Please tell me you didn’t just use the T word? Tolerance? Tolerance is me not shooting you because you’re black/white/asian. That’s tolerance. Tolerance is me not torching your church/temple/synogogue because your faith is different than mine. That’s tolerance. Tolerance is me not beating up gays and lesbians because they aren’t heterosexual. That’s tolerance.
The world you seem to be looking for is acceptance. Acceptance is you, me, or anyone else giving in and becomming willing to be more familiar and leniant about what we percieve to be deviant behavior or personal differences. You don’t have to accept something to tolerate it. Take for instance, Louis Farrahkahn (SIC?). Farrahkahn dislikes interracial dating. He does not accept it. BUT he does tolerate it, because he has to. Look at Arafat. We do not accept him as being a peacemaker, but we tolerate his continued use of oxygen. Anyway, I believe you get my point. Acceptance is not tolerance, nor is it synomomousisissisis (SIC?)
Violence = an acceptable recourse to words? :rolleyes:
I’m going to have to second what you said on the tolerance/acceptance thing though. I was taught to accept people who are different from me, not tolerate, because “tolerance” implies there’s something wrong with them which of course is untrue.
Not so. If they were synonymous, then they wouldn’t be contradictory.
Interesting. It would be okay to call you Canadian - even if said derisively - because for you those cultures have positive (i.e., “wunnerful”) connotations. But it would not be okay to calll you a homosexual - hatefully, in your words - because for you the gay culture has negative connotations, enough so that you’d resort to violence to those who would dare “insult” you in that way.
If it were true that you do not “hate them on principle,” then you would not react this way when someone called you a homosexual.
Sure. You mean that LaurAnge had no right or reason to be offended. That’s preposterous. A word that is offensive or used offensively to an entire culture of people is offensive to everyone, not just the intended object. It’s not okay, for example, to use “spic” to mean Mexicans, even if there are no Mexicans present. It’s still offensive.
And as far as your parting remark, when we repair a piece of equipment without sending it to the appropriate shop, we call it nigger rigging. And the worst offender of my squadron for this term? Well, that would be my lieutenant, a black guy with this disconserting habit of dropping into ebonics when on exercise (Hey Fush, you got that 203 nigger rigged yet?–Reply: A’yep LT. Duck tape and all) **
[/QUOTE]
A “disconcerting habit”? You do realize that’s insulting, right? If you told your lieutenant that you’d appreciate it if he’d stop dropping into ebonics, because you find it “disconcerting,” my guess is that it wouldn’t go over too well. While you’re at it, wander over to any Irishmen or Scotsmen you find and tell them to knock it off with the brogue, already. Damn them and their talking-funnyness!
fushj00mang, you seem to have assumed that I’m heterosexual. Am I allowed being offended, oh high and mighty offense-permission giver, if I’m not heterosexual?
Gay means gay. 10 year old boys don’t deny it. Only their apologists do.
No apology necessary. People usually have lives independent from message boards–it’s perfectly understandable.
Let’s look at this again, as it’s certainly possible I may have misunderstood you and was mistaken. Upon close rereading, it seems you are making a significant distinction between the words ‘gay’ and ‘fag’, one in which ‘fag’ is insulting to the point you would feel the necessity to do physical harm to a person who applied it to you, whereas ‘gay’ is merely silly and harmless. If this is so, then I must ask why you, personally, perceive a distinction between these two terms, as I don’t think this has been made clear.
Let us consider the concept of phobia in slightly more detail.
There are many different manifestations of fear, and the fact of the matter is that most people who fear things don’t seem actually recognize it as fear proper unless it’s in the form of a cowering response. For example, paralyzing fears of vicious dogs, heights, and enclosed spaces are overt–they tend to prevent people from going near vicious dogs, standing near edges of tall buildings, and crawling in drainpipes. But fears like not being accepted in one’s peer group and fears of different ethnic groups can take on a far more subtle shading, particularly when these fears stem from a lack of understanding. Which is not to say such those particular fears can’t take the form of overt avoidance fear, but rather that they also frequently take the form of what might be called “uneasiness”. In latter cases, the individual doesn’t need to avoid the object of fear, but it does make him uncomfortable.
So, without getting too didactic, one might ask you what degree of comfort you have with homosexuals, and does this differ from the degree of comfort you have with heterosexuals? If it does differ, is there good reason for the difference, or is it irrational? (And one must be careful here, because while it is easy to rationalize one’s fears, it is much more difficult to challenge them.)
