Page 1 of 3

Re: War of Words #2: Is this Homophobic? (Apolitical discuss

PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:38 pm
by saxitoxin
What if the person taking it up the ass is a lady?

It could be FemaleFreshmanFromBYUPhobic in that case.

Re: War of Words #2: Is this Homophobic? (Apolitical discuss

PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:46 pm
by Army of GOD
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:I'm not sure if it's homophobic. I guess it sort of is, but I have to admit I use this phrase (and other phrases of similar derogatory nature) often.

I agree with BBS though, is that the rhetorical meaning of the phrase is that it refers to the ass-rape being non-consensual, which is a shot at the person's masculinity.

Also, even in a consensual way, willingly taking it up the ass is pretty much still considered non-masculine.


Thus starts a long thread about bullying/accepting other lifestyles etc. etc.


I guess so, but these "hetero-normative assumption" debates are generally not worth getting into. I think Symmetry or "natty(_)dread" are bound to expand on that...

I tend to take things straight-up *(ha ha), so the phrase "getting fucked in the ass" simply means "getting fucked over" or "being wronged" or "got a bad deal." The gender studies people tend to take it much deeper than that, so then they usually posit that the meaning of these words (interpreted by them) has some strong influence on the way (most or many) people perceive homosexuality or masculinity.

I tend to think that the change occurs before they even notice it and without their gender studies analysis. It seems like they're in a little box, talking among themselves, and no one else really cares or is affected by them.


I agree with the interpretation of "getting fucked in the ass" as "being wronged" but I also use it in other ways, like when I totally pwn n00bs on Call of Duty and then talk trash on the microphone (I'm totally making this up, but the meaning of the anecdote remains) as an insult to their masculinity.

It, like other phrases and whatnot, just come about because of differences in cultures. Like, I grew up using the words "faggot" and "retard" but never intended their use to insult homosexuals (wait, that's offensive, right? I mean "gays") or the mentally handicapped. I don't consider myself a homophobe or mentallydisabledphobe, but I'm sure other people might think that I'm a dirty scoundrel or whatnot.

Channeling my inner BBS, I guess people (including myself) will have to look at the opportunity costs of eliminating these words/phrases from their vocabulary. I guess I'm just a stubborn deutschebag, but I know I don't have a hatred towards certain groups, so I'll probably continue using the words/phrases that some deem offensive and I know that I'll probably be able to go through my entire life using them without many people calling me out on my use of them.

Re: War of Words #2: Is this Homophobic? (Apolitical discuss

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 12:06 am
by BigBallinStalin
saxitoxin wrote:What if the person taking it up the ass is a lady?

It could be FemaleFreshmanFromBYUPhobic in that case.


I saw this flaw in my position coming, and I've no means of stopping it. I'll just have to wait as it awashes us.

Honestly, I don't, saxitoxin, for I strive to be a gentleman. Adhering to a strict chivalric code prohibits such crass behavior in the company of women.

Re: War of Words #2: Is this Homophobic? (Apolitical discuss

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 12:12 am
by BigBallinStalin
Army of GOD wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:I'm not sure if it's homophobic. I guess it sort of is, but I have to admit I use this phrase (and other phrases of similar derogatory nature) often.

I agree with BBS though, is that the rhetorical meaning of the phrase is that it refers to the ass-rape being non-consensual, which is a shot at the person's masculinity.

Also, even in a consensual way, willingly taking it up the ass is pretty much still considered non-masculine.


Thus starts a long thread about bullying/accepting other lifestyles etc. etc.


I guess so, but these "hetero-normative assumption" debates are generally not worth getting into. I think Symmetry or "natty(_)dread" are bound to expand on that...

I tend to take things straight-up *(ha ha), so the phrase "getting fucked in the ass" simply means "getting fucked over" or "being wronged" or "got a bad deal." The gender studies people tend to take it much deeper than that, so then they usually posit that the meaning of these words (interpreted by them) has some strong influence on the way (most or many) people perceive homosexuality or masculinity.

