innuendo, flirting…. How much is too much?

In these heightened times of gender politics and hypersensitised awareness of sexual dynamics, will we see an end to these forms of verbal communication?

Recently I was discussing events of the past few days with a journalist friend, a witty commentator. The Tejpal episode, sexual harassment cases, the strident media response, the public outrage and the plethora of lit fests, were all part of the conversation.

"So see you at the weekend lit fest," said my friend, and then in an attempt to be wry he rhymed the word with a crude sexual reference.

Even under normal circumstances I would have ignored this crass attempt at wit, but I noticed this time when I let his remark pass without a reply, my friend interpreted the missed beat of my response as a sign that I had taken offence.

In what was an everyday telephonic conversation, I heard the remorse in his voice as he replayed what he had just said in the light of recent happenings: "I take that back with an apology," he said, as though we were in a legal dispute. "I'm sorry."

***

The dictionary defines banter as 'playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks.'

Its synonyms are repartee, raillery, ripostes, sallies, swordplay, quips, wisecracks, crosstalk, and wordplay. Flirting, on the other hand, is commonly described as a social activity between two people suggesting an interest in a deeper relationship with the other person.

This brings me to Exhibit Two: a lady of unimpeachable dignity and learning was at an offshore symposium. She happened to be one of the few women present in a sea of men. Waiting her turn in the queue for the buffet lunch, she was startled by the remark one of her colleagues made.

"Are you a non-vegetarian?" he said to her, looking her up and down suggestively and making it clear what his oafish double entendre referred to.

The sophisticate that she was, the lady chose to laugh about it in recollection. But of course she avoided the man's company for the rest of the seminar.

***

The Oxford English Dictionary describes a double entendre as a figure of speech, which is used to "convey an indelicate meaning".

Historically this form of innuendo gained credence in societies where saying what one meant was a punishable offence.A language of subtle political communication had to be created by noblemen, for instance, at European courts, where a word spoken against the king could be seen as an act of treason.

A discourse where sentences had two meanings, one an innocuous one and the other with a more loaded message evolved.

Which brings me to Exhibit Three: last year the highflying and respected head of a large multinational based in Mumbai was admonished by the head office and quit subsequently after an enquiry was instituted about whether he had behaved inappropriately.

His offence? Apparently the man had sent an invitation addressed to his office colleagues in which he and his wife had invited them to a party at their house.

The sentence that got him in trouble was one in which he had invited his female colleagues to 'bring their bikinis' (to swim in the building pool) and their pyjamas (if it got too late to go home).

"What was the problem?" he is said to have cried over the brouhaha, "My wife had issued the invitation too!"

Banter, wordplay, teasing, double entendre, innuendo, flirting.

How much is too much?

Malavika Sangghvi is a Mumbai-based writer malavikasangghvi@hotmail.com