If you are gay and someone used these terms to describe a person (not necessarily a homosexual person) would it offend you?
Fruity: Specifically what this thread is all about.
Poof: European equivalent of fruity I would say
Gay: Common and often used as a synonym for "stupid, wrong, etc..."
The dreaded F word: A bundle of sticks, a cigarette, and a deplorable term if used against a person.
Sugar in tank: a strange choice, sugar in a gas tank is bad?
The dreaded D word. Not referring to a structure blocking water.
I'm sure there are many many others, but my point is made. I am not trying to offend anyone by the way, I'm just curious what actual terms are in current popular circulation which actually offend homosexuals.
With that said, the "F" and "D" words certainly have the most hatred behind them and should probably not be used in uncontrolled circumstances (I call my bf the "F" word when I'm trying to get his attention sometimes lol)
Thanks for making this thread lol... Bring Fruity Vader back!
I'm gay, and no none of them offend me. It's part of the english language and slurs are going to exist. It's only as offensive as you let it be, so don't let it offend you, ESPECIALLY if the term is not meant to bear offense. While I don't like that terms like "that's so gay" have become part of our everyday language, I'm not going to scold somebody for using it- they're just a product of an overwhelming movement that is greater than themselves.
Thanks for making this thread lol... Bring Fruity Vader back!
Awesome. Thank you Crimson. You rule.
I'm not homosexual, though, so I don't think I get to reply directly to the OP.
I'm going to assume you've simply lumped bisexuality in with homosexuality (a move which appears to be on par with the maturity of thought in this thread's origins), and answer also. While poof and "sugar in tank" are unfamiliar to me, I find the remainder to be offensive.
I'm not trying to offend you, and i'm sorry if I did. I suppose you need to know the context. A Char Op thread was locked because one of us decided to call their build "Fruity Darth Vadar" what ensued was a completely unnecessary digression which should have belonged here. Hence my reasoning for starting the thread.
Heres the link
Seeing as I can find my name in the thread you've provided me, I'm confident I have the context. While I agree that the digression itself was unnecessary, I also assert that the issues raised are valid. I would have suggested those who were offended by the thread (such as myself), briefly raise their issue, report the post, and move on.
Sorry missed that you were in the loop. My bad.
I'm wondering if Fabulous Vadar would have been better?
I'm bisexual and I live in Belgium. Not a single kid in school has ever harassed me about it, on the contrary. If on the other hand people beat you up all the time calling you all derogatory terms it's only normal you're sensitive to the use of those words.
Edit: I went to look at the thread. I thought it was obviously all in jest. *shrug*
I'm wondering if Fabulous Vadar would have been better?
That will be considered a slur in a few years too. See the history of the word "Colored" in America.
Not sure how it relates to being homosexual.
Fruity: Specifically what this thread is all about.
I've never seen or heard that description used in a positive context. It's always been pejorative as far as I know.
Poof: European equivalent of fruity I would say
I don't hear it very often, but I know that it's connotation is negative, similar to fruity.
Gay: Common and often used as a synonym for "stupid, wrong, etc..."
This one can be used one way or the other, so it's more highly dependent on context. "I got an F on that test!? Totally gay!" and "Are you just going to be gay and button mash again?" are derogatory and offensive. "I think that my son might be gay" and "I'm glad you convinced me to check out that gay bar" are absolutely fine.
The dreaded F word: A bundle of sticks, a cigarette, and a deplorable term if used against a person.
Unacceptable. Some gay people are trying to take it back nowadays, but I still don't feel comfortable with it, and I ask my gay friends not to use it. There are a handful of contexts where it's not so bad, such as in the phrase "**** hag", but even then I prefer to defer to the less offensive "fruit fly", or specifically in the context of bears "Goldilocks".
Sugar in tank: a strange choice, sugar in a gas tank is bad?
I have never heard of this before.
The dreaded D word. Not referring to a structure blocking water.
This one still confuses me a lot of the time, but I prefer to play it safe and not use it. I think that the only time that I hear it used very often anymore though is in the phrase "**** tyke", which is what a straight man is to lesbians as a straight woman is to gay men.
