It goes further. Raj, a self proclaimed “bottom” defends Steverino’s use of the homophobic slur.
Speaking as a bottom…
That sounds like a homophobic slur.
…not necessarily. “Bottom boy” could very well be a reference to bottom feeders, as in bottom-feeding fish like catfish. If you were from the South, you’d know that catfish were and are considered trash fish. Kind of like bottom-feeding shellfish–like lobster–used to be.
As some would but it, puh-leeze.
Later in the discussion Raj does a little better job of defending the Steverino.
What you are doing, by objecting to Steverino’s use of terms such as “business’s bitches” and “bottom boys” and assuming that it is an anti-gay slur, is maintaining the same stereotype that I saw a decade ago on FreeRepublic.com: assuming that the only homosexuals are the bottoms. I suppose that the tops were presumed to be–straight. There are a number of reasons for that–the primary one being the fact that anti-homosexual fervor is basically misogyny. And the FreieRepublikaner were a bit dumb-struck when I asked them who we bottom boys got to top us.
But it is obvious that what Steverino was trying to convey is that the people he was referring to were subservient to other interests. Colorful way of putting it, to be sure. Anti-homosexual? Not really. And it isn’t in league with Ann Coultergeist’s comment, which was obviously intended to denigrate John Edwards’s masculinity*. Quite frankly, Steverino’s comment might have been intended to demean somebody’s masculinity, but it isn’t clear that the people he was referring to were even male. Maureen Dowd certainly isn’t, and, as far as I can tell, Judith “Bush administration stenographer” Miller isn’t, either. Context is important.
While I appreciate the time Raj took to respond on this subject, his answer is BS.
As Gary said:
Right. And a fagot is a bundle of sticks
As Raj points out, “bottoms” could also be heterosexual women, but Steverino used “bottom boys” not just “bottom”. “Straight”/heterosexual men can not be “bottoms” as Raj has defined it (the receiver of anal sex as a willing participant), by the definition of the term heterosexual. A man that is a “bottom” can be either bisexual or homosexual. This also applies to a man that is a “top” with a male “bottom”. I know I will ketch some flack for saying this, but that is what the words “homosexual”, “heterosexual” and “bisexual” mean.
My point is that steverino could only be making a homophobic slur with the term “bottom boy”. Yet their was no outrage. Why?
The hypocrisy continues later, when after Peter Porcupine makes this remark:
Raj – I believe the term ‘bottom boy’ has a rather more robust etymology than a reference to the missionary position.
Or, as Truman Capote one wrote, “I pitch, but I don’t catch.”
To which Laurel responded:
How do you know so much about anal sodomy Peter?
I mean, that is what you’re inferring the phrase means, right? Oh that’s right, I forget that anal sodomy is a major heterosexual passtime. But for some reason heterosexuals, especially those against LBGT equality, like to pretend it’s only something “those people” would engage in. Why is that do you suppose? Is it because they’re raised to be ashemed of sex, and so project their own self-loathing onto a vulnerable minority? I guess you know what I think.
Again, the term was “bottom boys” not “bottom” and why go after PP when steverino was the one who used the slur?
This is similar to the hypocrisy of other “hate speach” words. Mitt Romney was soundly criticized for using the term “tar baby.” While John Kerry did not recieve any criticizism for using the same term. And let’s not forget about the use of the word “nigger” by Senator Byrd as recently as 2001 and their was no objection from the left.
Why is there this hypocrisy on the terms deemed as “hate speech” based on political idealology?