As has been pointed out, the implication that must be taken then is that ‘fag’ culture is not “wonderful”. Is this what you mean, and if so, why do you think it less than wonderful? (And note that in asking this question, I’m not asking why you don’t want to be gay any more than I’d ask why you would want to be Canadian. You aren’t either, but it seems you make a distinction between the two… the question is why one over the other?)
So, correct me if I’m wrong, but what you are claiming, then, is that a person should only be offended by such comments if they are directed at individuals? And thus, you would claim to have no reason at all to be offended by random strangers, who were unaware of your presence, referring to a non-functional phone as a “chink piece of shit”, let alone simply a “chink phone”?
I don’t know… The concept of you being an “aggressive” individual also begs the question, “Why are you so aggressive?” Might be out of the realm of discussion here, but that doesn’t dispel the curiosity about the issue…
Again, correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to indicate by way of context that being aggressive is somehow in your nature, but being offended is a matter of choice. This, if it is your opinion, would to me seem to be a strange conclusion. Please clarify this, if you would.
There’s an argument I’ve heard about the usage of epithets being used within the targeted group… The reason people (for example, black people) use such terms (as ‘nigger’) is not because the words lack the power to offend, but because the words offend less when they are co-opted by the offended group. It’s effectively like beating someone to the punchline of a joke.
But apparently I did not make my point clear–it was not that the word ‘nigger’ is somehow off-limits to everyone. Rather, it was that the implied context is important. Read the example again, if you have a moment–the implication of a group of hetero guys using the term ‘gay’ even semi-derisively in the context of the military (I’m assuming American military where gays are still officially banned) is quite analogous to what I described.
The reason I make this distinction is that each word carries its own weight in a derogatory context. Someone calling me ‘gay’ in a bad light is neither clever nor rather inflammatory. It’s not insulting enough. My own tatuology (SIC?) on the word gay means homosexual, yes, but also has a semi-jovial definition and set of circumstances that is neither hurtful nor intends to be hurtful. You’re gay and that’s gay don’t carry any ill-meaning weight to them. Seriously, imagine running up to a homosexual and yelling “GAY!” at him or her in an attempt to hurt him or her. You’d more likely get laughed at and replied to in a “Yep, you’re correct” than any real offense. On the other hand, yell “Goddamned Gay!” or “Motherfucking Gay!” and you’re likely to have a gay dude/chic angry, afraid, and/or offended. The word ‘gay’ in and of itself doesn’t mean anything offensive anymore. That’s where the distinction between gay (in my book, acceptable) and fag (in my book, unacceptable.) To my knowledge, again barring some commonwealth slang, fag only means homosexual and only in an ill-sounding way. Walk up to a homosexual and yell “Fag!” and you’re likely to see something happen. I don’t know. I home I’m making myself clear.
Touche! No, I am equally as comfortable with homosexuals as I am with heterosexuals. My first dorm-mate, back when I was an A1C, was a closet homosexual. He has since finished his four years and left the service, finding that his lifestyle clashed too much with it (although he did entertain the notion of bucking for a comission when he left college.) He told me about his lifestyle after one session of us getting totally smashed and walking home from a local bar. While it did make me uncomfortable at first, it didn’t change the fact that A1C Roommate was still the same hardcore airman that he was before he told me. We still keep in touch and he is (more than most likely) going to be my best man in eight months. It took Airman Roommate to really and finally show me that my unease around homosexuals was misplaced. Since, well, it doesn’t matter anymore.
Again, touche. The question in this is not that homosexual ‘culture’ is or is not ‘wonderful,’ but whether it can, in the appropriate context be compared to the culture of a whole nationality. After a bit of introspection, I would concede the point that the jab provided by ‘fag’ is not so much (to me) a jab at my sexuality and the counter-culture provided by homosexuality but a jab at my personhood. This is not to say that homosexuals are non-persons, so please don’t take it as such.
My personhood, my self image, my ego if you will, says that I am 1: a male, 2: straight, 3: military oriented, and 4: willing to crack heads on command. That’s the bare bones of it, because I don’t want to get into my a long story about my fiancee (I’ve written poetry for her…bad poetry, but that’s a whole 'nother ballgame,) family, or other non-essentials in my life. Calling me a fag is challenging my ego, my self image, on points two and three. You’re asserting that I am NOT straight, and that I am dishonest with my service and my Oath. When that happens, points three and four jump into action. I will use the agression within me coupled with my ability to jack you up to…well…jack you up. Again, the simplest proactive method of solving this ‘problem.’
