Use of the word "gay" to mean something bad

The Guid · Post by **The Guid** » 2005-10-13 07:34pm

Whenever anyone calls something "gay" meaning something they don't like - typically something connected to music or a situation - I tend to jump on them. Not too vicously, but I politely try and change their use of the word and say that it offends me. I often get accused of being "overly PC" and oversensitive. I just wanted to see other's opinions on the issue, am I being just a bit of an oversensitive nerk or is it a thing of languae that is potentially harmful, derogatory and offensive?

Brother-Captain Gaius · Post by **Brother-Captain Gaius** » 2005-10-13 07:54pm

My stance? Language evolves, no matter how crude the mechanism. Hell, 'gay' used to mean happy and carefree, then it came to refer to homosexuals, and now it has become part of this generation's vocabularly -- a previous era's 'radical' has absolutely no bearing to its original, 'proper' definition, why should this be any different?

SAMAS · Post by **SAMAS** » 2005-10-13 07:54pm

I don't think you're being all that sensitive about it.

Although I used to tell myself that calling something "gay" meant that is was ass-backwards(

), but that was just a tasteless joke I told myself for the short period of time before I just stopped using it entirely.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-10-13 07:54pm

It's never bothered me, although I only say it when I'm trying purposefully to come off as an absolute prick. A substantial portion of my friends are homosexuals, so I suppose it ought to bother me, but it aint a big deal, really.

felineki · Post by **felineki** » 2005-10-13 07:55pm

It is rather irritating to me, simply because it makes no logical sense. "X is annoying/irritating/unfavorable/etc." and "X is homosexual/homosexuality-related" seem like two distinctly different conclusions to me, and to make an association between the two is not only bizarre, it smacks of homophobia.

Akhlut · Post by **Akhlut** » 2005-10-13 07:59pm

On the one hand, I nearly go into paroxysms of anger and "WTF?!!?" if someone uses terms like "nigger-rig" or "he jewed me" or the like. On the other, I do occasionally use "gay" as that sort of descriptor, but usually just online and as "ghey." Also, I tend to have a total disconnect between using it as an adjective for something inanimate (which is what I invariably use "ghey" to describe something as) and as a descriptor for a person (if I use "gay" in that sense, I use it like I would "black," "Asian," or "white"; not as a value-laden word).

So, I'd say you aren't overreacting, given that you are politely asking them to think more on their use of language rather than going apeshit on 'em.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2005-10-13 08:07pm

It drives me up the wall because of the association felineki mentioned several posts above: why the fuck should a descriptor of homosexuality or happiness mean "bad"? In my PE class, there is one kid who is rather vocal about his dislike of something, and he uses 'gay' alot -- e.g., "God, we're weight-training today? Lifting is soo gay." The new usage of "gay" is just another example of the tremendous influence the Christian right still has on American culture.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2005-10-13 08:19pm

No, the "language evolves" point is bullshit because gay = homosexual in the modern sense of the word (I believe many gay people call themselves gay), and when people say gay they don't just mean something undesirable, but something extremely undesirable and moreover unnatural or out of place, which they think homosexuals are. So calling something bad "gay" is a veiled attack on homosexuals.

Brian

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2005-10-13 08:27pm

Rubbish. I use the word 'queer' to describe unusual or unconventional things. Am I 'gay bashing' when I declare a shaved cat 'a bit queer'?

I can see where equating homosexuality with badness is hardly something to encourage... but our language suggests fucking is bad. Fucking is TERRIBLE, going solely by its use as a curse word. However, I enjoy fucking, and so does everyone else.

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2005-10-13 08:30pm

"Gay" as a bad word isn't new. It was pretty common when I was in high school (early 90's) too. I'd stopped using the word that way in college, so when I heard teenagers using it that way again a few years ago it was a great big "WOW!" for me. "Gay," as used by most teenagers and 20-somethings, means something really, really bad. I don't think there's a conscious effort to bash gays, but it's still there, subconsciously.

The Guid · Post by **The Guid** » 2005-10-13 08:45pm

Stark wrote:Rubbish. I use the word 'queer' to describe unusual or unconventional things. Am I 'gay bashing' when I declare a shaved cat 'a bit queer'?

