LGBT issues in Football

Dante said:
What's a non-homophobic way of saying somebody sells their dignity to anybody willing to pay?

Because if rentboy is offensive to a persecuted minority, it's reasonable to ask for the term to stop being used.

But if Chelsea are just piggybacking on somebody eles' victimhood, that's kind of offensive in its own right. It's equating stadium chants to real world oppression. Football tribalism still needs to be able thrown around pejoratives at each other.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that discriminatory stadium chants contribute to perpetuating real world oppression, no matter how marginally. In the same way for instance male on male rape gets trivialised every time someone jokes about prison rape as a form of punishment for a criminal. I know that comparison is maybe not that relevant to your point, but I've never heard anyone joke about prison rape when talking about female criminals for example. So perhaps you could say it shows how common it is to ridicule homosexual acts, even when it comes to something as vile as rape.

Also, saying sex workers sell their "dignity" to anybody willing to pay is itself not really a neutral way of looking at it. According to you they sell their dignity but others may just see it as providing sexual services as a way to earn a living.
 
esmufc07 said:
Thought this was a good article highlighting issues within football. Also the issue of the 2022 WC being held in a country where homosexuality is illegal and punishable by death.

Does football need to do more than it’s doing?







Click to expand...

Poland has a real problem with minorities - new law makes it difficult for Jews to get back property stolen by Nazis in Poland and then snatched by Polish government. So there piss poor LGBT policy isn't a huge surprise. Time for action to be taken against them
 
Boavista said:
I'd argue that discriminatory stadium chants contribute to perpetuating real world oppression, no matter how marginally. In the same way for instance male on male rape gets trivialised every time someone jokes about prison rape as a form of punishment for a criminal. I know that comparison is maybe not that relevant to your point, but I've never heard anyone joke about prison rape when talking about female criminals for example. So perhaps you could say it shows how common it is to ridicule homosexual acts, even when it comes to something as vile as rape.

Also, saying sex workers sell their "dignity" to anybody willing to pay is itself not really a neutral way of looking at it. According to you they sell their dignity but others may just see it as providing sexual services as a way to earn a living.
Click to expand...
You can't have it both ways.

Either selling sex (gay or straight) is neutral and therefore 'rentboy' is neutral.

Or selling sex is symbolic of persecution and therefore an assault on the dignity of its victims. In which case opposition fans can (and should) find an alternative way of making making fun of Chelsea's venality.
 
Dante said:
You can't have it both ways.

Either selling sex (gay or straight) is neutral and therefore 'rentboy' is neutral.

Or selling sex is symbolic of persecution and therefore an assault on the dignity of its victims. In which case we can (and should) find an alternative way of making making fun of Chelsea's venality.
Click to expand...
I disagree. You're essentially arguing that what's insulting about calling someone "rentboy" is the sex work angle, when most of this thread is about the implication that being gay is insulting.
 
Dante said:
You can't have it both ways.

Either selling sex (gay or straight) is neutral and therefore 'rentboy' is neutral.

Or selling sex is symbolic of persecution and therefore an assault on the dignity of its victims. In which case opposition fans can (and should) find an alternative way of making making fun of Chelsea's venality.
Click to expand...
I don't really see the debate. Prostitute/whore etc is used as a term to demean or insult someone and their status and given the stigma around male homosexuality, rent boys are seen as the lowest of the low.
It's strange the lengths people will argue to claim a term isn't homophobic when LGBT organisations are telling you it is.
 
Boavista said:
I disagree. You're essentially arguing that what's insulting about calling someone "rentboy" is the sex work angle, when most of this thread is about the implication that being gay is insulting.
Click to expand...
I'm literally arguing the exact opposite. Take a moment to re-read my posts rather than cherry picking individual lines and making up shit about what I'm 'essentially arguing'.
Jippy said:
I don't really see the debate. Prostitute/whore etc is used as a term to demean or insult someone and their status and given the stigma around male homosexuality, rent boys are seen as the lowest of the low.
It's strange the lengths people will argue to claim a term isn't homophobic when LGBT organisations are telling you it is.
Click to expand...
I'm literally arguing the exact opposite. I've said 'rentboy' should be retired.
 
Paolo Di Canio said:
Does the term rentboys get thrown at Chelsea cause its a posh area of London?
Click to expand...
Here you go:
711 said:
Suggestions that rent boy chants are about Abramovich or female prostitutes are nonsense.

