gay.

jarrod

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
2,172
Reaction score
96
Location
Denver
that might be the gayest thing i've ever seen. not that there's anything wrong with that!

jf
 
OP
jarrod

jarrod

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
2,172
Reaction score
96
Location
Denver
Erm? thats basically the same as Olympic gymnastic floor work without the jumps etc, I think you guys are seeing things in there that this female isn't!!

really? cuz last night i was at a gay bar, making out with a bunch of gay dudes, & it wasn't as gay as that.

jf
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,600
Reaction score
4,895
Location
England
So, what's wrong with gay anyway?
I've seen more effeminate things in MA than that trust me lol!
 

StrongFighter

Green Belt
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
137
Reaction score
2
While I agree with some of the things said, it has always been the men who defended the women and children for centuries from the beginning of time since Adam and Eve.

It is always good for the wife to protect the husband and her kids by smashing the assailant's head or something like that.

Men usually are stronger than women. This is why men are to act responsibly with their strength and to use that physical strength for good, not for evil.

Most women naturally are not as aggressive like that of the men are but if provoked to protect her kids. She will do what she has to do.

Remember that the animal kingdom and the human kingdom are two very different species and please be honest on this point.

I am not going to allow my wife to think she can defeat a man every time she has to protect the kids.

That would be considered suicide because men are naturally stronger than women.

If I am at work and something happened to my wife and the kids for example, How can I defend my wife and kids while I am at work ? Of course I could floor it to where she is but usually by that time I get there, she could be dead or close to dead.

Maybe she succeeded in defending herself while the kids ran away and the kids don't know that their mother is dead. Maybe both the mother and the kids survive and the assailant is dead. If I was there, the chances would go up that the assailant is deader than dead and my wife and the kids are alive and fine.

I am talking about the chances of survival for her and the kids increase or decrease if woman is alone with her kids or with her husband and the kids. You have to be realistic on this one.

Now for example, I am with my wife and the kids and a man tried to assault my wife and kids when I am ordering food then I can quite easily step in to stop him and protect my wife and the kids.

I am not going to sit down with my wife and tell her a lie that she will be victorious every time she protects her kids fending off bad guys.

I agree that the firearm is a great equalizer for women protecting her kids from harm but not every woman is psychologically capable of pulling the trigger when lives depend on her. Men in general are more capable of carrying out that duty.

I think God hardwired men to be fierce protectors and the women to be gentle nurturers in the human kingdom, not the another way around. The animal kingdom is just that, the animal kingdom not ours. The Bible says for men to have dominion over animals and to have his household in order, to love and honor his wife.

Scientists usually get it wrong the first time around. God isn't wrong because He created the world and made the man first then the woman second.

God does not make mistakes. Scientists do make mistakes with their theories until they get it right and the Bible confirms it.

The Bible was right the first time around. The scientists weren't right the first time around.

This is why many people get confused when talking about the animal and human kingdom.

You have to be more honest and realistic about these things because this is what usually happens in the real world.
 

kaizasosei

Master Black Belt
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
24
Hey Jarrod! I hear you. I know you were not gaybashing. When you used the word gay, i definately could understand what you meant. I guess the word gay is so stigmatized it makes it a perfect setup for the whole pc wrap.

Ok, let's take figure skating for example-an art i used to quite like no matter what people would say. Different skaters will also have very different styles. Some of them are gay, but that's ok--just kidding-i mean, sexuality in itself actually has little to do with the art of skating. It may even be that the jumpy guy i posted above is not gay at all and only into that sortof movement that kind of competition. He sure can pull some cool flares and handstandpressups. respect for that i will try to emulate-but not the dance-at least i don't think i'd wanna try it....martial arts movements especially the internal stuff and stretching can seem 'gay' enough to some people...i remember jumping around like that when i was around 6 or 7...i actually, get this, for laughs,..put a string around a stuffed animal cat and pranced around in a similar way-to the music of peter pan all the while dragging the stuffed animal-dunno what i was thinking.