Again, it is not a statement against gay culture, and I appreciate your question. Made me think for a second.
Not exactly. If a comment is levied in such a way that it could be pointed against a group en masse (eg, someone in a public forum denouncing homosexuals or using blatenly racist or sexist remarks, etc) then it would be common sense that the group, en masse, would be offended. I, personally, would find the use of “chink phone” or another racial epitath distasteful, but not outright offensive, as the individual did not mean to offend me by his use of the term. Even if there was hateful purpose behind it, its a rather weak insult, and wouldn’t cause too many problems among the majority of individuals (who grew skin when growing up.) I forget who stated it, but intent is very important in this way. If you mean no harm, then where’s the foul? It is not likely that any lesbians within earshot would have had reason to find offense in that situation.
Say LaurAng is indeed a lesbian (which she has not stated one way or another here, so I made the assumption that she wasn’t for this reason.) If she were a lesbian and did find the situation offensive and intolerable, why not approach and reproach the children for their behavior? If a person fails to do so, it can (as far as I can see) go one of three ways. One: they were not truly offended and is making mountains out of molehills. Two: they realized that this ‘offensive’ behavior was not intended to offend and that it caused no harm, (thus by my own definition, no foul.) Or three: there is something about themselves which is preventing them from setting something straight. To clarify, #3 is not to say that the individual is a self-hating homosexual, although that is possible. It may be that they are not willing to get into a confrontation over the slight because of their personality (being passive or apathetic,) or it may be that they, while recognizing on the surface that this is a ‘wrong,’ agree with the offensive term. Or it may be that they got the joke and merely want something to bitch about. I doubt that LaurAng is the third, so I wonder why it wasn’t addressed at that time?
I’ll bite on the hijack here. My own agression comes from two points. One, I’m a guy. My own ego, again, dictates that I’m a ‘motivator,’ a ‘ballbuster,’ a ‘trooper,’ and last but not least, the ambigous ‘hardcore.’ The second and more important point is that my job calls for it. I’m an NCO in a Security Forces squadron. If I wern’t agressive and trained, then it is likely that I would fold under fire and leave my unit leaderless and likely to fold. If I may, a story to illustrate the point. About a year and a half ago we were going into some joint-forces exercises. The opposing force (OpFor) in this were the 1st, 2nd, and 4th battalions of the 1st Marines. The airmen in my detachment and I were tasked with guarding an unimproved perimiter. Loaded with rifle (blanks, mind you) and MILES gear (think laser tag on a grand scale,) and a pair of heavy weapons (an M2 HMG and M240 MMG,) we were tasked with providing security for about sixty meters of perimiter. A platoon of Marines from one of 2nd Batt’s companies ran headlong into us, and our detachment commander (a staff sergeant) got waxed early in the ‘fighting.’ The next in line was a young staff sergeant who’d been with fuels until he’d cross-trained, and had never been in an ‘engagement.’ Rather than attempt anything even remotely like fighting, or rallying or even pretending to not be a coward, this sergeant went chicken shit on us and actually ran. Seeing this, a few members of our detachment began to slowly advance toward the rear. The next guys in line after our SSgt Coward were myself and my buddy, now SrA Roommate. After about forty seconds, we were able to get the M2 and M240 rocking and rolling, and were able to direct a holding action against the Marines until relief arrived. Point of the story? The guy who bolted, while in command, showed an absolute and complete lack of spine and damn near caused our detachment to quit. Yet, two young and agressive airmen were able to reverse his failing, despite that all of us had the same training (we were all 5-levels, equivalent to journeymen in a trade.) We didn’t fail when our boss got ‘killed.’ We began to fold when the new ‘boss’ hauled tail under fire. My job calls for a backbone with 100 steel vertabre (the extras are used to beat people with, or so the joke goes) and enough agression to make my airmen believers in me and in themselves. Oh, and by the way, both me and SrA Roommate ‘died’ in that holding action. SSgt Coward ended up losing his SF badge and was sent back to the flight line.
