The first tool of those who know their arguments are shaky at best (and of politicians) is to misdirect the conversation. Scream “censorship” word and everyone will get up in arms and forget what the original point is. Jill does it, Karen does it, Teddy does it.
And I’m sorry that those people of color and those women who don’t understand that c*cksucker was originated as a derogatory term aimed at gays long before it became (in their opinion) a generic word for asshole don’t get it. Just like c*nt was originally a derogatory word for women before it became generic for…I dunno…”love of my life”? I guarantee you, in a room, if anyone called Jill or Barbara “My Beautiful C*nt,” you know damn well they’d be up in arms about it. Just as they would if it was the title of a book where a woman was treated as a submissive whore.
Perhaps I should just write a book entitled “Shut Up Jill, You Glorious C*nt.” Hey, it’s a term of endearment. Or, “I hope you never know what it’s like to be beaten up in an alley or strung up on a fence in a field and beaten to death, my Darling C*nt.”
I mean, they’re just words after all, right?
If we don’t have to be aware or sensitive of their primary use or origination, then I guess all of ‘em are up for grabs.
As for TP’s constant hounding on “Larry Kramer a gay man used the word F*ggot…”…uh, yeah he did. And he’s a gay man who has earned the right to use it if he wants. He ain’t some housewife in Iowa whose never faced anti-gay remarks head on. And, believe it or not, Kramer actually had a point when he used that word as the title of his book. And the point was something more than some idiot in a room pretending they know what gay sex is like. I guarantee you, if a member of the religious right stood in front of TP and called him a c*cksucker, I don’t think he’d be too happy about it.
But you know TP…the voice of all of gay america.
Paul G. Bens commenting on Ann Somerville’s blog.
No Paul,
As I have always stated. I speak for myself.
When people do not get what I am saying I then tend to quote those far more intelligent on the subject than I am. Since you have a problem with “straight women” or I will assume “straight men” too then I feel the George Carlin quote I gave below concerning this matter might not register for you.
So here Paul is another Gay Man just like you and me who puts himself out there in the public risking abuse and people calling him “bad words” everyday. A man who has his own national advice column that he originally wanted to call “Hey Faggot!” but his editors would not let him do that so he put “Hey Faggot!” in the front of the posts as a salutation for the first few years…
So far as hate words are concerned, I’ve always been of the opinion that intent makes a word hateful, not a particular arrangement of letters. “Faggot” can be said with hateful intent, but so can “homosexual” or “gay” (have you ever heard Jesse Helms drawl out “homahsectshul”?). “Bitch” can be a term of endearment or a slur, and neither rap artists nor Chris Rock are niggardly about their use of the word “nigger.”
As I see it, the alphabet isn’t magic. Nothing is created by arranging or rearranging letters, much less something so powerful as hate. Words can be used to express hate, but they are not hate in and of themselves. How someone uses words, what they choose to express, reveals much about their beliefs but nothing about the words. The meaning of a word is created solely by the intent of the speaker, so it’s not only possible to change a word’s meaning, but to change it instantly.
Dan Savage
Paul, If you don’t want me to bring up censorship quit specifically demanding people should not be using “bad words” like cocksucker. In my opinion that is a blatant call for suppression of speech or writing.
Tags: Gay Romance, Wank
Emmy wrote,
Having grown up with many Native Americans, I am fricking offended at all the romance titles calling Indians “savages”. It perpetuates a negative stereotype against people who couldn’t be less savage. Where’s the outrage and masses calling for the titles to be removed? Hell, Cassie Edwards built a whole career off calling people Savage. Well, that and a little judicious “borrowing” of other’s work.
Link | January 1st, 2009 at 12:21 pm
kirsten saell wrote,
What gets me in this case is the whole “he’s a gay author–he’s earned the right to name his book Faggots” argument. Whether you put any stock in that argument or not, it simply does not apply in this discussion.
If those offended by the title are positing that the word will be used as an excuse for homophobes and haters to use it as hate speech, well, wouldn’t that same argument apply to Faggots and Queer, no matter who wrote them? And if they’re going to argue that context in this case is irrelevant, because a title stands alone without context until and unless you read the book, well, then that argument applies to Faggots and Queer too, doesn’t it?