I once saw this clip on youtube called 'inspirational dancer' it was basically this guy that would do wacky dance moves and shake himself around in such a way that the crowd would crack up and be roaring in laughter.

Whatever, point i'm trying to make is that movements or dance do different things to different people- whilst most people think kungfu or karate forms are impressive and cool, some may have different opinions.
Have to say though that the inspirational dancer made just about everyone lose it. There are aspects of the soul that can be expressed through movement. Dance is full of soul. When i first posted the initial link, i was posting to display the flexibility and strength. I had no interest in a silly looking form of dance. Like i said, i personally do a lot of weird movements and may not be everyone's thing, but like some will like karate, some pentjak silat- in essence the beauty of a certain movement has a very subjective aspect to it.

Don't know if you've noticed but in all my foulmouthedness and vulgarity, i have never used the g word on mt. That is because, before realizing my actions, i would say that all the time. this is gay, that is gay...basically i meant lame or uncool. I usually never really meant gay even. To me what i was doing back then was far more derogatory and thoughtless than what jarrod said. Also, i would be way more vulgar and say really nasty things with homosexual undertones if you can imagine...i still do that from time to time with people i trust to understand what i'm getting at-but at least now i try to say what i mean. So i havent really used the term gay in a derogitory or inappropriate way in a long time...i guess at some point i started to ask myself why.
However, in my book, Jarrod did not use the word in a derogitory way. Are those movements prancy and feminine or what....ballet is like rugby in comparison... taichi type movements can also be perceived as quite feminine or gay(again-only an opinion)-all depends how and when you do it to not make it inappropriate or create a scene out of nothing. i just mean that something like a movement that reaches into a persons soul, however superficialy, is a form of power in itself, i suppose.

Sorry for the flames, no pun intended, and i do not think i will change my opinion on this much because i've already learnt my lessons on respect and
selfawareness....one could argue with any gaybasher, that it takes one to know one.. hey we're all human- i don't think anyone is really being indecent.

j
 
Last edited:

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,600
Reaction score
4,895
Location
England
While I agree with some of the things said, it has always been the men who defended the women and children for centuries from the beginning of time since Adam and Eve.

It is always good for the wife to protect the husband and her kids by smashing the assailant's head or something like that.

Men usually are stronger than women. This is why men are to act responsibly with their strength and to use that physical strength for good, not for evil.

Most women naturally are not as aggressive like that of the men are but if provoked to protect her kids. She will do what she has to do.

Remember that the animal kingdom and the human kingdom are two very different species and please be honest on this point.

I am not going to allow my wife to think she can defeat a man every time she has to protect the kids.

That would be considered suicide because men are naturally stronger than women.

If I am at work and something happened to my wife and the kids for example, How can I defend my wife and kids while I am at work ? Of course I could floor it to where she is but usually by that time I get there, she could be dead or close to dead.

Maybe she succeeded in defending herself while the kids ran away and the kids don't know that their mother is dead. Maybe both the mother and the kids survive and the assailant is dead. If I was there, the chances would go up that the assailant is deader than dead and my wife and the kids are alive and fine.

I am talking about the chances of survival for her and the kids increase or decrease if woman is alone with her kids or with her husband and the kids. You have to be realistic on this one.

Now for example, I am with my wife and the kids and a man tried to assault my wife and kids when I am ordering food then I can quite easily step in to stop him and protect my wife and the kids.

I am not going to sit down with my wife and tell her a lie that she will be victorious every time she protects her kids fending off bad guys.

I agree that the firearm is a great equalizer for women protecting her kids from harm but not every woman is psychologically capable of pulling the trigger when lives depend on her. Men in general are more capable of carrying out that duty.

I think God hardwired men to be fierce protectors and the women to be gentle nurturers in the human kingdom, not the another way around. The animal kingdom is just that, the animal kingdom not ours. The Bible says for men to have dominion over animals and to have his household in order, to love and honor his wife.

Scientists usually get it wrong the first time around. God isn't wrong because He created the world and made the man first then the woman second.