There is a slight difference. "Queer" as a word was used for things that were "unusual" before it became a word for gay people. It was also origonally a derogatory term for homosexuals though it was recently adopted by gay people to "deprive it of its power"

I can see where equating homosexuality with badness is hardly something to encourage... but our language suggests fucking is bad. Fucking is TERRIBLE, going solely by its use as a curse word. However, I enjoy fucking, and so does everyone else.

Good point. But then again I don't think that there is a problem with people viewing fucking as bad in society, or people being attacked because they have sex & I think very few kids have troubled childhoods because of it.

I can see your points and I think their valid, but I still think there are subtle differences that make the use of "gay" as meaning bad a seperate and worse issue.

PrinceofLowLight · Post by **PrinceofLowLight** » 2005-10-13 08:46pm

I've tried to subtly replace "gay" as a negative descriptor with "metrosexual." It's actually catching on.

That's a vast improvement. A straight man who acts like a gay stereotype is certainly a negative thing, whilke just being gay isn't.

The Guid · Post by **The Guid** » 2005-10-13 08:49pm

PrinceofLowLight wrote:I've tried to subtly replace "gay" as a negative descriptor with "metrosexual." It's actually catching on.

That's a vast improvement. A straight man who acts like a gay stereotype is certainly a negative thing, whilke just being gay isn't.

Can I ask what's so bad about a straight man acting like the gay stereotype? I mean, I do find camp annoying, but to say its "certainly" a negative thing surely implies something more than just being annoying surely?

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2005-10-13 09:57pm

Stark wrote:Rubbish. I use the word 'queer' to describe unusual or unconventional things. Am I 'gay bashing' when I declare a shaved cat 'a bit queer'?

No, it always depends on the context, but people who say "OMFG that's so gay" use it in a negative context rather than a neutral one like a shaved cat more often than not.

I can see where equating homosexuality with badness is hardly something to encourage... but our language suggests fucking is bad. Fucking is TERRIBLE, going solely by its use as a curse word. However, I enjoy fucking, and so does everyone else.

I didn't mention unusual or unconventional. I mentioned extremely undesirable, unnatural or out of place. When I mean out of place I don't mean a fucking shaved cat. I mean, somebody looking at someone else not conforming to the social norm and saying "OMFG that's so gay." It's obviously intended as a negative remark, and therefore equating homosexuality with badness in their minds. It's irrelevant whether or not you agree with the social norm, the intent is to hurt and do it by suggesting the person is homosexual and therefore unnatural (however untrue this is, the suggestion that homosexual persons are unnatural is offensive to me).

'OMFG He's so gay" is obviously gay bashing even if you don't consider gayness to be bad, because the intent is to associate gayness with badness and hurt the person's feelings.

Brian

McC · Post by **McC** » 2005-10-13 09:58pm

...you guys crack me up. Saying that applying the moniker "gay" to something that is viewed negatively results in veiled gay-bashing is retarded. In fact, getting revved up over language or words in general is fairly retarded. Look, I'm using "retarded" to refer to something bad. Watch out, I might be insulting the 'mentally handicapped!' I should use some other word! Please. Fuck off. "Gay" means bad, "gay" means homosexual, and "gay" means happy. Their relationship stops at their spelling, as far as I'm concerned.

If you're actually stopping to think about it, examine your own personal insecurities. The most insecure person in the room is the one goes out of their way to sound the most sensitive. "I'm very accepting of people of color. I don't think we should have any difference, and I want you to know that I view you as just as much a person as a white person." Is that condescending, PC bullshit, or what? Fuck it. Worrying about calling things gay is gay.

And before anyone tries to point fingers at me for being anti-homosexual or some bullshit like that, one of my good friends is gay (working out marriage arrangements presently, actually -- ah, MA) and he uses the term the same exact way. So, like I said, move on and stop being so damn PC.

CaptJodan · Post by **CaptJodan** » 2005-10-13 10:01pm

To some it is, and to some it isn't. I think the vast majority of heterosexual teenagers probably use the term and match the word gay with something undesireable like being gay. Society as a whole still has strong feelings against homosexuality, and I think that plays here.

Fuck isn't really the same. Everyone fucks. Gay guys fuck, Lesbians fuck, heterosexuals fuck. You're not descriminating with the word fuck. Black, white, asian, we all fuck and except for perhaps fundies, we enjoy it immensely. But gay is different. It's taking a word assocated with not an act of social undesireablity, but of targetting a specific group and using that group to denote negative things in someone's perview.