But what bothers me most is the criticism that because a person politely disagrees with someone, that’s tantamount to “smacking down a gay an and his concerns”, and the implication that because you’re not right there cheering on the “good” fight, that you must be homophobic. And it really bugs me to have motivations and agendas ascribed to my comments that have no basis in anything I’ve said.
Paul can feel however he wants to feel.
I would correct him, though, in that “cunt” did not originate as a derogatory term.
“Even in Chaucer’s time, in The Canterbury Tales (1380-1390 CE), the first great poem of Middle English, Chaucer uses the word in a normal descriptive manner. In the Miller’s Tale, at line 90, we read “Pryvely he caught hir by the queynte.” In 138o queynte was pronounced ‘cunt.’” —William Gordon Casselman, A Blunt Histry of the Word Cunt.
By Shakespeare’s day, it had evolved into a “bad” word, but it wasn’t always so…
Link | January 1st, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Teddypig wrote,
If those offended by the title are positing that the word will be used as an excuse for homophobes and haters to use it as hate speech, well, wouldn’t that same argument apply to Faggots and Queer, no matter who wrote them?
You betcha! Especially a Gay Activists like Larry Kramer? Why would he use that term on a book title?
The problem is Kirsten that the more I read Paul’s arguments the more I get the feeling he is totally equating any use of a “bad word” as an intentional attack against him with no regard of the fact “without context there can be no interpretation of that word”. Like Dan Savage is saying. That understanding requires a sophistication and an experience in life he does not show in what he has said.
I honestly do not know where Paul is coming from. I can tell you about the old Obscenity Laws in the sixties that our US Government used to actually jail writers of Gay Literature they deemed as pornographic and publicly offensive.
Here read about Victor J. Banis who writes for MLR Press and the things he went through.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_J._Banis
Link | January 1st, 2009 at 2:49 pm
kirsten saell wrote,
Argh, and then the same people turn around and say it’s all about context with “that’s so gay”.
http://logophilos.net/blather/?p=708&cpage=1
They’re totally, absolutely, 100% right in this case, but somehow I don’t know if they’ll see the irony…
Link | January 1st, 2009 at 3:08 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
Which is why I question the agendas behind all this bullshit.
Link | January 1st, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Laurie wrote,
Wow, the wank, it abounds.
I’m waiting for someone to state their position and accept that not everyone is going to agree with them (on the internet? Really? [/shock]) and step back gracefully. Will I be disappointed? If not, who will it be? Oh, the suspense.
Link | January 1st, 2009 at 3:26 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
Sorry Laurie,
I only put this further post up because Paul is now saying no straight people can use “bad words” or criticize him and I guess he is saying straight people do not have anal sex either.
I thought it was interesting which is why I had to use a Dan Savage quote.
Link | January 1st, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Barbara Sheridan wrote,
I find myself agreeing with Teddy yet again. The way I see it comments like Paul’s referred to here prolong the wank.Things like this
I guarantee you, in a room, if anyone called Jill or Barbara “My Beautiful C*nt,” you know damn well they’d be up in arms about it. Just as they would if it was the title of a book where a woman was treated as a submissive whore. .
Since I’m named in the above I heartily call “Bullshit!”
Paul has no way in hell of knowing I’d be up in arms when I know damn well my reaction to being called “Beautiful Cunt” would depend on –say it with me open minded folk–The Context In Which The Phrase Is Use.
If a male co-worker jokingly said that to me over lunch my reaction would be vastly different than if some grubby leering stranger walked up me and said that when I’m with my elderly aunt..
Link | January 1st, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Amanda wrote,
Am I the only one who is somewhat amused by all the drama? Give me a break. It’s a short story, for goodness sake. I hope Barbara is reaping the benefit of all the free publicity.
Link | January 1st, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Barbara Sheridan wrote,
*correction–Context In Which The Phrase Is Used
Link | January 1st, 2009 at 6:58 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
Amanda,
I was done with this topic yesterday. It’s like Dan Savage said about this debate in 1999. It is over and done and notice that Queer Nation is still Queer Nation and Dykes still ride bikes in the Gay Pride March and Dan Savage is still doing his thing even after using Hey Faggot! as a joke to start his column for like 8 years so the whole idea that purposeful use of “Bad Words” by either straight or gay people with good intention will still hurt us Poor Gay Folks is silly.
This morning though I got up and read the further adventures of Paul G. Bens insulting straight people writing Gay Romance and digging himself that much deeper in the hole and I said to myself you know this is just crying for a response.