God does not make mistakes. Scientists do make mistakes with their theories until they get it right and the Bible confirms it.

The Bible was right the first time around. The scientists weren't right the first time around.

This is why many people get confused when talking about the animal and human kingdom.

You have to be more honest and realistic about these things because this is what usually happens in the real world.

Bollocks! :lol:
Allow your wife? Dear me, I think she can decide for herself what she thinks!
Please don't patronise me and the other women here with your 'little women and big strong man' stuff. What you believe is your own business but please don't project it on to the rest of us. What holds for you doesn't hold for me. What you believe doesn't make you right,it just proves you believe in something.
Oh and you might want to remember Deborah.
 

StrongFighter

Green Belt
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
137
Reaction score
2
Bollocks! :lol:
Allow your wife? Dear me, I think she can decide for herself what she thinks!
Please don't patronise me and the other women here with your 'little women and big strong man' stuff. What you believe is your own business but please don't project it on to the rest of us. What holds for you doesn't hold for me. What you believe doesn't make you right,it just proves you believe in something.
Oh and you might want to remember Deborah.

Deborah was a prophetess, a woman of prayer. She did not participate in the actual battles. She made military decisions with the Lord by her side.

Esther did not participate in any actual battles but she saved the Jewish people by praying and fasting for wisdom in this matter then she went before the wicked king and the rest is history.

I am not saying women can't defend herself and the kids. There are women that have succeeded but many more women have died and the numbers are pretty high.

I am not going to be pc to your face and lie to you about your chances of being able to survive that kind of thing.

I would be happy if you did survive this while your husband was away or whatever the situation was that you came home alive with the kids.
 

seasoned

MT Senior Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
11,250
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Lives in Texas
While I agree with some of the things said, it has always been the men who defended the women and children for centuries from the beginning of time since Adam and Eve.

It is always good for the wife to protect the husband and her kids by smashing the assailant's head or something like that.

Men usually are stronger than women. This is why men are to act responsibly with their strength and to use that physical strength for good, not for evil.

Most women naturally are not as aggressive like that of the men are but if provoked to protect her kids. She will do what she has to do.

Remember that the animal kingdom and the human kingdom are two very different species and please be honest on this point.

I am not going to allow my wife to think she can defeat a man every time she has to protect the kids.

That would be considered suicide because men are naturally stronger than women.

If I am at work and something happened to my wife and the kids for example, How can I defend my wife and kids while I am at work ? Of course I could floor it to where she is but usually by that time I get there, she could be dead or close to dead.

Maybe she succeeded in defending herself while the kids ran away and the kids don't know that their mother is dead. Maybe both the mother and the kids survive and the assailant is dead. If I was there, the chances would go up that the assailant is deader than dead and my wife and the kids are alive and fine.

I am talking about the chances of survival for her and the kids increase or decrease if woman is alone with her kids or with her husband and the kids. You have to be realistic on this one.

Now for example, I am with my wife and the kids and a man tried to assault my wife and kids when I am ordering food then I can quite easily step in to stop him and protect my wife and the kids.

I am not going to sit down with my wife and tell her a lie that she will be victorious every time she protects her kids fending off bad guys.

I agree that the firearm is a great equalizer for women protecting her kids from harm but not every woman is psychologically capable of pulling the trigger when lives depend on her. Men in general are more capable of carrying out that duty.

I think God hardwired men to be fierce protectors and the women to be gentle nurturers in the human kingdom, not the another way around. The animal kingdom is just that, the animal kingdom not ours. The Bible says for men to have dominion over animals and to have his household in order, to love and honor his wife.

Scientists usually get it wrong the first time around. God isn't wrong because He created the world and made the man first then the woman second.

God does not make mistakes. Scientists do make mistakes with their theories until they get it right and the Bible confirms it.

The Bible was right the first time around. The scientists weren't right the first time around.

This is why many people get confused when talking about the animal and human kingdom.

You have to be more honest and realistic about these things because this is what usually happens in the real world.
Something to fight for, and the tools to accomplish it, and I think you under estimate the ability for a human of any gender to survive.
 