Gladly. Agression, as I have stated before, is ingrained in me due to my personality and my training. It, at a very basic level, is what I am. My training came hard and took a bit to sink in. Four years of JROTC, six and a half weeks of BMT, and eightteen weeks of tech school made me ‘tough and agressive.’ Still didn’t change that the initial shock was there and I had to choose to accept the training and allow it to affect me. Since then, it has become my personal statis quo. Being offended, on the other hand, is a similar choice. You get slapped by an insult. You have the same choice, will I allow it to affect me? Yes or no. You weigh the pros and cons and then either let it slide, or let it piss you off (the decision to crack a head is seperate :D). If you allow these things to piss you off, you will become more easily offended at increasingly smaller things, much akin to how I became more agressive throughout training. Being pissed and offended is your statis quo. The reverse is also true. If you’re laid back enough to let it slide, then it will become easier to dismiss petty insults (especially the small ones like is the basis of the OP.) You’ll have grown a ‘skin.’ The choice leads to a state of being, and that state of being leads to more choice. I hope I’ve made myself a bit clearer on this.
Bingo. The same goes for my own use of gay. Homosexuals openly refer to themselves as gay. So, its ability to be offensive isn’t as potent. As a result of this, its definition changed. Heck, gay was first defined to be ‘happy or jovial,’ right? Just because the word is the same doesn’t mean that the definition is.
And again, for your parting remark, I must apologize. I did indeed misread your last paragraph. Being a homosexual in the US Armed Forces is not legal, per se, but the ability of a command to ignore it and the willingness of the homosexual in question to remain ‘in the closet’ is of the utmost importance to prevent his or her discharge. All, to a man (or woman) in my unit have at least one gay friend (to my knowledge.) I know of at least one homosexual in my squadron (not SrA Roommate, as he’s moved on) but a friend of his. We’re all (again, to my knowledge) not anti-homosexual. Some are indifferent, most are “I don’t care if you’re gay so long as you don’t try anything with me.” And trust me “That’s gay” is about as light as the wording gets in our shop.
Try option number 4, fushj00mang, I’m too polite a person to tell off a stranger on the bus. And I’d really like to know the reason why whether or not I’m a lesbian has any bearing on the situation.
How did the term gay evolve to be such a bad thing?
Gay=happy. The elves in LOTR come from a gay culture.
So if I say something’s gay in this context is like a sarcastic happy thing?
Then gay=homosexual.
So now if I use it the original way, I’m homophonic, as gay=homosexual=bad=reason I’m using it is to imply homosexual=bad
Now if I use gay=silly, it goes back to gay=silly, gay=homosexual so homosexual=silly, and the elves in LOTR, which are called gay are silly homosexuals. But no one would argue that it was not meant to mean homosexual, or silly, so it’s ok for the book to use the term (and I’d hope so, as it’s been there a lot longer than it’s been used to mean homosexual) but if someone uses it now, it’s not, even if they use it the same way as the first example.
Is it possible that ‘gay’ could evolve once again to something that has nothing to do with ‘homosexuals’ or ‘happy’? Now that said, I believe the motive of the user should be taken into account. If my son says 'sht’ when he drops something, I don’t think he really understands what he’s just said. So I can explain to him what’s appropriate or not appropriate, but to say he’s obviously an anti-sht sort of guy who lacks wisdom may not be correct. Although I do believe there does need to be education in this area, as I believe racism is a learned trait, I don’t believe that anyone who uses the term is racist, or homophobic. I did not know the term oriental is offensive, and I’d try not to use it. But when I’m around oriental people, and they call themselves oriental, I’m kind of left not knowing what to say, so I just think I need to make sure I’m not being offensive, but I would hope some would be a little more understanding about how we’re not all as PC as those who are looking at everyone as being offensive on purpose. (and we grew up in a farming community, so sh*t is sometimes the first word out of a baby’s mouth.)
And how is it that the op can get offended about the term, yet feel justified in saying the guys are stupid? Ok, it was done with a little more tact, which is hypocrisy, IMO. ‘These boys from this school that is known for it’s stupid students’ wouldn’t be ok, but to say the schools not known for it’s smart students, which is saying the same thing, is acceptable.
That’s because when he uses that as an interjection, he’s not using it to describe anything. The word gay, as in “that is so gay!” is being used to describe a particular object or action. At any rate, it’s used in a negative sense no matter what the connotation, really (i.e., “poop” or as an interjection intended to express frustration), rather than positive (gay=happy) and negative (gay as homosexual).