It bothers me, though I don't correct people on it. It just seems like utter vocabulary laziness to me, coupled with a true feeling that homosexuality is wrong and should be taunted. Some may not use it this way or ever make the connection between gay as something bad and gay as a homosexual, but I think most people do.

Lord of the Abyss · Post by **Lord of the Abyss** » 2005-10-13 10:18pm

Brother-Captain Gaius wrote:My stance? Language evolves, no matter how crude the mechanism. Hell, 'gay' used to mean happy and carefree, then it came to refer to homosexuals, and now it has become part of this generation's vocabularly -- a previous era's 'radical' has absolutely no bearing to its original, 'proper' definition, why should this be any different?

Nitpick : I've heard it claimed that "gay" has meant more than "happy" for a long time. Here's Cecil Adam's comment on it :

Dear Cecil:

Where, when, how, etc., did the good-natured word "gay" pass into the vernacular as a designation for all things homosexual? Can one be homosexual without being gay, and vice versa? --Tom M., Los Angeles

Cecil replies:

Hate to tell you this, Tom, but the "good-natured word 'gay'" has been leading a double life. Although many people believe "gay" simply meant lighthearted or cheerful until it was shanghaied by the preverts, the truth is the word has long had a secondary connotation of sexual licentiousness. As early as 1637 the Oxford English Dictionary gives one meaning as "addicted to social pleasures and dissipations. Often euphemistically: Of loose and immoral life"--whence, presumably, the term "gay blade." In the 1800s the term was used to refer to female prostitutes; to "gay it" meant "to copulate."

By 1935 the word "geycat," meaning a homosexual boy, had found its way into print, giving a clue as to the direction things were starting to go. Sure enough, by 1955 "gay" had acquired its present meaning, as P. Wildeblood notes in Against Law: "Most of the officers had been "gay' ... an American euphemism for homosexual." Actually, gays had probably been using the term among themselves long before.

Ghettoization of the term began to occur in the 60s so that today "gay" in the sense of "homosexual" has chased out all other uses of the word. This is more the result of the squeamish attitude of the straight world than any organized campaign on the part of gays, and in any case it's no big deal; there are plenty of other words that cover the same territory that the non-sexual meanings of "gay" did.

At one time "gay" referred strictly to male homosexuals; female homosexuals were called lesbians. (This distinction may no longer hold true--today one hears lesbians being referred to as gay.) Whether all male homosexuals would consent to be called gay--whether, for the matter, all gays would consent to be called homosexual--is a question I will not presume to answer. I am quite certain, however, that most gays would reject the implication that "gay" necessarily implies promiscuity.

--CECIL ADAMS

I've heard claims it dates back to 12th century France, where a collection of homosexual pretty-boy nobles were referred to as the "gai".

That being said, I find it offensive when people use "gay" to sneer at something, because the usually don't seem to mean it as a synonym for bad/stupid. The sense of the words ( at least to me ) seems to be "this looks like something a homosexual would like/do, therefore it's beneath me" .

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-10-13 11:46pm

The sense of the words ( at least to me ) seems to be "this looks like something a homosexual would like/do, therefore it's beneath me" .

You honestly think every shit-headed teen thinks that much into it when they say "OMFG n00b gay fagiitzors!!"

They're simply using it as a synonym for stupid. Does it have homophobic roots? Sure. Is it worth harping about nowadays? Hell no. Hell, it's better to make fun of your stupid friends by responding as such:

"Oh my God that movie was gay!"
"That movie has or wants sexual relations with other movies of the same gender then?"

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-10-13 11:56pm

wolveraptor wrote:
The sense of the words ( at least to me ) seems to be "this looks like something a homosexual would like/do, therefore it's beneath me" .
You honestly think every shit-headed teen thinks that much into it when they say "OMFG n00b gay fagiitzors!!"

They're simply using it as a synonym for stupid. Does it have homophobic roots? Sure. Is it worth harping about nowadays? Hell no. Hell, it's better to make fun of your stupid friends by responding as such:

"Oh my God that movie was gay!"
"That movie has or wants sexual relations with other movies of the same gender then?"

On the other hand, I have heard teenagers describe people who annoy them as "faggots," or even describe things as being "homosexual."

