Page 3 of 3

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

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:09 pm
by Funkyterrance
Dukasaur wrote:
Funkyterrance 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 tend to disagree, the operative word being "take".

Therefore the original statement in question is homophobic, no matter the context. It implies there is something wrong with it, otherwise it wouldn't be an insult.

You haven't got Clue #1 of what you're talking about. "Taking it up the ass" isn't, strictly speaking, an insult, although it can be used as one. It means, quite simply, that you are in a subservient position and are powerless to change that fact. Someone who is in a higher position than you might be insulting you by pointing out your predicament, but someone who is on the same level as you might be sympathetically commiserating. For instance, if you work at a company that has just unilaterally cut everyone's pay by 15%, and you'd love to quit but you can't because it's the only job in town right now, you might turn to your friends at work and say, "looks like we're taking it up the ass yet again."

Although the expression invokes anal sex, it's not primarily sexual. It quite simply means being in a subordinate position, as the person on the receiving end of anal sex generally is, regardless of whether it's homo- or hetero- sex. In fact, even if it involves sex it's not necessarily motivated by sexual desire. When sodomy is used in hazing rituals in gangs and fraternities, it almost never involves actual desire by the sodomiser for the sodomisee, but is simply a method of making the pleb understand that he has no rights and is basically a slave until his probation is over. Again, a senior gang member who says to the pleb, "you're going to take it up the ass now" might be insulting him, but a fellow pleb might be saying it with genuine sympathy.


Dukasaur wrote:
Funkyterrance 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 tend to disagree, the operative word being "take".

Therefore the original statement in question is homophobic, no matter the context. It implies there is something wrong with it, otherwise it wouldn't be an insult.

You haven't got Clue #1 of what you're talking about. "Taking it up the ass" isn't, strictly speaking, an insult, although it can be used as one. It means, quite simply, that you are in a subservient position and are powerless to change that fact. Someone who is in a higher position than you might be insulting you by pointing out your predicament, but someone who is on the same level as you might be sympathetically commiserating. For instance, if you work at a company that has just unilaterally cut everyone's pay by 15%, and you'd love to quit but you can't because it's the only job in town right now, you might turn to your friends at work and say, "looks like we're taking it up the ass yet again."

Although the expression invokes anal sex, it's not primarily sexual. It quite simply means being in a subordinate position, as the person on the receiving end of anal sex generally is, regardless of whether it's homo- or hetero- sex. In fact, even if it involves sex it's not necessarily motivated by sexual desire. When sodomy is used in hazing rituals in gangs and fraternities, it almost never involves actual desire by the sodomiser for the sodomisee, but is simply a method of making the pleb understand that he has no rights and is basically a slave until his probation is over. Again, a senior gang member who says to the pleb, "you're going to take it up the ass now" might be insulting him, but a fellow pleb might be saying it with genuine sympathy.


I don't mean to interrupt duke but we are really talking about the term, not the actual act, and the way that the term is generally used and by whom. Is it commonly used by heterosexual people comfortable with homosexuality? In my experience it's the contrary.
We can all imagine very specific scenarios where the term could be interpreted another way than per usual, like at a visit to the proctologist or a fraternity hazing, but I think for the sake of argument it makes more sense to stick with the most common usage which implies homosexuality. And to be clear the phrase is question is "he/she takes it up the ass" not "taking it up the ass" in general. This distinction is very important and cannot be interchanged in order to strengthen your stance.

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

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:37 pm
by Dukasaur
This isn't an enormous enough issue to get into complex cut-and-paste exercises, so I'll just answer flat out. Maybe you live in a place where this expression is used in a sexual context. I understand that the nuances of slang vary from time to time and from place to place. Where I live the expression is used 90% of the time in a financial, social or political context. "You took it up the ass" is in the same family as "You got fucked at the used car lot." There may be a sexual expression at the literal core of it, but in actual usage it has nothing to do with sexuality.

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

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:43 pm
by Funkyterrance
Dukasaur wrote:This isn't an enormous enough issue to get into complex cut-and-paste exercises, so I'll just answer flat out. Maybe you live in a place where this expression is used in a sexual context. I understand that the nuances of slang vary from time to time and from place to place. Where I live the expression is used 90% of the time in a financial, social or political context. "You took it up the ass" is in the same family as "You got fucked at the used car lot." There may be a sexual expression at the literal core of it, but in actual usage it has nothing to do with sexuality.


Well, tbh, now that you're not being flat out insulting I don't even care but we may as well follow through with this.
I'm saying that "you took it up the ass" and "you take it up the ass" are completely different in meaning. One implies being something's bitch unwillingly and the other implies homosexuality and is derogatory.

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

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:59 pm
by Dukasaur
Funkyterrance wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:This isn't an enormous enough issue to get into complex cut-and-paste exercises, so I'll just answer flat out. Maybe you live in a place where this expression is used in a sexual context. I understand that the nuances of slang vary from time to time and from place to place. Where I live the expression is used 90% of the time in a financial, social or political context. "You took it up the ass" is in the same family as "You got fucked at the used car lot." There may be a sexual expression at the literal core of it, but in actual usage it has nothing to do with sexuality.


Well, tbh, now that you're not being flat out insulting I don't even care but we may as well follow through with this.
I'm saying that "you took it up the ass" and "you take it up the ass" are completely different in meaning. One implies being something's bitch unwillingly and the other implies homosexuality and is derogatory.