I tend to think that the change occurs before they even notice it and without their gender studies analysis. It seems like they're in a little box, talking among themselves, and no one else really cares or is affected by them.


I agree with the interpretation of "getting fucked in the ass" as "being wronged" but I also use it in other ways, like when I totally pwn n00bs on Call of Duty and then talk trash on the microphone (I'm totally making this up, but the meaning of the anecdote remains) as an insult to their masculinity.

It, like other phrases and whatnot, just come about because of differences in cultures. Like, I grew up using the words "faggot" and "retard" but never intended their use to insult homosexuals (wait, that's offensive, right? I mean "gays") or the mentally handicapped. I don't consider myself a homophobe or mentallydisabledphobe, but I'm sure other people might think that I'm a dirty scoundrel or whatnot.


Yeah. Intentions matter, but since they aren't readily perceived by others, then it's best to think of yourself as a marketer. When you speak, you should know your target market, or audience, so as not to unintentionally offend them.


Army of GOD wrote:Channeling my inner BBS, I guess people (including myself) will have to look at the opportunity costs of eliminating these words/phrases from their vocabulary. I guess I'm just a stubborn deutschebag, but I know I don't have a hatred towards certain groups, so I'll probably continue using the words/phrases that some deem offensive and I know that I'll probably be able to go through my entire life using them without many people calling me out on my use of them.


Like I said, "know your audience." So, you don't have to purge such sayings from your vocabulary, but that's my opinion. Sometimes, it's fun to use that kind of language around people who might be offended because it could present you the opportunity to talk about language, subjectivity, and whatever, which in turn provides an atypical avenue for them to discover who you really are.

It's fun, but be careful because that kind of plan can easily backfire. An easier way is to let someone say something inappropriate, and then maybe later, you could start that conversation with whoever. Anyway, enough rambling.

Re: War of Words #2: Is this Homophobic? (Apolitical discuss

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 1:46 am
by john9blue
BigBallinStalin wrote:Home Fries
or
Tickfaw


wow... and i thought central IL had wack town names...

Re: War of Words #2: Is this Homophobic? (Apolitical discuss

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:46 am
by Haggis_McMutton
tkr4lf wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
tkr4lf wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:As far as I know, whenever that phrase is used, it is implied that "taking it up the ass" was not consensual.


I've never known it to mean forced anal sex. I always thought it just meant being on the receiving end of consensual anal sex. Hmmm.

In what region do you live, if you don't mind me asking? Perhaps it's a regional difference?


I live in one of the following cities:

Los Angeles
New York
Fairfax
Tallahasse
Wyoming
Shanghai
Manassas
Home Fries
or
Tickfaw

That explains it all.


So now we have a list of towns where BBS doesn't live.

Good, good, the noose is tightening. Soon we'll have that drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist popinjay in our grasp.

Re: War of Words #2: Is this Homophobic? (Apolitical discuss

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:09 am
by AAFitz
tkr4lf wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:As far as I know, whenever that phrase is used, it is implied that "taking it up the ass" was not consensual.


I've never known it to mean forced anal sex. I always thought it just meant being on the receiving end of consensual anal sex. Hmmm.

In what region do you live, if you don't mind me asking? Perhaps it's a regional difference?


Its is commonly used to suggest one has been wronged as BBS said.

Most uses of the phrase are homophobic by nature, and in real usage, while its possible to construct a scenario where it is not, most uses would be homophobic by the phrases very nature.

When used perhaps to recount actual events, that would perhaps be the only time it wasn't specifically homophobic, but even then, could absolutely be used because of homophobic influences by the user.

One other exception, is when ex-cons use the phrase. Best not to infer anything about that usage, or ever bring it up again.