StrongFighter

Green Belt
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
137
Reaction score
2
Something to fight for, and the tools to accomplish it, and I think you under estimate the ability for a human of any gender to survive.

I rest my case and I never said that women can't defend themselves. I am not under or over estimating the woman's ability to defend herself. I am not even questioning her ability to defend herself. You have to remember that the men and women's bodies and muscles are built differently.

Women's muscles are more suitable for carrying babies, doing house chores and men's muscles are capable of very hard backbreaking labor or fighting wars that go on for 10 or 12 hours at times in Afghanistan and Iraq or in ancient times probably all day long the Roman army were fighting. I mean the Romans were way more physical, fighting with heavy swords and shields brutal hand to hand fights to the death under the hot Mediterranean sun with little water and dry roasted thirst, almost no food rations, physical fatigue etc.

Women would not be able to realistically survive under those conditions since men are more used to hot and cold weather temperatures. Being mentally, physically and psychologically prepared to do or die battles.

I am making a honest and accurate estimate. The violent crime statistics every year speak for itself. I am sure police officers who drive to domestic violence calls generally find the women dead or beaten to a pulp, not the another way around.

Women having a physical victory over the abusers are rare occurrences unless she shot him in self defense or she plunged the knife into his chest.

I am not going to lie to a woman or to my wife when I am teaching her self defense that she will always win.

There are many men who fight another men everyday that win or die everyday.

The chances of a woman physically winning in her favor is probably realistically closer to 35 - 40 % than the men who fight men with the chances being 65 -70 % of either men winning the fight.

I am being honest. It may not be what you want to hear but it is the truth.
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,600
Reaction score
4,895
Location
England
I rest my case and I never said that women can't defend themselves. I am not under or over estimating the woman's ability to defend herself. I am not even questioning her ability to defend herself. You have to remember that the men and women's bodies and muscles are built differently.

Women's muscles are more suitable for carrying babies, doing house chores and men's muscles are capable of very hard backbreaking labor or fighting wars that go on for 10 or 12 hours at times in Afghanistan and Iraq or in ancient times probably all day long the Roman army were fighting. I mean the Romans were way more physical, fighting with heavy swords and shields brutal hand to hand fights to the death under the hot Mediterranean sun with little water and dry roasted thirst, almost no food rations, physical fatigue etc.

Women would not be able to realistically survive under those conditions since men are more used to hot and cold weather temperatures. Being mentally, physically and psychologically prepared to do or die battles.

I am making a honest and accurate estimate. The violent crime statistics every year speak for itself. I am sure police officers who drive to domestic violence calls generally find the women dead or beaten to a pulp, not the another way around.

Women having a physical victory over the abusers are rare occurrences unless she shot him in self defense or she plunged the knife into his chest.

I am not going to lie to a woman or to my wife when I am teaching her self defense that she will always win.

There are many men who fight another men everyday that win or die everyday.

The chances of a woman physically winning in her favor is probably realistically closer to 35 - 40 % than the men who fight men with the chances being 65 -70 % of either men winning the fight.

I am being honest. It may not be what you want to hear but it is the truth.

Somebody check the date for me please? Are we in 2009 or 1809? Really what a load of old tosh. Womens bodies are weaker? That will be why they are built for labour then which can go on for 36 hours even more.

Poor Roman men how they must have suffered....much like the working class or slave class women throughout the ages who have had to do hard physical work like road making, building work, laundry work etc all under harsh conditions.Few women in history have had the luxury of sitting being pampered, most have been out working in the fields pulling ploughs, planting, reaping. Aye and they've been soldiers too, war is a great leveller. During the wars women did the 'mens' work, labouring long and hard in physical jobs they were never thought to have been able to do. In many cultures women still do the hard physical work, under conditions you wouldn't even go out in.

