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!
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.
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: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?
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.