If I accept your hypothesis (and I don't entirely accept it, but I can see your point) then why would it be derogatory? Are you saying that colourful synonyms are necessarily derogatory? If it's just a synonym for being gay, and you don't think being gay is bad, then why would a synonym for it be bad? That's sort of like saying that "menstruating" is good, but "riding the cotton pony" is bad. It's just a colourful way of saying the same thing, and sure, colourful expressions can be used in an insulting fashion, but they can also be used simply to improve the vitality of a conversation, by avoiding dry and lifeless words.

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

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:09 pm
by Funkyterrance
Dukasaur wrote:If I accept your hypothesis (and I don't entirely accept it, but I can see your point) then why would it be derogatory? Are you saying that colourful synonyms are necessarily derogatory? If it's just a synonym for being gay, and you don't think being gay is bad, then why would a synonym for it be bad? That's sort of like saying that "menstruating" is good, but "riding the cotton pony" is bad. It's just a colourful way of saying the same thing, and sure, colourful expressions can be used in an insulting fashion, but they can also be used simply to improve the vitality of a conversation, by avoiding dry and lifeless words.


I don't entirely agree.

"cocksucker" does not equal "someone who gives oral sex to men"
"muff diver" does not equal "a woman who has sex with women"
One is meant to be insulting while the other is much more likely to be taken either way. I'm not the one who coined these "colorful" terms but many of them are offensive to those groups with which they are associated.

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

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:34 am
by PLAYER57832
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?

Not necessarily.

It can refer to an enema, a pretty nasty procedure. It could also refer to heterosexual acts.

But.. basically, any reference to bodily functions and such is not considered "polite". A lot of creativity of thought and expression is lost by people who prefer to rely upon mere shock value.. that inevitably wears off, rather than real thought.

My experience is that people who rely heavily upon swearing and vulgarities are lazy in speech and thinking.

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

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:17 am
by BigBallinStalin
This thread is stuck on repeat. Someone please bump the player.

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

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:20 am
by Dukasaur
BigBallinStalin wrote:This thread is stuck on repeat. Someone please bump the player.

You wanna bump with Player? I could tell you were getting ready to take your relationship to the next level....

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

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:28 am
by tzor
GreecePwns wrote:"XXXXXXXXXX takes it up the ass."


I would like to point out that I'm that age where, during my teenage years the great movie "Debbie does Dallas" was made. (1978)

That movie involved a lot of heterosexual anal sex, and at one point was promoting it as a noble thing.

That, on the other hand, has nothing to do with my general desire to see every arrogant moron who violates the HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) rule by illegally crossing the divider to be reamed, up the ass, with a cricket bat.

So, no, it's not.

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

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:45 am
by BigBallinStalin
Dukasaur wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:This thread is stuck on repeat. Someone please bump the player.

You wanna bump with Player? I could tell you were getting ready to take your relationship to the next level....


"XXXXXXXXXX wants to bump with Player."

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?

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

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:03 pm
by Army of GOD
This thread is enraging. I'm going to smoke a fag.

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

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:15 pm
by Dukasaur
tzor wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:"XXXXXXXXXX takes it up the ass."


I would like to point out that I'm that age where, during my teenage years the great movie "Debbie does Dallas" was made. (1978)

Oh, the good ol' days of Debbie Does Dallas!
:D :D

Back when a vulva was still expected to have hair on it, before this disgusting fad for shaved beavers destroyed the world!

I actually watched Debbie Does Dallas III just a few days ago. You could tell the franchise was getting tired by then.

That, on the other hand, has nothing to do with my general desire to see every arrogant moron who violates the HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) rule by illegally crossing the divider to be reamed, up the ass, with a cricket bat.

So, no, it's not.

Amen.

Funkyterrance wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:If I accept your hypothesis (and I don't entirely accept it, but I can see your point) then why would it be derogatory? Are you saying that colourful synonyms are necessarily derogatory? If it's just a synonym for being gay, and you don't think being gay is bad, then why would a synonym for it be bad? That's sort of like saying that "menstruating" is good, but "riding the cotton pony" is bad. It's just a colourful way of saying the same thing, and sure, colourful expressions can be used in an insulting fashion, but they can also be used simply to improve the vitality of a conversation, by avoiding dry and lifeless words.


I don't entirely agree.

"cocksucker" does not equal "someone who gives oral sex to men"
"muff diver" does not equal "a woman who has sex with women"
One is meant to be insulting while the other is much more likely to be taken either way. I'm not the one who coined these "colorful" terms but many of them are offensive to those groups with which they are associated.

Do you think Sargeant Hartman is accusing his recruits of being homosexual, or simply explaining to them that he is higher up in the food chain?


BigBallinStalin wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:This thread is stuck on repeat. Someone please bump the player.

You wanna bump with Player? I could tell you were getting ready to take your relationship to the next level....


"XXXXXXXXXX wants to bump with Player."

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?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

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

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:52 pm
by Funkyterrance
Dukasaur wrote:Do you think Sargeant Hartman is accusing his recruits of being homosexual, or simply explaining to them that he is higher up in the food chain?


I think that Sargeant Hartman is testing whether or not a certain phrase will provoke an undesired response from his recruit. Insinuating homosexuality is meant to be a high insult in this instance which the recruits must ignore as a lesson to where they lie in chain of rank. The phrases themselves maintain their meaning else they would not effectively test the recruits.

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

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:57 pm
by PLAYER57832
Dukasaur wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:This thread is stuck on repeat. Someone please bump the player.

You wanna bump with Player? I could tell you were getting ready to take your relationship to the next level....

Too bad. Player is happily married..and thus the only bumping will not be with internet liasons.