But then we have the issue of intent, which you wisely brought up. If a person says that something is “gay,” one must gauge whether that person is describing the object negatively or positively. It seems that LaurAnge’s opinion is that in this instance the word was being used to confer negative properties to a cell phone, not positive properties.
Offensiveness is relative. Most Asians refer to themselves as Asians nowadays, rather than Orientals; the term is considered by most to be pejorative. This doesn’t mean every single Asian person will be offended if you use the word, as you’ve found out. Some will use it themselves, perhaps jokingly. Some use it because they always have (i.e., perhaps they’re older and recall when it was very widely used).
In any event, the use of the word “gay” in and of itself is not a homophobic action. The connotation of the word in that particular instance will indicate the amount of homophobia in the speaker, if any. My suspicion is that the boys in the OP used the word derisively, since they were talking about a phone that wasn’t working.
It always amazes me the lengths people will go to justify being intentionally offensive. Still, I’ll try again:
I am a member of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community. Please stop using my community’s name in a derogatory fashion. It is highly offensive.
Whoa whoa whoa. I never said the students at that school aren’t smart! It’s a very prestigious private school that does produce brilliant minds. But they don’t get exposed to a whole bunch of different people, nor are they exposed to a lot of viewpoints. Therefore, boys who go to school there tend to be closed-minded until they get to CEGEP. Please don’t put words in my mouth!
You have to understand that there is a difference between using a word descriptively and using it as an insult. And remember, the boys didn’t call the phone gay, they called it lesbian. What other meaning does that word have, other than a person who lives on Lesbos (which I sincerely doubt they meant).
I am sorry if I put words in your mouth, that is how I understood the progressive thinking bit, and it was wrong to do.
As for defending being offensive, that was not my intent. My point is that because someone says ‘gay’ that doesn’t mean they are homophobes, if the intent was to say it was silly. Then they need to be educated, not pigeon-holed.
The gays I have accepted as friends in my life have taken their lot and live with it. They do not constantly sit around and remain offended at every potential and percieved insult. The flaming homosexuals flame, the quiet homosexuals are quiet, and they all accept who they are and don’t try to segregate themselves from the greater part of America by constantly shouting about their sexual orientation.
The only gays I ever see getting harassed are the pink-triangle, rainbow sticker activist crowd, who constantly scream at the tops of their collective lungs how they’re queer, they’re here, and we (the rest of America) needs to get used to it. Fine. You’re gay, you’re my neighbor, but goddamn, there has to be something more to you than you being gay! I’m much more interested if you go fishing than if you’re gay. I’m much more interested if you play paintball than if you’re gay. I’m much more interested in your literary prefrences than your sexual ones. It is ludicrous (SIC) for a ‘straight-pride’ rally. So what makes a ‘gay-pride’ rally less silly?
See, the way I see it, gay activist groups fall in line with groups like the KKK, NAACP, WASP Coalition, and Greenpeace. They are all groups which operate on ignorance and xenophobia to demonize and terrorize anyone or anything which has a deviant opinion. The espouse tolerance and acceptance while still ignoring the fact that they too have to tolerate or accept those of an ‘opposing’ strata (eg, gays and straight folks.)
There is a controversey, both within and outside the gay community, whether its a choice or a birthpattern. Either way, who gives a shit? If its a choice, good for you. You’ve chosen your way. Now shut up about it. Nobody cares if you like men or women or both or crossdress. If you stop bringing it up, then people will leave you alone about it! And if its a birthpattern, then really, what the fuck are you going on about? Its the same as being proud that you’ve been born with ten fingers, ten toes, and two eyes. Big fucking woop. I’m born straight, and choose to be straight. Where’s my medal? You seem to think you deserve one for being gay, so I want one for being straight!
For crying out loud, its people like you, Esprix, who make the people like my gay friends cringe. You come out and demand recognition and equality, but forget that what you’re demanding recognition and equality for is irrelevant. You act in a hostile way and don’t expect to be treated with hostility in return? Even if you try to remain level and calm, you’re still airing your damn laundry in the street, and nobody wants to see it! If you are straight, that’s good. If you’re gay, thats fine. But I don’t want to hear about it and I doubt that the rest of the world cares too much either.
Also, rereading your post, you are quite defensive about being a member of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered community. Why is that? Are you ashamed of it? If not, then why are you taking offense at it? Please tell me. I have yet to single you out, but I am doing so now. I haven’t clustered all gays into one pot and lit a fire under it. So what’s the big deal? If you are so easily offended at such a thing then there HAS to be something wrong with it. But, there’s nothing wrong with being gay. So this points to some sort of a personal issue. Please share with the group.