When I call something retarded I'm not really attacking people with serious learning disabilities but the connotation clearly exists.

PrinceofLowLight · Post by **PrinceofLowLight** » 2005-10-14 12:16am

The Guid wrote:
PrinceofLowLight wrote:I've tried to subtly replace "gay" as a negative descriptor with "metrosexual." It's actually catching on.

That's a vast improvement. A straight man who acts like a gay stereotype is certainly a negative thing, whilke just being gay isn't.
Can I ask what's so bad about a straight man acting like the gay stereotype? I mean, I do find camp annoying, but to say its "certainly" a negative thing surely implies something more than just being annoying surely?

One is annoying, one is harmless. It's mostly for the sake of creating a new cliche.

Sriad · Post by **Sriad** » 2005-10-14 02:25am

wolveraptor wrote:You honestly think every shit-headed teen thinks that much into it when they say "OMFG n00b gay fagiitzors!!"

They're simply using it as a synonym for stupid. Does it have homophobic roots? Sure. Is it worth harping about nowadays? Hell no. Hell, it's better to make fun of your stupid friends by responding as such:

"Oh my God that movie was gay!"
"That movie has or wants sexual relations with other movies of the same gender then?"

Say what you mean. If you say "that movie was shit on celuloid" instead of "that movie was gay" you're being more descriptive, interesting, and not reinforcing any latent homophobia in the vicinity.

I also avoid using retarded in the pejorative sense (though I do use it to mean "slow down"... musicians, eh?) because come on, the poor bastards have enough going against 'em already.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2005-10-14 03:50am

I've only personally known one same-sex couple, two girls, and they threw "gay" and "faggot" around as perjoratives more than anyone else I knew at the time.

Metatwaddle · Post by **Metatwaddle** » 2005-10-14 04:36am

I don't like the use of "gay" to mean stupid, either. Whether or not I go out of my way to correct people who use it that way depends on the day, my mood, etc.

The Guid · Post by **The Guid** » 2005-10-14 06:33am

McC wrote:...you guys crack me up. Saying that applying the moniker "gay" to something that is viewed negatively results in veiled gay-bashing is retarded.

You can't deny that the connection is there in the mind by the mere use of the word.

in fact, getting revved up over language or words in general is fairly retarded

Sure, its only the way we communicate right?

Look, I'm using "retarded" to refer to something bad. Watch out, I might be insulting the 'mentally handicapped!' I should use some other word!

At least "retarded" has some basis in a lack of desire. I appreciate it is harmful to make that connection in the mind but I would not wish mental retardation on anyone yet if someone told me I had to make a few of my friends gay I have a feeling I'd very quickly dole it out. You know why? Because, there's nothing bad about it, nothing disadvantageous, not in and of itself. There may be societal problems involving prejudice but those are becoming less of a problem from year to year.

! Please. Fuck off. "Gay" means bad

Not according to the Concise Oxford English Dictionairy 2001 it doesn't.

"gay" means homosexual, and "gay" means happy. Their relationship stops at their spelling, as far as I'm concerned.

So are you seriously suggesting that one some teen dim witted fool calls someone "gay" he is choosing something completely out of left field? It has no connection in his mind to a stereotype of an effeminate man?

If you're actually stopping to think about it, examine your own personal insecurities. The most insecure person in the room is the one goes out of their way to sound the most sensitive.

Congratulations on the most ludicrous overgeneralisation since I woke up. Pick a prize, any prize.

"I'm very accepting of people of color. I don't think we should have any difference, and I want you to know that I view you as just as much a person as a white person." Is that condescending, PC bullshit, or what?

Yes it is, but that's got absolutely nothing to do with this fucking conversation though it does raise a point. At my last school people used to go around using the word "nigger." They would use it in the following context: "Oh, you're such a nigger." If that person had done something to inconvinience them or played a prank on them. Did it make them racist? I was never quite sure, but a lot of the attitudes they showed were, I felt, rather racist and prejudiced particularly over issues of immigration. If you were to wander around that school would you be shocked at the one word and just walk straight past the other? Or would you ignore them both because "language means nothing."

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2005-10-14 07:00am

I think it's no big deal, infact I care so little thats all i care to say on the subject save that people would be alot more happy if they where less high strung.