Re: War of Words #2: Is this Homophobic? (Apolitical discuss

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:39 am
by BigBallinStalin
AAFitz wrote:
tkr4lf wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:As far as I know, whenever that phrase is used, it is implied that "taking it up the ass" was not consensual.


I've never known it to mean forced anal sex. I always thought it just meant being on the receiving end of consensual anal sex. Hmmm.

In what region do you live, if you don't mind me asking? Perhaps it's a regional difference?


Its is commonly used to suggest one has been wronged as BBS said.

Most uses of the phrase are homophobic by nature, and in real usage, while its possible to construct a scenario where it is not, most uses would be homophobic by the phrases very nature.

When used perhaps to recount actual events, that would perhaps be the only time it wasn't specifically homophobic, but even then, could absolutely be used because of homophobic influences by the user.

One other exception, is when ex-cons use the phrase. Best not to infer anything about that usage, or ever bring it up again.


When is that phrase "homophobic by nature"?

What does "by nature" mean? Is that something we say to add some filler into our position? :P

Re: War of Words #2: Is this Homophobic? (Apolitical discuss

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 1:49 pm
by Woodruff
GreecePwns wrote:"XXXXXXXXXX takes it up the ass."
If XXXXXXXXXX is an individual person, is this a homophobic insult? Why or why not?
If XXXXXXXXXX is not an individual person but a group or organization of some sort, is this a homophobic insult? Why or why not?


In my view, this is not at all a homophobic insult. Presuming that the phrase is referring to something that is "very bad", it runs analogous the fact that something getting unceremoniously shoved up your ass is probably gonna hurt. Presumably, homosexuals...uh...have ceremony about it.

(Sorry, couldn't resist the terrible joke at the end.)

At any rate, if it is taken as homophobic, that presumes that anal sex doesn't happen in a heterosexual relationship? I'm not buying that.

Re: War of Words #2: Is this Homophobic? (Apolitical discuss

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:10 pm
by Army of GOD
BigBallinStalin wrote:
AAFitz wrote:
tkr4lf wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:As far as I know, whenever that phrase is used, it is implied that "taking it up the ass" was not consensual.


I've never known it to mean forced anal sex. I always thought it just meant being on the receiving end of consensual anal sex. Hmmm.

In what region do you live, if you don't mind me asking? Perhaps it's a regional difference?


Its is commonly used to suggest one has been wronged as BBS said.

Most uses of the phrase are homophobic by nature, and in real usage, while its possible to construct a scenario where it is not, most uses would be homophobic by the phrases very nature.

When used perhaps to recount actual events, that would perhaps be the only time it wasn't specifically homophobic, but even then, could absolutely be used because of homophobic influences by the user.

One other exception, is when ex-cons use the phrase. Best not to infer anything about that usage, or ever bring it up again.


When is that phrase "homophobic by nature"?

What does "by nature" mean? Is that something we say to add some filler into our position? :P


I think AAFitz knows something about the world that all of us don't.

Please, oh wise one AntiAircraft Fitz, we are not worth of your perfect knowledge.

Re: War of Words #2: Is this Homophobic? (Apolitical discuss

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:00 pm
by GreecePwns
The Detroit Red Wings take it up the ass. Homophobic or not?

Re: War of Words #2: Is this Homophobic? (Apolitical discuss

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:04 pm
by Army of GOD
GreecePwns wrote:The Detroit Red Wings take it up the ass. Homophobic or not?


Regardless, it's true.

inb4 Serbia

Re: War of Words #2: Is this Homophobic? (Apolitical discuss

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:40 pm
by tkr4lf
AAFitz wrote:
tkr4lf wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:As far as I know, whenever that phrase is used, it is implied that "taking it up the ass" was not consensual.


I've never known it to mean forced anal sex. I always thought it just meant being on the receiving end of consensual anal sex. Hmmm.

In what region do you live, if you don't mind me asking? Perhaps it's a regional difference?


Its is commonly used to suggest one has been wronged as BBS said.

