I don’t just *think *I love you, I know it!
That was sheer perfection.
But this doesn’t make any sense. First you say that if a macho wrestler with a shaved chest and six-pack abs had chartreuse paint and frilly decorations, then we could call his decor “faggy”.
If a middle-aged spinster librarian had chartreuse paint and frilly decorations, would we call her decor “faggy”?
As you know, no one would call a woman who decorated her house in a flamboyant and effeminate manner, “faggy”. It would only make sense if a man did it. And why? Because that man would be doing something effeminate. He would not be acting according to masculine stereotypes, he would be acting according to feminine stereotypes.
If a woman dresses in a frilly skirt and makeup is she acting all faggy? No. What if a man dressed in a frilly skirt and makeup? Only a man who has sex with other men would do that. In other words, a fag. Therefore, we would denigrate his choices as “faggy” because he was a fag and we hate fags. But if a woman did the same thing she could not be faggy, could she, because women aren’t faggy when they act effeminate.
“Faggy” only makes sense as a pejorative term used against men who act in ways that user thinks only women should act.
There are parallel pejorative terms for women who act in ways that the user believes only men should act, but I don’t think I need to list any.
Uhm, sorry to interject a hijack into this most fascination saga, but, no. Many men who cross-dress identify as heterosexual.
See cross-dressing here Cross-dressing - Wikipedia.
And, to the original OP topic, what Miller said.
Yeah, but how many people would call a woman dressed in a feminine manner “faggy”? About zero. Now ask what they would say about a man dressed in a feminine manner. A non-zero number. Why? Because bigots hate fags.
So that wrestler (that still cracks me up, btw…wrestling! The most homoerotic sport in the history of sports!) with the lavender curtains and lace doilies might not be faggy…just a cross-decorator?
Exactly!*
*Somebody tell gonz.
Personally… I’d pay good money for the administrators to replace every one of Gonz’s posts with a link to the “chimp rapes frog” video. I’m not sure any semantic value would be lost.
I honestly think there would be a net gain…
-XT
Geez…seven pages of this and you guys are still going? Come on people, wake up! Gonzo’s just showing us his creative side by re-defining the dictionary, talking outta his ass and typing at the same time.
Now, how many of you here can do that? Huh, huh? Not sure why you’d want to, but still, impressive in a carnivalesque kind of way.
You mean cross-defining.
I understand that many lower order insects (ant’s, bee’s, gonzo’s, etc) can perform many complex and intricate tasks that humans are unable to, despite their relatively small brain size. What is amazing is that gonzo can do so without any apparent brain size at all…
-XT
Yep. You know those ants you see carrying those huge pebble/boulders about three four times their size? How fuckin’ awesomely manly are they? Guess we’ll have to ask Gonzo just what type decor they favor. 
And that we get to watch it for free!
Trust things are going well on your end, old nemesis. May we remain so well into our Viagra years. Not that I’m suggesting we’re even close there yet!
Gonzomax-bringing old foes together to point and snicker.
There you go again. I do not care who does it. It is not about sexual orientation. It is about a style that some people from all walks of live like and use. The sexual orientation is not mine. It is about you people who can not get over it.
Would she be faggy? Follow closely. I would not know . A style of decor like that would reveal nothing about her sexuality. Nothing. It would just say she and he and anybody else has a taste in decor that is easily and clearly understood. It is offensive to people who go out their way to be offended. But ,in no way did I ever say only gays like the style. You people are calling it a gay style. I don’t think a gay style exists. I do know that a frilly kind of style ,using well understood colors ,can be called faggy. But again ,it reveals nothing about the persons orientation. Zero.
I’ll agree with that.
But it reveals a lot about the one who is calling it “faggy”.
Not true. To me faggy is devoid of orientation . To you it is not. Do you have trouble with gays? Do you think anybody who adorns in that style is revealing something about their sexuality. I don’t. I think you better think about your clear and obvious problem with gays. i do not have one. I don’t think in those terms.
You are purposefully ignoring the fact that ‘faggy’ is a word based in sexual orientation. It has always been used to slur gay people. It’s still used as a slur against gay people. That you think it can also describe decor does not, in any way at all, take away from the fact that it IS A PEJORATIVE.
For fuck’s sake, all you do is petulantly ignore that over and over again.
Y’know, gonzomax, okay. I’ll grant you your premise: you define the term “faggy” in such a way that it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. To you, it’s not a pejorative, and holds no negative or bigoted connotation.
What I would remind you, then, is that verbal communication is a two-way street. This thread should show you that you have a pronounced disagreement with, well, pretty much the whole rest of the world regarding the definition and usage of the word “faggy”. Regardless of your actual intent, using that word in the manner you did WILL result in conveying the additional message, “I am a homophobic assbag”, to the vast majority of any general audience. The various responses in this thread should serve as testament to that.
My suggestion to you is to apologize for the confusion, and henceforth avoid using that word in a public forum altogether, since it will inevitably communicate something that you do not intend. Sound good?
You know, there are a LOT of people on this board who hate to admit they are wrong. Hell, the majority of massive wars in the Pit and GD are caused by people who simply refuse to admit they are wrong, even in the face of mountainous evidence. But this thread just may take the cake. Congrats, gonzomax!
That is a fantastic amount of weaseling. If you truly believed what you’ve been insisting, your answer to Miller’s question “So you’re saying that a fifty year old woman who decorated her home in this same style would also be “faggy?”” would be a simple, straight “Yes.” But it seems that even to you, “faggy” necessarily implies homosexuality, but you don’t want to admit it, so you have to dance around it in this horribly broken English to avoid saying yes or no.
Follow closely? I don’t think anyone on Earth is capable of following your dumb ass closely.