But in this case the person did not say “gay”, he said “lesbian”. The word “lesbian” does not have a secondary definition meaning “silly” or “happy”. As the Greek island of Lesbos is not known as a major cellphone manufacturer, I think we can safely say that when the boy said the phone was “lesbian” he did so with the intent to liken the defective phone to female homosexuals in some way.
fushj00mang, I must confess I have two feelings here.
The first is that I’m grateful you took the time to answer all my questions. The second is a horrible feeling that I’m wasting my time going forward.
It is not that I don’t think you are intelligent; while I expect some observers might kneejerk on this point, IMO your effort alone to address these issues honestly and thoughtfully indicates a fair degree of competency. I came from a fairly anti-gay environment, and it’s taken quite a bit of effort on my part to purge the prejudices of my upbringing. To be clear, I don’t presume to become your “teacher”–you’re not asking for it, and I’m not offering. But, from my perspective, it does seem to me that there are some major logical blindspots in your opinions.
First, there is the original issue–that it really makes no sense for you to determine what a person should find offensive. It’s not an objective standard by any means. Second, your high appreciation for aggression baffles me beyond words, and I can only hope that you are being hyperbolic. (Certainly aggressiveness has its place, and few people would disagree that soldiers in hostile conditions need a certain amount of it. But the concept of starting serious physical fights for being called names is, quite frankly, juvenile in the extreme.) Third, your most recent post continues to stun me.
This a degree of naivete within the scope of social issues I simply cannot hope to combat. While it is true that people have pet topics that they just can’t let go of, some to the point of annoyance, the idea that other people will just “leave you alone” is absolutely preposterous. One only need to take a good, hard look at recent Supreme Court decisions to determine the falsity of this idea… To a large degree, the reason that courts, governments, and offensive remarks exist at all is because some people don’t just leave other people alone.
I’ll fully admit that it is beyond my ability (and time limitations) to address these issues as would appear to be necessary. Therefore I’ll apologize for taking up your time and exit the discussion now so as not to worsen the infraction further.
I do appreciate that you’ve conversed with me on this issue. It has led me to do some serious thinking about my opinions and that, my friend, hasn’t happened in many moons.
That’s why they are opinions. No real logic required. So long as it works in my mind, and yours work in yours, all is well, no?
As for my last post, well, its an opinion that comes from observation. Again, no real logic necessary. Those I’ve know to march around, screaming about their orientation, have a tendency to be picked out and picked on. Those who haven’t, well, haven’t. That’s about it.
So they’re your friends as long as they keep quiet about it. Wow. Very open-minded of you.
And using the term “gay” or “lesbian” to describe something negatively isn’t a “potential or perceived insult,” it is an insult. Can you understand why, or has that point eluded you?
Wow. As long as we act just like you we won’t get our heads beaten in. As long as we just shut up already we’ll (maybe, eventually) get equal rights in this country. As long as we keep to ourselves and not be proud of the accomplishments of ourselves and our communties we’ll be just fine. Martin Luther King, Jr. would be proud.
You’re equating the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the pre-eminent LGBT rights organization of this country, to the KKK? Yes, we’re so terroristic, asking to be treated the same as everyone else, working towards mutual understanding for a long-disparaged and hated community, and demanding equal rights and protection under the laws. How uppity of us!
Your in-depth understanding of minority issues continues to astound me. Truly, I stand in awe of your insight.
You know, you’re absolutely right. And to be fair, I’ll ask all my straight friends and co-workers to stop talking about their wives and husbands, take off their wedding rings, remove all pictures of spouses and children from their desks, and in general live a loveless public life. After all, I certainly don’t want to hear about their “dirty laundry.” Really, they way they flaunt it in the streets, it’s just disgusting! Why can’t you heterosexuals leave it in the bedroom where it belongs? No one wants to hear about it! Sheesh!
Ialreadyhave, thanks. If you have any questions after reading those four threads, feel free to post one at the end of part IV - we’re always happy to respond, myself and the rest of the queer Doper community.
Bottom line, this seems to me to still be so much Sturm und Drang about a simple request - please stop using the term “gay” (or, in this case, “lesbian”) as a derogatory adjective. It’s offensive to the gay and lesbian community. Really. I wouldn’t lie about a thing like this. Is that so difficult?