Most uses of the phrase are homophobic by nature, and in real usage, while its possible to construct a scenario where it is not, most uses would be homophobic by the phrases very nature.

When used perhaps to recount actual events, that would perhaps be the only time it wasn't specifically homophobic, but even then, could absolutely be used because of homophobic influences by the user.

One other exception, is when ex-cons use the phrase. Best not to infer anything about that usage, or ever bring it up again.

Well, yeah, I was aware of the phrase's meaning of "having something bad happen to you" or "having somebody wrong you" or similar variations. I guess my original answer was made with me taking the question way too literally.

Either way, I had just never heard it used to mean "non consensual sex in the asshole."

Re: War of Words #2: Is this Homophobic? (Apolitical discuss

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 9:35 pm
by PLAYER57832
I have always thought it referred to getting a "boot" (kick) in the rear, aka army boots/sergeants. But hey, I also had no idea where the old "eeny Meeny Miny Moe" bit came from originally until basically college. (we just said "tiger" ... and left it at that).

Re: War of Words #2: Is this Homophobic? (Apolitical discuss

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 11:48 pm
by rdsrds2120
GreecePwns wrote:"XXXXXXXXXX takes it up the ass."

If XXXXXXXXXX is an individual person, is this a homophobic insult? Why or why not?
If XXXXXXXXXX is not an individual person but a group or organization of some sort, is this a homophobic insult? Why or why not?


Kind of. For the statement to be truly homophobic, it'd have to assume this premise: The people who have anal sex are almost exclusively gay men.

If that's so, then the negative connotation of "XXXXX takes it up the ass" becomes perpetuated with respect to the gay male community and is just as bad as using 'gay' as 'stupid', etc.

-rd

Re: War of Words #2: Is this Homophobic? (Apolitical discuss

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:22 am
by Dibbun
I don't like the term "homophobic." I have issues with certain aspects of gay culture but that does not mean that I "fear" gays, rather that a natural extension of my moderate politics is to not completely buy into any single political group's agenda.

I do not consider it anti-gay to say that someone is "taking it up the ass" as anal sex is common in heterosexual couples and it is not being implied with that phrase that willful conduct in this act is unacceptable. I would say even those women and men who enjoy receiving anal sex would not want to experience it non-consensually, which is really the connotation of the phrase, that the lack of willingness is an aspect of the displeasure inherent when one "takes it up the ass."

Re: War of Words #2: Is this Homophobic? (Apolitical discuss

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:17 am
by BigBallinStalin
rdsrds2120 wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:"XXXXXXXXXX takes it up the ass."

If XXXXXXXXXX is an individual person, is this a homophobic insult? Why or why not?
If XXXXXXXXXX is not an individual person but a group or organization of some sort, is this a homophobic insult? Why or why not?


Kind of. For the statement to be truly homophobic, it'd have to assume this premise: The people who have anal sex are almost exclusively gay men.

If that's so, then the negative connotation of "XXXXX takes it up the ass" becomes perpetuated with respect to the gay male community and is just as bad as using 'gay' as 'stupid', etc.

-rd


Look. This whole homophobic claim is a load of shit.

Here you are, projecting your interpretation of "taking it up the ass" onto all other individuals' interpretations. I've already addressed this weak claim earlier ITT.

The connotation is negative because the user of this phrase considers "taking it up the ass" to be undesirable. If anyone who finds anal sex into their person to be disagreeable, then they cannot justifiably be labeled as homophobic. All we can say is "they find that anal sex into their own persons is undesirable." It doesn't follow that their interpration means that intrusive anal sex, itself, is wrong. All that "getting fucked in the ass" means is "they got wronged."

period.

C'mon, rds. Put up your intellectual dukes, and we can homophobically settle this issue right here right now.

