is this funny or abusive?

[Squirt]

Brian you're under no obligation to care about anything and it's evident you have a masochist view towards life and humor.

You don't get the obvious moralistic dilemma you represent by enjoying faggot based humor, and you clearly don't see the parallels between that and being called a faggot on the street, or being laughed at because you're a faggot.

The topic isn't Margaret Cho, a well known, and loved, part of our community poking fun at us. If we can't laugh at ourselves then we have a serious problem.

The place that sexisforfags, and his accompanying sites, comes from is completely different. You know that.

I know you enjoy pissing people off. It's part of you're online persona of being snappy and quick witted, cutting people down, blah blah blah but I really like you better when... eh doesn't matter :francais:

Oh and one more thing. You say "the words were created to degrade people". Well... that's simply not true. The word was created to mean something entirely unrelated to gay people or anything degrading. A bundle of sticks was what a faggot was originally used to make reference to.

Right substitute the word "created" in my quote with the word "used"

childish

[BDBionic]

The difference here is that YOU think the authors of those sites are using "faggot" in a demeaning, degrading way that insults us.

I think the authors of that site are using "faggot" in a clever way to parody what a bunch of homophobes and bigots conservative right-wingers are here.

I don't much care for some universal attempt at banning the use of the word "faggot" by anyone that is not gay or approved for usage of the word "faggot" by homosexuals at large at the expense of the word "faggot" being able to be used within a context that does nothing to imply its author is a bigot.

Like all the articles I pointed out that have the word "******". Does that mean the WhiteHouse.org people are racist, too? And that they hate black people? Because that's what I believe you're suggesting.

But when they're making satire about a blatant racist such as Strom Thurmond and making up articles that parody just what a racist Strom Thurmond was and attribute a quote containing the word "******" to him, I see that as part of the satire.

You may want to believe I'm just here to piss ya off and be difficult but the simple fact of the matter is you have one opinion and I have another. Do I not "get you"? On this matter, most definitely. Just as I feel you don't "get" the humor in those websites. Don't try and make this personal. You can make better arguments than attempting to discredit mine by saying I just have some glaring personality defect or am a cheeky fucker.

I laugh at those articles. Just about every bit of them. The point they're making by attributing the use of the word "faggot" to the people they're making fun of included. It's some funny shit.

I think it's just plain humor. And good humor, at that. I can imagine Dick Cheney sittin' there disapproving of "fuckin faggot penguins" and it really buggin him to the bone and I laugh at the absurdity.

And I think that your sense of humor is dull. I mean you're entitled to that and more power to ya and cheers to your convictions but... sexisforfags.com is some funny shit.

[Squirt]

I don't much care for some universal attempt at banning the use of the word "faggot" by anyone that is not gay or approved for usage of the word "faggot" by homosexuals at large at the expense of the word "faggot" being able to be used within a context that does nothing to imply its author is a bigot.

Free speech is the right of every American. The topic was whether this was funny or abusive.

You may want to believe I'm just here to piss ya off and be difficult but the simple fact of the matter is ... I just have some glaring personality defect or am a cheeky fucker.

You are a cheeky little fucker and you've admitted before that you like to piss people off so what you going on about then? LOL make up your mind. If you can't laugh at yourself then you have a dull sense of humor.

Just as I feel you don't "get" the humor in those websites.

I do get the humor and a lot of it is funny and satirical and could have been done without using the the words FAG, FAGGOT, ******, etc. I've seen some funny ass stuff in my day and guess what, they didn't have to resort to that kind of language.

The point isn't how funny this guy is. The point, to me, is that the more you use that kind of language, the more acceptable it will become. The last thing we need is more idiots on the street calling people FAGGOTS and NIGGERS thinking they're funny :francais:

[gaystoryman]

Parody = A composition that imitates somebody's style in a humorous way
Satire = Witty language used to convey insults or scorn

This is interesting debate, and is certainly helping me see a few things in a different light. I think both BDbionic & Squirt have raised some interesting points of view, and leads me to wonder how we can look at the same thing and come up with totally different views on it.