The one that's been getting a lot of traction lately that I do really detest is the phrase "no homo". It baffles me that some people think that one's okay.
While I don't like that terms like "that's so gay" have become part of our everyday language, I'm not going to scold somebody for using it- they're just a product of an overwhelming movement that is greater than themselves.
It's not about scolding them. It's just about informing them. Yeah, they're a product of something greater than themselves, but there's nothing wrong with wanting them to or asking them to transcend that. The greatest problems arise when people who don't actually intend offense are inadvertently offending just because it's been so heavily ingrained into our language.
I would have suggested those who were offended by the thread (such as myself), briefly raise their issue, report the post, and move on.
I tried to, but then everybody jumped onto me. =(
I'm wondering if Fabulous Vadar would have been better?
Sure, that would have been fabulous. =D
"He definitely has some sugar in his tank:, or "He's got some sugar in his pocket."
I don't know, it may be regional.
www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=****
www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=****[expanded "****" with "got" at the end]
www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=****[a word that starts with "qu", ends with "eer", and is censored for some reason]
Quite frankly I have no concern whatsoever what two or more consenting adults choose to do with their genitals.
The censor is corrupting the URL's, and i've no desire to cleverly evade the censor. You guys can surely figure it out.
I wonder why didn't our own Darth Fabulous reply to this thread yet.
'cause it was posted when I was asleep.
While I don't like that terms like "that's so gay" have become part of our everyday language, I'm not going to scold somebody for using it- they're just a product of an overwhelming movement that is greater than themselves.
Scold? No. Thankfully though I'm completely out at work (I found that putting a rainbow flag above my desk and next to a picture of me and the SO clears up any misconceptions about me being straight) so I just have to make a pointed cough and the student workers gets the idea. Probably doesn't help that I'm their supervisor.
As for the words... context, as always, is paramount. Which means that if you're not in a group of friends that it's better safe then sorry.
But pretty much it'd be hard for someone, out of the blue, to use any of those terms without throwing up warning flags. Once I figured out what they meant, anyway. Seriously, sugar in the gas tank? Never heard it at all. Poofter I'm familiar with from literature at least...
It's in the Flintstones themesong for [insert deity here]'s sake!
On that note, when exactly did "gay" further transition from "homosexual" to "vaguely unpleasant"?
Fruity: Specifically what this thread is all about.
I've never seen or heard that description used in a positive context. It's always been pejorative as far as I know.
As an avid consumer of Fruity Pebbles, I take offense at this, sir .
Does anyone know exactly when "gay" transitioned from meaning "happy" to "homosexual"?
It's in the Flintstones themesong for [insert deity here]'s sake!
On that note, when exactly did "gay" further transition from "homosexual" to "vaguely unpleasant"?
I think the transition from "happy" to "homosexual" occurred sometime in the 70s. Not certain, though, I know it was before I was aware of such things.
As for the word being used to mean "bad", "unpleasant", "stupid", etc.; I'm not gay, yet I find it offensive. It is a direct reference to homosexuals being somehow inferior. As far as I'm concerned, so long as you pay your way through life and don't hurt anyone that didn't purposefully wrong you, I don't have a problem. I think this kind of usage would be less prevalent if instead of "gay" people used the word "Hispanic", "Jewish", or the N-bomb.
Fruity: Specifically what this thread is all about.
I've never seen or heard that description used in a positive context. It's always been pejorative as far as I know.
As an avid consumer of Fruity Pebbles, I take offense at this, sir .
I will clarify then. When being used to refer to a person, I've never seen or heard that description used in a positive context.
Nothing at all wrong with fruity drinks, fruity fragrances, or Fruity Pebbles. =)
The one that's been getting a lot of traction lately that I do really detest is the phrase "no homo". It baffles me that some people think that one's okay.
Thank a small minded, bigotted, no talent chump undeserving of his fame named Li'l Wayne for making it popular.