Re: War of Words #2: Is this Homophobic? (Apolitical discuss

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:06 am
by MeDeFe
Woodruff wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:"XXXXXXXXXX takes it up the ass."
If XXXXXXXXXX is an individual person, is this a homophobic insult? Why or why not?
If XXXXXXXXXX is not an individual person but a group or organization of some sort, is this a homophobic insult? Why or why not?

In my view, this is not at all a homophobic insult. Presuming that the phrase is referring to something that is "very bad", it runs analogous the fact that something getting unceremoniously shoved up your ass is probably gonna hurt. Presumably, homosexuals...uh...have ceremony about it.

(Sorry, couldn't resist the terrible joke at the end.)

At any rate, if it is taken as homophobic, that presumes that anal sex doesn't happen in a heterosexual relationship? I'm not buying that.

I'm with Woody on this one.

Re: War of Words #2: Is this Homophobic? (Apolitical discuss

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:19 am
by BigBallinStalin
MeDeFe, your strong support for Woody gives me a woody.

Re: War of Words #2: Is this Homophobic? (Apolitical discuss

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:36 am
by pmchugh
No.

.

Re: War of Words #2: Is this Homophobic? (Apolitical discuss

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:42 am
by rdsrds2120
BigBallinStalin wrote:
rdsrds2120 wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:"XXXXXXXXXX takes it up the ass."

If XXXXXXXXXX is an individual person, is this a homophobic insult? Why or why not?
If XXXXXXXXXX is not an individual person but a group or organization of some sort, is this a homophobic insult? Why or why not?


Kind of. For the statement to be truly homophobic, it'd have to assume this premise: The people who have anal sex are almost exclusively gay men.

If that's so, then the negative connotation of "XXXXX takes it up the ass" becomes perpetuated with respect to the gay male community and is just as bad as using 'gay' as 'stupid', etc.

-rd


Look. This whole homophobic claim is a load of shit.

Here you are, projecting your interpretation of "taking it up the ass" onto all other individuals' interpretations. I've already addressed this weak claim earlier ITT.

The connotation is negative because the user of this phrase considers "taking it up the ass" to be undesirable. If anyone who finds anal sex into their person to be disagreeable, then they cannot justifiably be labeled as homophobic. All we can say is "they find that anal sex into their own persons is undesirable." It doesn't follow that their interpration means that intrusive anal sex, itself, is wrong. All that "getting fucked in the ass" means is "they got wronged."

period.

C'mon, rds. Put up your intellectual dukes, and we can homophobically settle this issue right here right now.


Shoot, son. I was saying if that premise was assumed. You still got that sand in your eyes =; I don't think it's homophobic, and use the saying myself.

Dukes you say? Alright, but my David Bowie punch can send you flying in a hellstorm of glitter. Be prepared.

-rd

Re: War of Words #2: Is this Homophobic? (Apolitical discuss

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:10 am
by BigBallinStalin
rdsrds2120 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
rdsrds2120 wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:"XXXXXXXXXX takes it up the ass."

If XXXXXXXXXX is an individual person, is this a homophobic insult? Why or why not?
If XXXXXXXXXX is not an individual person but a group or organization of some sort, is this a homophobic insult? Why or why not?


Kind of. For the statement to be truly homophobic, it'd have to assume this premise: The people who have anal sex are almost exclusively gay men.

If that's so, then the negative connotation of "XXXXX takes it up the ass" becomes perpetuated with respect to the gay male community and is just as bad as using 'gay' as 'stupid', etc.

-rd


Look. This whole homophobic claim is a load of shit.

Here you are, projecting your interpretation of "taking it up the ass" onto all other individuals' interpretations. I've already addressed this weak claim earlier ITT.

The connotation is negative because the user of this phrase considers "taking it up the ass" to be undesirable. If anyone who finds anal sex into their person to be disagreeable, then they cannot justifiably be labeled as homophobic. All we can say is "they find that anal sex into their own persons is undesirable." It doesn't follow that their interpration means that intrusive anal sex, itself, is wrong. All that "getting fucked in the ass" means is "they got wronged."

period.