I promise to try not to laugh any louder if I can help it. Honest!
Link | January 1st, 2009 at 7:57 pm
JenB wrote,
I don’t appreciate being told what should or should not offend me. Isn’t that only encouraging a different type of intolerance?
Link | January 2nd, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Louise van Hine wrote,
Ah, here’s where the comments are! I posted a comment on your previous post over on your LJ, mainly because this site is filtered out from my work firewall. I mentioned Dan Savage and his column in that comment, and I’m glad to see you posting his comment here. This is exactly right – Paul has a right to be disinterested in a story because it uses a term whose usual use is derogatory. However, he may be overlooking the simple fact that there is an entire universe of people for whom dirty talk (as well as humiliation) are part of their sexual turn-ons, and the story is in part about that (as I understand the summary.)
Link | January 3rd, 2009 at 2:05 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
Paul has a right to be disinterested in a story because it uses a term whose usual use is derogatory.
That is exactly right.
Paul has a right to not like the word or use the word or not buy the book because of the word. The problem is he made this into a debate insisting his knee jerk reaction represented all gay people’s point of view and then got upset when it was obviously pointed out that other members of our community who have done far more to fight for gay rights than he ever has have already addressed this and not in the way he likes.
So now he is separating gay and straight writers as the line for who can use these words and who can’t which is even more silly.
Link | January 3rd, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Louise van Hine wrote,
Hi Teddy,
I would say that this “separating gay and straight writers” goes deeper than this. I have read back over the big controversy that was started over the accusation that Josh Lanyon could not be a “gay man” because of something unspecified and not cited in his writing, and that there is some definable (though not yet defined) difference between gay authors writing gay romance stories and straight women authors writing gay romance stories, and how different they are. I found the entire accusation to be appalling, particularly because the ones putting forward this theory provided no examples or evidence.
If we extend this “theory” about how straight women (making the huge assumption that the women who write M/M stories are straight, that is) cannot write gay romances in the same way gay men do, due to lack of equipment or lack of experience or… something, to other such applications of authorial fallacy – then surely men can’t write first person novels from a female point of view, women can’t write first person novels from a male point of view, men can’t write about lesbians, etc. without it all being somehow false and some sort of pretense – how do authors ever write science fiction and fantasy, then? None of the authors who have written about space travel have ever set foot in a rocket. I think there is a larger theme here, and that is the misapplication of a big authorial fallacy. My opinion is: a good writer can do just about anything, and it is a question of skill.
I have written a whole lot of gay love stories with a whole of sex in them, and I have never ever gotten the feedback from my gay male readers that there was something female about them that caused them to be wrong, inaccurate, or “feminine.” I also once created a character on a roleplaying forum that was a gay male, as a tool to work on my writing of that specific character, and the character I got involved with, who was played by a self-admitted gay male, and he was convinced I was a gay male and started getting personal with me in out of character chat. I had to stop roleplaying with him due to this, and he was not the only one. So apparently, I had managed to convince one gay guy that I was a gay guy through nothing more than my writing. So I have to conclude that the entire argument by authorial sexual preference is also a bogus one.
Link | January 3rd, 2009 at 3:22 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
Well, as I said about that whole subject… review the writing not the writer.
Good writing is good writing end of story.
Annie Proulx is the one with the O. Henry award for Brokeback Mountain so what has Paul G. Bens won again?
Link | January 3rd, 2009 at 3:45 pm
JenB wrote,
Women have no right to write about gay men because we don’t relate to them. Women have historically had it very easy, you know. We’ve never been persecuted or oppressed. We’ve always been highly valued in society. We’ve never had our rights violated or our positions belittled. We have no idea what it’s like to be in love with a man. We don’t know how it feels to be looked down upon for relationships that society doesn’t approve of. We don’t know how it feels to be at odds with friends and family because of the lifestyle choices we make. We don’t know what it means to truly enjoy sex. We most certainly don’t understand the mechanics of anal sex and we haven’t a clue how amazing it feels (women don’t do such things, you know).
Link | January 3rd, 2009 at 9:18 pm
kirsten saell wrote,
Oh, Jen, I think I love you…
Link | January 3rd, 2009 at 11:31 pm
JenB wrote,
You love me ’cause you’re naughty like me. *muah*
Link | January 3rd, 2009 at 11:59 pm