As for Afghanistan you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I have many friends and colleagues out there of both sexes and they work under the same conditions. It's no good either saying women don't go out onto the front line as sometimes the enemy doesn't abide by those rules and the frontline comes to them.
https://www.lineofduty.com/content/view/95409/109/

Don't you dare debase this girls bravery by saying she can't cope with heat, cold or tough conditions.
We have simliar females in our medical services one of who performed a similiar act of bravery for which she was recognised.

As for domestic vilence you would obviously be very surprised to know exactly how many violent women there are, men won't admit to be being beaten by a women but trust me it happens and yes I've seen it.

https://www.lineofduty.com/content/view/95409/109/


Self defence isn't a thing where only men win against attackers, I know many men that couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag if they were attacked. Self defence is to enable you to get away as quickly as you can not slug it out blow for blow with your attacker. If the self defence you are teaching involves fighting then you need to look at your training. That is a direct quote from Iain Abernethy with whom I trained yesterday. This goes for both sexes. Please feel free to email him if you doubt me. Self defence isn't fight training, there's nothing glorious or macho about going toe to toe with an attacker.
http://www.shotokankata.com/Articles/awareness.htm

Your truth is not THE truth. Your truth is what you want to believe.
 

StrongFighter

Green Belt
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
137
Reaction score
2
Somebody check the date for me please? Are we in 2009 or 1809? Really what a load of old tosh. Womens bodies are weaker? That will be why they are built for labour then which can go on for 36 hours even more.

Poor Roman men how they must have suffered....much like the working class or slave class women throughout the ages who have had to do hard physical work like road making, building work, laundry work etc all under harsh conditions.Few women in history have had the luxury of sitting being pampered, most have been out working in the fields pulling ploughs, planting, reaping. Aye and they've been soldiers too, war is a great leveller. During the wars women did the 'mens' work, labouring long and hard in physical jobs they were never thought to have been able to do. In many cultures women still do the hard physical work, under conditions you wouldn't even go out in.

As for Afghanistan you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I have many friends and colleagues out there of both sexes and they work under the same conditions. It's no good either saying women don't go out onto the front line as sometimes the enemy doesn't abide by those rules and the frontline comes to them.
https://www.lineofduty.com/content/view/95409/109/

Don't you dare debase this girls bravery by saying she can't cope with heat, cold or tough conditions.
We have simliar females in our medical services one of who performed a similiar act of bravery for which she was recognised.

As for domestic vilence you would obviously be very surprised to know exactly how many violent women there are, men won't admit to be being beaten by a women but trust me it happens and yes I've seen it.

https://www.lineofduty.com/content/view/95409/109/


Self defence isn't a thing where only men win against attackers, I know many men that couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag if they were attacked. Self defence is to enable you to get away as quickly as you can not slug it out blow for blow with your attacker. If the self defence you are teaching involves fighting then you need to look at your training. That is a direct quote from Iain Abernethy with whom I trained yesterday. This goes for both sexes. Please feel free to email him if you doubt me. Self defence isn't fight training, there's nothing glorious or macho about going toe to toe with an attacker.
http://www.shotokankata.com/Articles/awareness.htm

Your truth is not THE truth. Your truth is what you want to believe.

It is quite sad to see that you are a feminist because feminism has destroyed many women's lives, there are short term gains but prolonged amounts of agony.

I have noticed how many feminists remain single bachelorettes and wonder why they can't find a good man and those who do marry divorce within 3 years because of the jezebel attitude she has. Feminism is contrary to all that God had in mind for women.

Let me also remind you that mother nature is actually Father's Nature because God created the earth IN HIS IMAGE just as God created men in his image and took a man's rib to form a woman to be his helper. Something most feminists despise and many feminists are God haters as well, even though they say that they are not.

I do not believe women should be in combat and certainly not a combat medic in the midst of war. She should work in the medic tents in the rear where it is safe. Leave the combat medics to the men and the women should be nurses in a place of safe haven.

I have family who are in the military and law enforcement. I can tell you most police officers responding to domestic violence calls usually find women dead or beaten to a pulp.

Feminists would have you believe that most women can kick a man's butt but that is actually what is going to get her killed. I will say it again, women having physical victory over her abusers is a very rare occurrence.