C'mon, rds. Put up your intellectual dukes, and we can homophobically settle this issue right here right now.


Shoot, son. I was saying if that premise was assumed. You still got that sand in your eyes =; I don't think it's homophobic, and use the saying myself.

Dukes you say? Alright, but my David Bowie punch can send you flying in a hellstorm of glitter. Be prepared.

-rd


Okay, glitter boy. It's on, and not in any homosexual way. I mean in a brotherly love kind of way, but not in any wincest way.

Let's say that your premise is true: For the statement to be truly homophobic, it'd have to assume this premise: The people who have anal sex are almost exclusively gay men.

I'm still not convinced that your conclusion would follow: ("then the negative connotation of "XXXXX takes it up the ass" becomes perpetuated with respect to the gay male community and is just as bad as using 'gay' as 'stupid', etc.").


My position is that the individual's estimate on the amount of men who are gay and have anal sex compared to "hetero-anal sexers" bears no relevance on your conclusion because the accuracy of that estimate doesn't matter. Instead, what matters is (a) the speaker's attitude toward taking it personally up the ass, and (b) his attitude on homosexuality.

For example,

[1] If the speaker (a) dislikes taking it up the ass, but (b) doesn't care what gay men do in dark alleys, then whenever he uses that phrase, he's not being homophobic.

[2] However, if the speaker (a) dislikes taking it up the ass, and (b) dislikes gays, then whenever he uses that phrase, I might concede that he's being homophobic.

[3] If the speaker (a) likes taking it up the ass, and (b) dislikes gays, then whenever he uses that phrase, he most likely is being homophobic.

[4] And of course, (a) likes, (b) likes, then most likely not being homophobic.


Note: Their estimate of the proportion of gay anal sexers to total anal sexers could be accurate or inaccurate, but that's not the main cause of why their use of that phrase is or is not homophobic.


To get to the bottom of this matter, the negative connotation toward gay men--with the use of that phrase--only originates from the speaker's attitude toward homosexuals and the listener's attitude toward the speaker (e.g. fitting words/meaning in someone's mouth where they don't belong). The phrase might be homophobic, but only in relation to the meaning of the phrase. The phrase itself is never homophobic because it depends on (X) the speaker's attitude, and (Y) the listener's attitude, which is an entirely different matter and is a source of confusion on matters of homophobic words. Their attitudes provide meaning to the words, and then these words can either be homophobic or not.

Words themselves aren't bad, homophobic, or hateful. It depends on the meaning of those words, and the meaning is shaped by the speaker and the listener. A homophobic speaker can render his words as homophobic, and a listener can correctly interpret those "words" as homophobic (ex: 3, and maybe 2). A listener can also incorrectly interpret another speaker's words as homophobic, assuming that the speaker is not actually homophobic (ex: 1 and 4).

Re: War of Words #2: Is this Homophobic? (Apolitical discuss

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:00 am
by Phatscotty
It looks like things are really going this way too. As soon as they are done fundamentally transforming freedom of religion into freedom from religion, they are going to start fundamentally transforming freedom of speech into freedom from speech, and they will start referring to protection from being offended as the right to not be offended, and accuse anyone who disagrees of being a bigot and denying people their rights.

Re: War of Words #2: Is this Homophobic? (Apolitical discuss

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:23 am
by GreecePwns
Okay.

Re: War of Words #2: Is this Homophobic? (Apolitical discuss

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:12 pm
by Woodruff
Phatscotty wrote:It looks like things are really going this way too. As soon as they are done fundamentally transforming freedom of religion into freedom from religion, they are going to start fundamentally transforming freedom of speech into freedom from speech, and they will start referring to protection from being offended as the right to not be offended, and accuse anyone who disagrees of being a bigot and denying people their rights.


What about the actual bigots?