DrPhill wrote:It may be that, to you, peeing on anything is disrespectful.
I'll admit that I could have been more clear, but "anything" is an awfully big word for you to to be putting in my mouth, my friend. If I didn't know better, I'd think you assume I don't have the ability to draw distinctions. Now, peeing on something that doesn't belong to me? Absolutely it's disrespectful. How could it not be? Surely you would be offended if, for example, I peed all over your car. If I peed on my own, then where's the disrespect? It's my car, so in that case I'm simply a pig and probably dead drunk. If you asked me to pee on your garden with care and feeding in mind, that's an entirely different matter again, and - bladder providing - I would be glad to help out, although the neighbors might prove problematic. But if you didn't give me the go-ahead, I definitely wouldn't presume it was all right anyway, precisely because it's
your garden, not mine. As you can see, I have at least some grasp of degree.
All of a sudden I have this inkling that maybe I
should apologize to the urinal.
DrPhill wrote:But '....on your roses' does not have that clarity; for me roses and urine have a natural positive affinity. Maybe I am more chthonic than you.....
Where but on C&F would we hope to hear "chthonic"?
You could be right. I've been told my head's in the clouds, so there you go. But you're still focusing on how you treat your own roses, not the proprietary boundaries implicit in someone else's (I touched on this already, above), and
that is what the metaphor's about: boundaries, ownership, and the violation thereof. To me it couldn't be more clear; the metaphor says you're peeing on someone
else's roses, not your own, and the distinction is key. Social boundaries are not an exotic, much less invalid, idea; indeed, I'll bet most people will think of peeing on private property as an offense first, rather than as fertilizer. We are not cattle. Not to press, but you still haven't addressed how you yourself would like it if a total stranger waltzed up and peed on your garden. You can profess all you like that you're grateful for the free nutrients, and no doubt it's a mitigating benefit, but tell me you wouldn't first be offended by the sheer gall of some unfamiliar lout using your beauties for a toilet. You can be sure that horticultural largesse would be the last thing on
his mind.
Now, it has to be said that we're beating this poor metaphor to within an inch of its sad life. It is what it is, it makes all the sense in the world to me, and I've never known anyone else to be confused by it. For all I know you've been pulling my leg, but I'm not left much choice but to operate on the assumption that you're in earnest, so here we are. In truth, I wouldn't be explosively offended if someone peed on my garden - in the end I tend to be philosophical about such things - but I still would register at least some irritation. Beyond any shadow of a doubt the transgressor will have intended offense, so mission accomplished, and congratulations. After all, he could have peed on more neutral ground. I think a negative reaction on my part would be normal, don't you?
We also say "peeing on someone's doorstep" in much the same spirit, but it doesn't carry the subtext of all the care, devotion, and personal investment that go into raising roses. It's not intended at all to be about fertilizing plants; rather, it's about someone who treasures something, and sees their prize as being treated roughly. Again: boundaries, ownership, and investment; you need only ask around to know that that's the context that most will infer. The difference between the illustrations above and the metaphor itself is that the metaphor doesn't assume an intent to offend; it only assumes that a construct will be critiqued or even dismantled, and that someone probably won't like it.
Here's an example of "peeing on someone's roses": A fellow once told me that lice can jump. Well, they can't. They're built for clinging to hair shafts, not jumping; without hairs to hang onto, they're sunk. It's why shaving is a sure remedy for lice. He said I was wrong, so I suggested he must be thinking of fleas, but he assured me he knew the difference. I wasn't so sure. On it went, and I couldn't convince him of the truth. For me it wasn't about being right - I knew I was already - but I have a real problem with willful ignorance. Willful ignorance can land you in a heap of trouble, and I think that if one is to be of service to one's fellow humans then one should not let such sleeping dogs lie, because even in little matters like lice, you never know where ignorance will lead; I have lived too long to hope that it would be anywhere good. But I digress. Back to the story: Fortunately we have smartphones nowadays, so all it took was a quick Google then and there to settle the debate, and while he was now one critter the wiser, the fact remained that he'd obstinately held onto a belief that was easily proven false, and he could have long ago corrected this all on his own with very little effort, sparing himself chagrin into the bargain. Even if he hadn't been embarrassed, proof still repudiated his "roses". Another example could be mocking someone for their attire, so the metaphor covers some ground regardless of the intent, which might be malicious, or not.
After all this, maybe I should just stick with "raining on someone's parade".