Is the term.....

[Jan Ardena]

...batty-man offensive to homo-sexual men?
If so, why?

Jan Ardena.

 

[Athelwulf]

I've never heard of that term.

What part of the US (or world) do ya live in? Do people there use that term? Where did ya hear it?

As far as I can tell, I don't see how that term can even be related to homosexuals. Then again . . . I guess "gay" and "faggot" started off that way too.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I've never heard of that term.

What part of the US (or world) do ya live in? Do people there use that term? Where did ya hear it?

As far as I can tell, I don't see how that term can even be related to homosexuals. Then again . . . I guess "gay" and "faggot" started off that way too.

I'm based in the UK.

The term originated (to my knowledge) in Jamaica and is being used in alot of Jamaican dance hall style of music.
Some examples;
battyman fi dead and boom bye-bye (gun-shot to the head) hear the battyboy cry.
Obviously the context of the word is seriously homo-phobic, and is the cause of alot of controversy around the world calling for the use of the term to be a criminal offense, but I am interested (for the sake of this discussion) in description of the word 'batty-man', which means a man sodomises another man or boy.
Is the term a more accurate description of sodomy than 'gay' or homo-sexual, despite the terrible context in which it is being used?'
Or should it be outlawed?

Jan Ardena.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I thought it was batty-boy. And I thought it was just a fresh way to say "fag" rather than a way to describe an action.
But then I'm basing my understanding off ali-G.

Or should it be outlawed?

I'll assume that's a joke.

 

[thefountainhed]

Heh

Seems like Buju's song was a very big hit in the UK, and the British youth being as impressionable as they are....

Yes, of course batty boy is meant to be offensive, in the very same way faggot is meant to be offensive.

Here's why:
"Boom Boom bye bye, in a batty boy head,
Rude boy nah promote no nasty man,
Them hafi dead."

But to have it "outlawed"? That's fucking insane.

 

[cato]

No speech should be outlawed, bottom line.
It’s insane how some things can become law though. In Michigan (USA) there was a guy who yelled curse words after he fell out of a canoe into cold water and he got sent to jail because there we children there. I have no idea how this could happen in a county that proudly stands by its free speech history.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dr Lou Natic,

I thought it was batty-boy. And I thought it was just a fresh way to say "fag" rather than a way to describe an action.
But then I'm basing my understanding off ali-G.


I'll assume that's a joke.

Not to some folk, gay and non-gay alike.

The term 'batty-boy' means a man who likes to penetrate boys batty (bottom).



thefountainhed,

Yes, of course batty boy is meant to be offensive, in the very same way faggot is meant to be offensive.

Why is it offensive though?
Is it not the most accurate of descriptions, directly describing the act which is the real point of the discrimination.
Does 'homo-sexual' or 'gay' really describe the act of sexual intercourse between two males? Or are they terms used to give the act a softer, more scientific edge?

Here's why:
"Boom Boom bye bye, in a batty boy head,
Rude boy nah promote no nasty man,
Them hafi dead."

If the song went "Boom bye bye in the gay mans/homosexuals head...", would it be any less offensive?
I think we would both agree the answer is no. So what is it about the term battyman/boy that is offensive?



cato,

No speech should be outlawed, bottom line.

What about 'nigger', shouldn't that be outlawed?

It’s insane how some things can become law though. In Michigan (USA) there was a guy who yelled curse words after he fell out of a canoe into cold water and he got sent to jail because there we children there.

That does seem insane. What did he say exactly?

I have no idea how this could happen in a county that proudly stands by its free speech history.

Free to speak what you're allowed to say.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Tiassa]

The term 'batty-boy' means a man who likes to penetrate boys batty (bottom).

The extension of insult to a factual mismatch makes the term inappropriate. It's why we don't call all women bitches, whores,&c. It would be more correct, actually, to call men, "Wasted life". Remember, we're no longer necessary to the species.

You're a theist, Jan. Should I call you "killer"? How about "rapist"? Oppression of life and gender is a thick current in Western religious history, but can I really say that all religious folk are as hateful as Christians? Can I really say all Christians are as hateful as some represent themselves?

 

[Jan Ardena]

tiassa,

The extension of insult to a factual mismatch makes the term inappropriate. It's why we don't call all women bitches, whores,&c.

The point of my enquiry is; why is it an insult?

The word 'women' has nothing to do with 'bitches and whores. If you called a female person a woman their hardly likely to be offended. Are they?

It would be more correct, actually, to call men, "Wasted life". Remember, we're no longer necessary to the species.

In what way does the word 'man' conjure up 'wasted life?'
And why are men no longer necessary to the human species?

You're a theist, Jan. Should I call you "killer"? How about "rapist"?

I'm begining to wonder if you have misunderstood the nature and intention of my inquiry.

Oppression of life and gender is a thick current in Western religious history, but can I really say that all religious folk are as hateful as Christians? Can I really say all Christians are as hateful as some represent themselves?

*off topic*

Christians are people, if they hate because they are Christian, then it is my guess they would hate anyway. Having read the gospels, I fail to see how they induce people to hate. Maybe you can enlighten me?

Jan Ardena.

 

[Tiassa]

The point of my enquiry is; why is it an insult?

Because in an effort to demean one thing, the term assigns a factual mismatch in order to up the ante. In another thread we're discussing the sleaze and repugnance people perceive about the act of two men having sex with one another. Since that isn't enough for some people, they equate two men having consensual sex with various things, such as child rape, animal rape, and corpse rape.

If "batty man" means a man who likes to have anal sex with boys, it's an unfair term to apply to the whole of gay men.

The word 'women' has nothing to do with 'bitches and whores. If you called a female person a woman their hardly likely to be offended. Are they?

You seem to get the point.

In what way does the word 'man' conjure up 'wasted life?'

Men are officially extraneous now. See the next point:

And why are men no longer necessary to the human species?

I'm searching for a link in Google, but scientists can create organisms from two diverse eggs. Males are no longer necessary to sexual reproduction.

I'm begining to wonder if you have misunderstood the nature and intention of my inquiry.

Perhaps. Then again, I might say the same to you.

Christians are people, if they hate because they are Christian, then it is my guess they would hate anyway. Having read the gospels, I fail to see how they induce people to hate. Maybe you can enlighten me?

What do the Gospels have to do with Christianity? I've never met a Christian who pays more than lip service to Christianity. A theoretic construction can be made, but it still depends on Christians being even more thoroughly stupid than their ballot-box representation.

However, just as with the "batty man":

• Some people have sex with boys. Some people have sex with adults. Labeling the latter according to the actions of the former is inappropriate.
• Some Christians hate. Some Christians strive to overcome their hatreds. Labeling the latter according to the actions of the former is inappropriate.​

I consider the examples analogous. Some might argue otherwise, but I see the underlying device--a factually inconsistent extension that effects disparagement--common to both.

Should I let a bunch of psychologically sick Catholic priests define all Christians? Absolutely not. So why should the boylover define all gays? I tell you, it's batty, man.

 

[alain]

ive never heard it, but call me what you want, and ill just call you afraid of your own sexuality and we'll call it even