A fag hag–I’m not sure it is as offensive as it sounds, what with two offensive words concatenated–is more or less a (usually) older woman who, for various reasons–but not sexual ones–likes to have blithe young things in her circle.
That’s how I understand it, at least. Would happily hear corrections.
Doing a quick Google search for your question, I was surprised to find that fag hag has a wiki entry. It lists the male counterparts as Dutch Boy, lesbro or dyke tyke, though I can’t say I’ve heard any of them. OTOH, I can’t say I’ve heard of a male fag hag to begin with.
Yep. And not to be too stereotypical, but it’s usually in the context of clothes shopping, going to a hairstylist, etc. I’ve never heard anyone, gay or not, get remotely offended or use it in an intentionally offensive way.
Offensive to who? Women who exihibit the identified behavior universally (IME, data is not the plural of anecdote, dealer prep, tax, title, and insurance extra, etc) self-identify with the term. The term is also used by the homosexual males with whom they associate (as a term of endearment - not insult). So who exactly is offended?
Back when I worked for Hallmark Cards developing their first web site, the department I worked for had developed their system to custom print cards in the store. Neat system, and it produced a really quality product, as it used a wax-based printer.
A gay couple of my acquaintance tried to make a birthday card for a mutual friend and discovered the system’s language filter. They wanted to make a card addressed to “Our Favorite Fag Hag”, and it would not let them.
“purse” is a male analogue to “beard”, probably derived from it, and the connotation is different. A “beard” is a woman who accompanies a closeted gay man to provide protective coloration in a social situation where it will look good for him to have a female date. “purse” describes a man who is providing a similar service for a lesbian.
A “fag hag” is woman who hangs around with gay males who have no such need - she just wants to hang around with them.
True, but there is an annoying subtext to the term that no one ever seems to address. That is, that there must be something wrong with a woman who doesn’t devote all her efforts to landing an “eligible” man for a husband, and hence the need for this special term. Kind of like the term tomboy implies that there’s something abnormal about a girl who climbs trees, so we need a special way to label her.
I consider the act itself of coining phrases such as this a kind of implicature, as it’s referred to in pragmatics.