Most police officers that respond to a woman who is alive and the abuser is dead is because she had an equalizer or a knife in her hand.

The mace spray and the martial arts for women is one of the most misunderstood subjects. That only buys you time to get away from your abuser and to really stop him, you would need a gun or a knife. I am shocked at how many women seem to think a restraining order will keep her safe. It does not keep women safe. It is just court paperwork. That is it. For any real safety, you need to be with your family, male relatives until the bad man goes to trial then he is actually in prison.

I have actually had feminists tell one of my female friends that the restraining order would keep her safe and I had to really explain it to her. I had to keep both the feminists at bay and the angry guy away from her. It was not until she got beaten really bad by her boyfriend that she understood exactly what I was talking about and warning her against taking the counsel of her feminist friends. She said she wished she took my counsel.

That is what you seem to not understand about feminism. Do not buy into the feminist hyperbole. That brainwashing stuff is just going to get you killed. Sure, there has been some good progress made in areas like voting rights, women working in the medical field, women being able to have a job to make sure her kids do not go hungry in the absence of a fatherless household but please do not blindly buy everything that the feminists say. Even the Christian ladies are recognizing what feminism really is all about and denouncing feminism for what it is.

Now let's put this to rest. Case closed and allow the thread to return to its original purpose which was " What are the physical standards of what a man should be. "
 
OP
jarrod

jarrod

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
2,172
Reaction score
96
Location
Denver
Remember that the animal kingdom and the human kingdom are two very different species and please be honest on this point.

actually humans are one species of the animal kingdom. there is no human kingdom. the breakdown goes like this:

kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species

back to topic though, here is another impressive display, no tights or choreography required!


jf
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,245
Reaction score
771
Location
Land of the Free
Tez, I'm sorry but he's right. Women are weak and inferior creatures. They would never be able to hold their own against real men. History backs this up. It's always been the men who do the fighting while the women make reinforcements and cook dinner. The sooner women today learn this, the faster they can get back to scrubbing floors and birthing more babies. The links back this up, 110%.


Strong, maybe it's not the women, but the people training them incorrectly and giving them false hopes from weekend "self defense seminars" that is the problem.


As to any anti-gay rhetoric, it's not welcome on this site so whoever/whenever/whatever, can it.


As to a serious standard for male excellence in training, you're going to have to really go far to top that "300" training stuff I saw a while back.
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,600
Reaction score
4,895
Location
England
Tez, I'm sorry but he's right. Women are weak and inferior creatures. They would never be able to hold their own against real men. History backs this up. It's always been the men who do the fighting while the women make reinforcements and cook dinner. The sooner women today learn this, the faster they can get back to scrubbing floors and birthing more babies. The links back this up, 110%.


Strong, maybe it's not the women, but the people training them incorrectly and giving them false hopes from weekend "self defense seminars" that is the problem.


As to any anti-gay rhetoric, it's not welcome on this site so whoever/whenever/whatever, can it.


As to a serious standard for male excellence in training, you're going to have to really go far to top that "300" training stuff I saw a while back.


Bob I bow to your superior knowledge. What would I as a 55 year old Jewish female police officer (and ex RAF officer) who's been married for 36 years with two adult children know about anything? Oh and MMA coach, martial arts instructor and fighter lol! Yeah the one who choked the big guy out because he was too stupid to tap to a woman!
Hey I'm going on tele soon reffing MMA fights!
 
OP
jarrod

jarrod

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
2,172
Reaction score
96
Location
Denver
from another thread which was veering woefully off topic:

http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73313

in light of another thread discussing the need for a conversation about race, i thought maybe we could have one about sexuality. is the word "gay" itself so taboo that any mention of it is homophobic? is calling something gay tantamount to calling it bad?

from my point of view, it seems as if overbearing political correctness has stunted our ability to even have these types of conversations.

jf
 

Ramirez

Black Belt
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
588
Reaction score
10
from another thread which was veering woefully off topic:

http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73313

in light of another thread discussing the need for a conversation about race, i thought maybe we could have one about sexuality. is the word "gay" itself so taboo that any mention of it is homophobic? is calling something gay tantamount to calling it bad?

from my point of view, it seems as if overbearing political correctness has stunted our ability to even have these types of conversations.

jf

Hell no, that was harmless, it was just a little humour, I might have said the same thing myself and I have been on constant battles on another board defending gay marriage. You didn't say anything malicious and that is the difference.
 