Brian talked about taking things in 'context' but where on this site do you see any reference to the religious right as being a target? I mean I don't know these guys, this site, and for me, this was posted without comment by the way, on a straight board so I have no idea as to the intent or origin of the post and the site itself.

Context being the guiding criteria how can inflamatory comments & derogatory comments become witty language? or how can this entire site be taken as imitating something if the audience is unaware of it?

If I walk into a comedy club or go to the local dinner theatre on comedy night, I expect comedy, therefore whatever the comedians say I know to take it as being an attempt at humour. Now, where on this site is that expectation given to the casual viewer?

I have read it and read it and franky I find little humour no matter what different words I substitute for 'faggot'. Now if perhaps one of the two debating here had presented this site, here on a gay board with something like 'check out this satire site' or something, maybe i would be less inclined to believe that this site is merely a veiled attempt at humiliation of gays or worse an attempt to curry favour with the very people being supposedly rediculed...

Now I am not a prude by any means, dont think I am totally naive either or stupid. I know I am not a rocket scientist either but I think that humour that uses inflamatory words is not exactly funny.

I came here to ask this question, because frankly it stunned me. At first glance, being unaware of the supposed reasoning of the site, it struck me as being exactly what a die hard right wing would have on their sites. In fact, given some of the mail & sites I have seen, there really is little to differentiate this from them... so it perplexes me.

Are the owners gay? I Haven't a clue as I am not aware of them nor have I bothered to find out actually, but it interests me how we can indeed seem to be accepting of a derogatory word so willingly, no matter its contextual use. Other minority groups have words that no matter its use is considered inflamatory and racist, and in the so called politically correct world those words are not used. Yet us gays seem to do the opposite, we embrace it or so it seems.

VISA denies the use of 'boy' as it implies underage activity, yet 'girl' is fine, but we do nothing. Yet african americans bristle when the N word is used which is also I believe on VISA's ban list. So why do we as a minority accept this obvious discremination?

And that bothers me for deeper reasons. If we are so willing to accept this type of humour as being just that, then how can we truly expect equality in serious matters? When such words become commonplace, does it not de-sensitize us & others to the point where it becomes the norm, becomes accepted? And what about those who hear it so often unaware of its hidden meaning infer from it? Worse, what do they infer from such apparent acceptance?

Anyhow, this is indeed an insightful debate and i for one appreciate it.

[BDBionic]

Brian talked about taking things in 'context' but where on this site do you see any reference to the religious right as being a target? I mean I don't know these guys, this site, and for me, this was posted without comment by the way, on a straight board so I have no idea as to the intent or origin of the post and the site itself.

Context being the guiding criteria how can inflamatory comments & derogatory comments become witty language? or how can this entire site be taken as imitating something if the audience is unaware of it?

You don't see all the references to Jesus? On either that or its sister IronHymen.com site?

Or all over the WhiteHouse.org site, prominently linked to? And with which those 2 sites are affiliated? They constantly rip on the right-wing views of the Bush Administration on all their sites. It's what they've been doing for years. I'm not of the belief those making joke websites need post giant disclaimers advertising that it's a joke website just in case someone might happen across it and be offended.

On the IronHymen.com site it talks about women and girls advocating abstinence for a number of hilariously expressed reasons, among them that girls should wait for marriage and quit trying to be so uppity and independent of their men. Is anyone here suggesting they're serious about that? And really suggesting that women should be tied up in front of the kitchen sink to do nothin but cook and pump out a baby every 9 months?

You say it's irresponsible of them because people could happen upon the site and be unaware of the authors' intents and think it's purposeful and legit or whatever? Well I'm sorry but I'm not of the belief that people need to censor their own comments for risk of someone else not getting them. And especially am not fond of the idea of webmasters pulling satirical humor sites because there's a risk someone won't much appreciate it's satire and instead think it's serious. They're not advocating violence there, and throughout all their sites there's constant reference and obvious evidence of the fact that they're having fun at the Bush Administration's expense in no small part to the Bush Administration's ultra conservative social agenda - and namely the Bush admin's distaste for homosexuals.