In any case, I particularly hate the phrase because it implies that when you tell someone you love them, especially a friend of the same gender, that its not only somehow wrong to be homosexual, but that they can't tell the difference between sexual urges and/or romantic love, and brotherly love or the kind of love between close friends or for family. I hate it because what if you have friends of the opposite gender that you feel a similar kind of love for that isn't romantic, or you tell a sibling or family member of the opposite gender "I love you." To make it fair and balanced, you'd have to say "no hetero" or "no incest" whenever you told them you loved them in context, but even if you didn't, somehow I have the feeling that they would still almost undoubtedly understand that you don't mean it in a romantic or sexual capacity. And if you tell a cherished family pet that you love them, regardless of whether they understand a word you're saying, to be fair and balanced, should you have to say "no beastiality?" Or how about when you say "I love [insert comfort food/pleasurable activity/type of art here]," I would certainly hope you wouldn't have to explain that you don't mean it sexually or romantically.
And if you meant "I love you" in a sexual or romantic context, should you also have to say "yes [insert sexual orientation here]?" Yeah, sure, I'm being rediculous here, but only to prove that you can't use the phrase in a serious context without exposing yourself as a bigot, unless you're that rediculous. I mean, if you or your friends of the same gender aren't capable of understanding a simple concept like context, how can you expect anyone or anything else in your life to?
I'm a straight man, but I could rant forever about how much I hate the phrase "I love you, no homo" and the asswits that made it popular.
The one that's been getting a lot of traction lately that I do really detest is the phrase "no homo". It baffles me that some people think that one's okay.
That phrase seems to be big with bros. Ya know they do something sexual with one of their bros and afterwords so that they can both rationalize that they're completely straight they'll tell themselves that they are not homo. I don't get it. If you like your bro enough to give him a brojob you should be proud enough to be open about it rather than hide it away. Bros are strange.
------
1 It seems that the Q word is censored here because it seems we're not allowed to talk about strange or awkward things.
How about spook?
Or Spade?
A spook is a ghost.
A spade is a type of shovel?
...
...
Racist is as racist does....
OR
Homophobe is as homophobe does...
This does remind me of a time when we were just starting a campaign. Someone mentioned an elven ranger (this was 3e) and I responded with "elven rangers are gay." Well it turned out that one of the players was gay and had just rolled up his elven ranger. Fortunately he took no offense to it and the game went on.
And if it's just a common ...I got scolded by a lesbian friend for calling something gay) then what's the big deal?
The big deal there is exactly that your intent is not matching the words that you're using. The words that you're using by calling something gay in the context of saying that it's stupid are implying that gay is negative. Even if that's not you're intent, that's what you're saying, and that's why you get scolded. This is especially a problem in a more public setting where you aren't good friends with the people with whom you're interacting. If somebody in that setting doesn't know that you're not homophobic, then what are they supposed to think when you continue to use a phrase implying that gay is negative?
This does remind me of a time when we were just starting a campaign. Someone mentioned an elven ranger (this was 3e) and I responded with "elven rangers are gay." Well it turned out that one of the players was gay and had just rolled up his elven ranger. Fortunately he took no offense to it and the game went on.
He really should have mentioned something. Even if it doesn't bother him (which I'm fine with- I'm not going to say anyone is any less of a person for not being a white knight), it teaches you that you can keep doing that. Just because nobody does something about it doesn't mean it is okay.
As for other words in place of gay, someone gave the example of Jewish earlier on. I can definitely say that is not only used in a perjorative manner, but is quite common (e.g. "I got **** out of X." or "what a jew").
And if it's just a common ...I got scolded by a lesbian friend for calling something gay) then what's the big deal?
The big deal there is exactly that your intent is not matching the words that you're using. The words that you're using by calling something gay in the context of saying that it's stupid are implying that gay is negative. Even if that's not you're intent, that's what you're saying, and that's why you get scolded.
I'm not sure I'd say that in this sense it is the speaker implying that gay and stupid are equivalent especially since with such a phrase (well as far as i hear it) the word gay is to mean only stupid and well not homosexual but not equating the two. So rather the implied equivalence would all be on the listener/interpreter.
Either way we look at it though using a phrase like "those shoes are so gay" is just being flat out intellectually lazy. There are dozens of commonly used words in the English language that can better describe the shoes in my example line than gay.
It is similar in the sense to swearing how many people will use the same few cuss words for most of the adjectives and verbs when there are much better fitting and less offensive words to use in their place. A person not using them doesn't mean that they don't or can't mean well but it is however quite intellectually lazy to do such.
