No Homo?

ninerbuff

Eh, I tell dudes all the time if they look "hard and ripped" without having to add the "no homo". Really the only place I see it a lot is on bodybuilding forums because there are a lot of homos that frequent them and comment and a straight guy needs to identify himself if he's complimenting another males physique. GETBIG.COM is totally like that.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

zorbaru

Whether or not you think it's worse is sort of irrelevant...unless you have an admission you'd like to make, of course.

so its irrelevant what we think is bad, but relevant what you think is bad?

Depending on what community is being referred to, yes. Obviously.

but if i was agreeing with you, then i would be relevant right?

Nicolee_2014

I've never seen that in a thread.

How rude! :grumble:

EvanKeel

Whether or not you think it's worse is sort of irrelevant...unless you have an admission you'd like to make, of course.

so its irrelevant what we think is bad, but relevant what you think is bad?

Depending on what community is being referred to, yes. Obviously.

but if i was agreeing with you, then i would be relevant right?

No, it would be nice to be agreed with, but if you're not part of the community in some way--through some direct or even indirect connection--then no, your opinion is sort of moot because you're not the one being affected.

lifewithmikey

I don't get the whole "no homo" thing. If you're gracious enough to compliment, then be gracious enough to just let your statement stand on its merit. Boom. Problem solved.

Gjallarhorn

First: I agree that this is very offensive. One of my kids is queer.

I also dont understand how people can be offended by a tongue in cheek saying such as "no homo" and in the same breath refer to homosexual people as "queer".

hypocrite much?

Queer is an umbrella term used by many in the community who don't necessarily identify as "gay" or "bi" or whatever else.

If anything that's worse... queer means strange or odd. gay means happy. *kitten* means bundle of sticks or a cigarette, either one of those definitions for *kitten* can be turned into a sexual innuendo. I prefer to use gay personally. a middle ground between humor and derogatory.

*shrug* It's widely accepted as a preferred term in academic circles (particularly gender and sexuality studies) when talking about anyone who isn't hetero-normative.

Whether or not you think it's worse is sort of irrelevant...unless you have an admission you'd like to make, of course.

Nope. But if my opinion is irrelevant then that means the only opinions that matter on the subject are gblt? Which, is funny because most of the gay people I know are very accepting of other's opinions.

EvanKeel

First: I agree that this is very offensive. One of my kids is queer.

I also dont understand how people can be offended by a tongue in cheek saying such as "no homo" and in the same breath refer to homosexual people as "queer".

hypocrite much?

Queer is an umbrella term used by many in the community who don't necessarily identify as "gay" or "bi" or whatever else.

If anything that's worse... queer means strange or odd. gay means happy. *kitten* means bundle of sticks or a cigarette, either one of those definitions for *kitten* can be turned into a sexual innuendo. I prefer to use gay personally. a middle ground between humor and derogatory.

*shrug* It's widely accepted as a preferred term in academic circles (particularly gender and sexuality studies) when talking about anyone who isn't hetero-normative.

Whether or not you think it's worse is sort of irrelevant...unless you have an admission you'd like to make, of course.

Nope. But if my opinion is irrelevant then that means the only opinions that matter on the subject are gblt? Which, is funny because most of the gay people I know are very accepting of other's opinions.

When making a determination about what's considered offensive, you'd be correct--in that you don't get to say whether or not it's offensive. In that way, your opinion is sort of irrelevant...unless, as I said, you're part of the community in some way.

zorbaru

Whether or not you think it's worse is sort of irrelevant...unless you have an admission you'd like to make, of course.

so its irrelevant what we think is bad, but relevant what you think is bad?

Depending on what community is being referred to, yes. Obviously.

but if i was agreeing with you, then i would be relevant right?

No, it would be nice to be agreed with, but if you're not part of the community in some way--through some direct or even indirect connection--then no, your opinion is sort of moot because you're not the one being affected.

you dont know what community im part of, you dont know anything about me or my family. for all you know i could have 2 dads. i didnt realise i had to be qualified to have a relevant opinion.

LiftAllThePizzas

There is likely an evolutionary-based dislike of homosexuality in a good proportion of people.

No there isn't a basis for that. Homosexuality is actually advantageous in certain situations. Please learn something about evolution if you're going to make such statements.

FloraSin

I'd also like to point out that the term *kitten* and the whole bundle of sticks thing is actually a lot more morbid than people seem to realize. Since it wasn't used for just any old bundle of sticks, but the ones specifically used for burning heretics. Those who were spared for whatever reason, were to wear a stick (something along those lines. Sorry darlings, but it's been a while since I studied religious history) and were referred to as *kitten* to constantly remind them and those around them of what they were.