I think it's glaringly obvious throughout the entire site that humor is the intent. That it's a joke. I'm not quite sure how people can't see that. I can understand if someone just simply doesn't think it's funny. But can't understand the inability to notice the intent of the site is parody or humor.

If you get over the fact that the word "fag" shows up on the site and read the rest of the text, near none of it has anything to do with insulting homosexuals. It's all about people being abstinent for stupid reasons. Stupid people being abstinent for stupid reasons. A stupid administration proposing abstinence for stupid reasons.

I think people are definitely being oversensitive here, and it scares me when people ignore or don't account for or disregard context simply because a word or idea offends them. That's one step away from censorship. But I guess the Bush Administration and their ultra conservative cronies aren't allowed to run about labeling things as obscene and offensive and wrong and attempt to curtail free speech and expression because of their own rightwing moral agenda... yet we are. Because we start off as liberals and progressive and being gay makes us inherently open minded, and so whatever position we take out of that is in itself thus openminded... and that regardless of context or intent people simply can't use the word "fag" unless they're a homophobe... or Margaret Cho... or gay guys who call eachother "fag" jokingly...

[Dzinerbear]

Come on, how can you possibly be offended when you see the "Cool Program Testimonials?" Have you ever seen a more geeky looking group?

Or how about Mao*Mart or Girls Gone Mild featured here: http://www.chickenhead.com/ The site that created Sex is For Fags.

Testicles weevils? Come on, you've got to giggle.

Michael

[Squirt]

I think people are definitely being oversensitive here, and it scares me when people ignore or don't account for or disregard context simply because a word or idea offends them. That's one step away from censorship.

You are blowing it all out of proportion. Nobody here has said anything about censoring anyone else. The question was if it's funny or abusive.

Context is ONE part of it, not the whole piece, nor the big picture. SexForFags is a URL, it's not a satirical piece or parody. His writing style is to say a slur, followed by some stupid comments to take attention off what he said. Example: I hate fags. Dude, I mean, dudes who can't stop touching their wangs? Example: Premarital sex isn't worth it! You can catch AIDS, or cancer, or testicle weevils, or a bad body image or rickets.

Also, we're still FAGS in his writings. He's not empowering the Gay guys or minorities.. their still dis-empowered by the satire, not empowered. The FAG is still a FAG and is HATED, or STUPID, or LAME, etc. The hate for Gay people hasn't changed, only the context for which the hate is delivered.

Have you even noticed that the guy is selling T-shirts, bags and cups that say "Sex Is For FAGS!"? It's on the bottom of the page here NOT SexIsForFags.com Nobody passing someone wearing one of these shirts is going to know about the site.. they're going to see a guy wearing a shirt that says " Sex is for FAGS! " Do you notice the punctuation? Do you notice the caps on the word FAGS? The URL to the site is in very, very small letters below the phrase.

How do you think a Gay guy is gonna feel walking down the street and seeing Sex is for FAGS! ? I know I know how others feel doesn't matter, or they should find out what sex for fags means somehow. Or people shouldn't feel a certain way when seeing FAG! on a T shirt, regardless of what comes before, or after, it.

It's just all in bad taste. A good comedian doesn't have to use racial slurs and hate words to make people laugh, nor does a good writer to get their point across. Using words like ****** and FAGGOT only insight negative feelings in people, the people who would find them funny are those who use those words to tease people, or put them down or oppress them :francais:

[djdez]

How do you think a Gay guy is gonna feel walking down the street and seeing Sex is for FAGS! ?

My first reaction would probably be you're god damn right it is

[BDBionic]

Free speech is the right of every American. The topic was whether this was funny or abusive.

You think abusive.
I think funny.

I remember expressing my opinion that I thought it was funny somewhere around 3 hours before you ever came in to this thread to post so don't prop yourself up so high as to think I motivations behind posting that I thought it was funny were to piss you off and don't prop me up so high as to suggest I have some super psychic ability to have known you would come in to this thread and express a viewpoint that disagreed with my own.

I bet when he's at home late at night without television cameras around, Pat Robertson bitches about "fags" all the time. "Fags causin' the hurricane! Fags causin' abortion! Fags causin' high oil prices!"

Was that me calling people fags right there?