This does remind me of a time when we were just starting a campaign. Someone mentioned an elven ranger (this was 3e) and I responded with "elven rangers are gay." Well it turned out that one of the players was gay and had just rolled up his elven ranger. Fortunately he took no offense to it and the game went on.
He really should have mentioned something. Even if it doesn't bother him (which I'm fine with- I'm not going to say anyone is any less of a person for not being a white knight), it teaches you that you can keep doing that. Just because nobody does something about it doesn't mean it is okay.
As for other words in place of gay, someone gave the example of Jewish earlier on. I can definitely say that is not only used in a perjorative manner, but is quite common (e.g. "I got **** out of X." or "what a jew").
So he should have held up the game for something small like that and ruined everyone's fun after I had already realized what I said and apologized? I'm glad you're not in my gaming group. And compared to some of the things I've said (in my circles we tend to pick on all races, religions, and ethnicities, sexual preferences, and well really anything else we can make fun of equally) it was pretty minor.
I love your sig quote bone_naga.
So he should have held up the game for something small like that and ruined everyone's fun after I had already realized what I said and apologized?
Door #Lawn Chair Handcuff Dance
I'm not sure why it would ruin everyone's fun to say "Dude, not funny." Unless, of course, you chose to make it a big issue and go off on a rant to defend your right to use a term for someone's sexuality as a derogatory term. But a quick, low-key, judgement-absent rebuff? Yeah... I'm not seeing how that necessarily has to ruin everyone's fun, unless you really get that much fun out of putting other people down with that particular term, in which case I'm not sure your brand of fun is something I'd worry over ruining.
Were I to call someone a "fruit" I'm sure I'd be castigated by my gay friends, yet none of them had an issue with the openly gay superhero named Fruit Punch who was the protagonist of a story I wrote. Context matters, as does intent.
On a side note: I have one homosexual friend who is completely against being called gay. In deference to him, I use the word only within it's orrigional context of happy, pleasant, or festive.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know when and why the term gay (meaning happy, pleasant, festive, brightly colored and showy) became synonymous with homosexual?
On a side note: I have one homosexual friend who is completely against being called gay. In deference to him, I use the word only within it's orrigional context of happy, pleasant, or festive.
From the straight dope
Dear Cecil:
Where, when, how, etc., did the good-natured word "gay" pass into the vernacular as a designation for all things homosexual? Can one be homosexual without being gay, and vice versa?
— Tom M., Los Angeles
Cecil replies:
Hate to tell you this, Tom, but the "good-natured word 'gay'" has been leading a double life. Although many people believe "gay" simply meant lighthearted or cheerful until it was shanghaied by the preverts, the truth is the word has long had a secondary connotation of sexual licentiousness. As early as 1637 the Oxford English Dictionary gives one meaning as "addicted to social pleasures and dissipations. Often euphemistically: Of loose and immoral life"--whence, presumably, the term "gay blade." In the 1800s the term was used to refer to female prostitutes; to "gay it" meant "to copulate."
By 1935 the word "geycat," meaning a homosexual boy, had found its way into print, giving a clue as to the direction things were starting to go. Sure enough, by 1955 "gay" had acquired its present meaning, as P. Wildeblood notes in Against Law: "Most of the officers had been "gay' ... an American euphemism for homosexual." Actually, gays had probably been using the term among themselves long before.
Ghettoization of the term began to occur in the 60s so that today "gay" in the sense of "homosexual" has chased out all other uses of the word. This is more the result of the squeamish attitude of the straight world than any organized campaign on the part of gays, and in any case it's no big deal; there are plenty of other words that cover the same territory that the non-sexual meanings of "gay" did.
At one time "gay" referred strictly to male homosexuals; female homosexuals were called lesbians. (This distinction may no longer hold true--today one hears lesbians being referred to as gay.) Whether all male homosexuals would consent to be called gay--whether, for the matter, all gays would consent to be called homosexual--is a question I will not presume to answer. I am quite certain, however, that most gays would reject the implication that "gay" necessarily implies promiscuity.
— Cecil Adams