The fact society has turned this word on homosexuals is actually quite scary to me.

Apologies for any mistakes in this comment. I've skimmed for them, but I am half asleep.

EvanKeel

Whether or not you think it's worse is sort of irrelevant...unless you have an admission you'd like to make, of course.

so its irrelevant what we think is bad, but relevant what you think is bad?

Depending on what community is being referred to, yes. Obviously.

but if i was agreeing with you, then i would be relevant right?

No, it would be nice to be agreed with, but if you're not part of the community in some way--through some direct or even indirect connection--then no, your opinion is sort of moot because you're not the one being affected.

you dont know what community im part of, you dont know anything about me or my family. for all you know i could have 2 dads. i didnt realise i had to be qualified to have a relevant opinion.

Well, now you do Cheers.

earlswimsuit

A lot of people who say it don't actually realize it's homophobic...it's so stupid! Everyone should be able to tell whatever gender they are attractive without having the other person assuming they are deeply in love with them and want to buy the ring. Thanks for this thread. :laugh:

chubbygirl253

I've actually never seen this, but that makes my heart sink that people do that

I'm glad I'm not the only one who has never seen that. But I hope I don't, I think it's awful. I did snort-laugh when OP said yes homo though.

Jonyneedsleepy

That's so gay!

currierand

This seems like something that calls for a parade.

I've seen about 40 parades this week. I'm over that

No parade is needed. A small dinner party will suffice.

Excellent! I'll bring the cocktails.

zorbaru

Whether or not you think it's worse is sort of irrelevant...unless you have an admission you'd like to make, of course.

so its irrelevant what we think is bad, but relevant what you think is bad?

Depending on what community is being referred to, yes. Obviously.

but if i was agreeing with you, then i would be relevant right?

No, it would be nice to be agreed with, but if you're not part of the community in some way--through some direct or even indirect connection--then no, your opinion is sort of moot because you're not the one being affected.

you dont know what community im part of, you dont know anything about me or my family. for all you know i could have 2 dads. i didnt realise i had to be qualified to have a relevant opinion.

Well, now you do Cheers.

well you are wrong in my opinion. Any one who has ever seen any thing that could be taken as an insult to any community that they are part of are qualified to have an opinion in this. so that basically means everyone on the face of the planet.

As mentioned, previously i have greek ancestory. How is me being called a wog, greasy, hairball etc any different from a homosexual person being called gay, homo, *kitten* etc. both are so called derogatory terms for some thing that we have no control over. what we do have control over is how we react to the term. we also have the ability to see context, unfortunately, a lot of people these days only see the term and freak out, they dont see the context.

if someone was to say to me, "hey, you dirty wog, why dont you go back to the acropolis", sure it would annoy the crap out of me and i would retaliate is some way. but if someone said "hey, lets have a game of wog ball" (which is a term used for soccer) then i would inform them that i would like to be keeper.

so just because you are part of one community, that doesnt make you special in some way. you are still human. a lot of people talk about equal rights. what they mean is that they want superior rights.

No matter how much noise, complaining, protesting etc you do, people are always going to be saying something that you might find offensive. the best defence is not to be offended.

have a listen to Henry Rollins talk about the KKK and gay marriage. His language and terminology is what a lot of people would call "racist" and "homophobic" but the message he has is the complete opposite.

its all about context.

EvanKeel

Whether or not you think it's worse is sort of irrelevant...unless you have an admission you'd like to make, of course.

so its irrelevant what we think is bad, but relevant what you think is bad?

Depending on what community is being referred to, yes. Obviously.

but if i was agreeing with you, then i would be relevant right?

No, it would be nice to be agreed with, but if you're not part of the community in some way--through some direct or even indirect connection--then no, your opinion is sort of moot because you're not the one being affected.

you dont know what community im part of, you dont know anything about me or my family. for all you know i could have 2 dads. i didnt realise i had to be qualified to have a relevant opinion.

Well, now you do Cheers.

well you are wrong in my opinion. Any one who has ever seen any thing that could be taken as an insult to any community that they are part of are qualified to have an opinion in this. so that basically means everyone on the face of the planet.

As mentioned, previously i have greek ancestory. How is me being called a wog, greasy, hairball etc any different from a homosexual person being called gay, homo, *kitten* etc. both are so called derogatory terms for some thing that we have no control over. what we do have control over is how we react to the term. we also have the ability to see context, unfortunately, a lot of people these days only see the term and freak out, they dont see the context.

if someone was to say to me, "hey, you dirty wog, why dont you go back to the acropolis", sure it would annoy the crap out of me and i would retaliate is some way. but if someone said "hey, lets have a game of wog ball" (which is a term used for soccer) then i would inform them that i would like to be keeper.

so just because you are part of one community, that doesnt make you special in some way. you are still human. a lot of people talk about equal rights. what they mean is that they want superior rights.