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,245
Reaction score
771
Location
Land of the Free
The word can be taken a number of ways. Best way I can explain it is to refer to the late George Carlin. He was talking about the use of certain terms to describe blacks, and how if he used them he would get flack, but Richard Pryor could use it with no worries.

"Gay" is often used as an insult, a slight, a shot. It's also abused alot. We're aware that it's also popular slang in some areas, often used by teens. We don't encourage it's use here however, as it can offend a number of our members (who view it rightly or wrongly as a slight towards them). We try to take how we see the use into consideration, and will usually nudge users towards less troublesome alternatives. If there was a real problem, that's where infractions, etc come in, though those are very rarely needed.

The biggest question is, when using "gay" are you referencing the stereotypical homosexual behavior, or something else?
 

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,545
Reaction score
4,273
Location
Michigan
from another thread which was veering woefully off topic:

http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73313

in light of another thread discussing the need for a conversation about race, i thought maybe we could have one about sexuality. is the word "gay" itself so taboo that any mention of it is homophobic? is calling something gay tantamount to calling it bad?

from my point of view, it seems as if overbearing political correctness has stunted our ability to even have these types of conversations.

jf

The words turn and twist back on themselves.

Originally, if something was a bit queer, that was just a way of saying it was odd, unusual, unexpected, or wrong. It came to be applied to homosexuals, so a 'queer' was a homosexual, and people stopped saying this or that was 'queer'.

Then homosexual men seem to have expressed a preference for being called 'gay', and now some use the word gay to mean what queer used to mean before it was used to refer to homosexuals.

"That's so gay," could have been expressed as "That's so queer" a long time ago, and it would not have had an overtone referring to sexual preference.

Words are odd. Or queer. Or gay. Whatever.

The next time I see something a bit out of place, I'll just say "That's sort of bone-smuggler." Hmm, doesn't have much of a ring to it.
 

Thesemindz

Senior Master
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 26, 2003
Messages
2,170
Reaction score
103
Location
Springfield, Missouri
from another thread which was veering woefully off topic:

http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73313

in light of another thread discussing the need for a conversation about race, i thought maybe we could have one about sexuality. is the word "gay" itself so taboo that any mention of it is homophobic? is calling something gay tantamount to calling it bad?

from my point of view, it seems as if overbearing political correctness has stunted our ability to even have these types of conversations.

jf

I don't mean this as a personal reply to you, but rather as a way to address your question.

It's all in how a person is using the word. If I see something stupid, or lame, and I call it gay, then yes, that's offensive. Because in my mind, and by my actions, I'm equating homosexuality with being stupid or lame. If I see two guys making out, and I say, "hey, I think those guys are gay," that isn't offensive, even if it's also none of my business, because they may very well be. Unless of course when I said it I wasn't referring to their sexual preference, but rather something I thought was stupid or lame about what they were doing.

Get it?

Like if someone saw something disgusting and said, "Oh man, that's totally Kenpo. Like that's so Kenpo it's Ed Parker. That's the most Kenpo thing I've ever seen." Then I think Kenpo guys and gals would have a right to be offended, because it's equating what they are with something disgusting.

It might not be offensive to you, or your buddies, or even your homosexual buddies, but that doesn't mean it isn't an objectively offensive thing to say.

Political correctness doesn't have anything to do with it. Class. Dignity. Environmental awareness. Those do.

So know your audience and pick your words carefully, or go around pissing people off and claiming your right to free speach.

We all have the right to be an ***, and everyone else has the right to judge and censure us for it.


-Rob
 
Top