No matter how much noise, complaining, protesting etc you do, people are always going to be saying something that you might find offensive. the best defence is not to be offended.

have a listen to Henry Rollins talk about the KKK and gay marriage. His language and terminology is what a lot of people would call "racist" and "homophobic" but the message he has is the complete opposite.

its all about context.

I will agree that context is important. But I would argue that the receiver doesn't hold the sole responsibility for matching their context to that of the sender.

Your comment about equal rights (at least as it pertains to lgbt rights in the US) is fantastically short-sighted, though that really is another discussion. As far "noise" and "complaining" go, again you should realize it depends on context. The fact that the sender of the communication doesn't see (or intend) offense in the message does not mean that none was received, or that the offense is somehow not legitimate. Language kind of matters. it isn't just a slur here and there; it's a representation of very real discrimination and violence that happens.

And I never said you're not allowed to have an opinion. I'm stating that if you use a slur towards a group of which you are not a part, then your opinion about whether or not that slur is offensive has less value than an actual member of the community.

LiftAllThePizzas

How is me being called a wog, greasy, hairball etc any different from a homosexual person being called gay, homo, *kitten* etc.

When's the last time someone was denied a marriage license for having Greek ancestors?

zorbaru

this thread was never about marriage rights of homosexuals, it was about a homosexual person taking offense to the term "No Homo" when used as a light hearted jibe when a male makes a compliment to another male. certainly, context is not always clear when in written form. but where it is ambiguous, why dont we make the conscious decision to give it the least offensive way, rather than the most offensive way. being offended is a choice. i choose to not be offended. and i feel that my life benefits by that choice as i dont have to care about what others say or do, unless it affects me directly.

my post was in no way refering to the rights that gay people do and do not get, it was in reference to verbal comments made against anyone.

my point about equal/superior rights was not just in reference to gays, or specific people, it was to do with the fact that a lot of people that go on about having equal rights, dont actually want equality, they want superiority.

ill use a very broad example of what i am talking about in these cases. Womens tennis players are compaigning for equal prize money. i have no issue with that what so ever. however, i feel if they want equal prizemoney they should do equal work. but no once have i ever heard a female tennis player say that they are willing to play best of 5 sets (which, for those that dont know, is what the men play), instead of the best of 3 that they play now. that is not wanting equality, that is wanting superiority. they want equality when it benefits them, but leave the status quo in things that benefit them currently,

EvanKeel

this thread was never about marriage rights of homosexuals, it was about a homosexual person taking offense to the term "No Homo" when used as a light hearted jibe when a male makes a compliment to another male.

my post was in no way refering to the rights that gay people do and do not get, it was in reference to verbal comments made against anyone.

my point about equal/superior rights was not just in reference to gays, or specific people, it was to do with the fact that a lot of people that go on about having equal rights, dont actually want equality, they want superiority.

ill use a very broad example of what i am talking about in these cases. Womens tennis players are compaigning for equal prize money. i have no issue with that what so ever. however, i feel if they want equal prizemoney they should do equal work. but no once have i ever heard a female tennis player say that they are willing to play best of 5 sets (which, for those that dont know, is what the men play), instead of the best of 3 that they play now. that is not wanting equality, that is wanting superiority. they want equality when it benefits them, but leave the status quo in things that benefit them currently,

This thread is closer to marriage rights of same-sex couples than it is to a glass ceiling in sports. I think you're flat out wrong, though, when you say that a lot of people who talk about wanting equal rights (or let's just call it "equality") are actually asking for something extra.

For your example to make any sense whatsoever you'd have to somehow draw a direct comparison with this subject of the thread. The two concepts, tennis and "no homo" are so far divorced from each other that I have no idea why you'd even bring it up.

But let's talk about equality for a moment. The reason that the original post does, in fact, relate to marriage rights is because you can't divorce the phrase from the context that it carries. The entire reason for the phrase existing is to further draw a distinction, through disapproval, between heterosexual and homosexuals--usually men, for this particular topic. That distinction, between heterosexuals and homosexual, and the apparent need some males have to distance themselves from even the slightest possibility of being gay is rooted in discrimination, "otherness," and inequality. On some level, however minor or major it may be for the people involved, It's what feeds systematic inequality in society and consequently in the legal system. It's not as if there's any significant discrimination against heterosexuals going on. And I only use that phrasing because I acknowledge that it might exist somewhere. Even if it did, it can't really thought of as being "equal" in magnitude to the discrimination of homosexuals.