Chelsea have been called the rent boys for decades. The reason is that Chelsea are in the West End of London, and Piccadilly/Soho was renowned as the destination of choice for gay men to find each other, and to find young male sex workers, the rent boys. I can understand younger people or those not from England not knowing that but now you do you will find references everywhere, from the radio comedy Round the Horn of the 60s (Julian and Sandy) to the Pogues song ' The Old Main Drag'. Check out the lyrics on that one.

'Rent boys' is not about Abramovich, there is no straight context, it is about sex workers that cater for gay men and it is most definitely homophobic.
Click to expand...
Awesome post that should just be quoted back to everyone asking questions (like above) or questioning the homophobic aspect.
Rocksy said:
It’s got nothing to do with homosexuality. The point is that should we stop calling scousers “dippers”, given that being a scouser isn’t a choice (like homosexuality)? It probably offends some scousers but the vast majority wouldn’t give a toss.
Click to expand...
Yeah, 'dippers' also seems like the kind of slur that should disappear. Isn't it ultimately laughing at people for their poverty? So yeah, good example. 'Scousers' on the other hand is just a name; you won't upset Manchester people by calling them Mancunians either.
 
sullydnl said:
No, let's not conclude that. Because it has at no point stopped being the homophobic slur it began as. If people want to critique Chelsea's loan policy they should do so in a way that doesn't involve trying to tack that meaning onto pre-existing homophobic slurs.

You don't get a pass on homophobia by describing it as a "critique" rather than "abuse".
Click to expand...
I was not actually trying to make a serious point. I was trying to make some kind of sideways joke which probably wasn't attached in the right place.
 
UncleBob said:
It's a discussion forum, i don't see much of a problem with asking people to explain the reasoning behind a claim, no matter what it is.
Click to expand...

I just find it odd how people have explained to you several times the reasonings behind the term being homophobic and you’re desperate for it not to be.
 
Cheimoon said:
Yeah, 'dippers' also seems like the kind of slur that should disappear. Isn't it ultimately laughing at people for their poverty? So yeah, good example. 'Scousers' on the other hand is just a name; you won't upset Manchester people by calling them Mancunians either.
Click to expand...
Can't wait for you to cry about us singing "feed the scousers" at Christmas :rolleyes:
 
SilentWitness said:
I just find it odd how people have explained to you several times the reasonings behind the term being homophobic and you’re desperate for it not to be.
Click to expand...
I assume he just wants to be a contrarian or complain about „cancel culture“
 
Dante said:
I'm literally arguing the exact opposite. Take a moment to re-read my posts rather than cherry picking individual lines and making up shit about what I'm 'essentially arguing'.

I'm literally arguing the exact opposite. I've said 'rentboy' should be retired.
Click to expand...
I did read your post and replied to all of it. You said "Because if rentboy is offensive to a persecuted minority, it's reasonable to ask for the term to stop being used." and fair enough I agree. What I disagree with is the notion that just because sex work is a neutral term, that rentboy as a stadium chant is also neutral. Or even whether a term is neutral in tone determines if it can be discriminating.

Being gay is neutral. Someone calling someone else gay, as a matter of fact, is not offensive. However when a group of people use being gay against someone with the intent of offending, knowing that they view it as something negative, then what does the actual word matter?

And just to be clear I don't find the word "rentboy" particularly offensive, any more than if they were simply chanting "homosexual" or "prostitute" or whatever. But the implication is clearly that homosexuality and/or sex work is somehow a source of ridicule.
 
Bleu said:
If you have to apply mental gymnastics to try and defend something as not being homophobic, think about it deeply again. It was, is, and will always remain homophobic.
Click to expand...
See above.
 
JB7 said:
Can't wait for you to cry about us singing "feed the scousers" at Christmas :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I'm not going to bring this up myself on a United forum. But if someone is going to use 'dippers' as an example of an insult that should also be OK, then I'm happy to respond.

'Feed the Scousers' is anyway not a slur in the same way, not sure where I stand on that.
 
Dante said:
I'm literally arguing the exact opposite. Take a moment to re-read my posts rather than cherry picking individual lines and making up shit about what I'm 'essentially arguing'.

I'm literally arguing the exact opposite. I've said 'rentboy' should be retired.
Click to expand...
Ok fair enough, but I clearly wasn't the only one reading your post the other way.
 
Cheimoon said:
I'm not going to bring this up myself on a United forum. But if someone is going to use 'dippers' as an example of an insult that should also be OK, then I'm happy to respond.

'Feed the Scousers' is anyway not a slur in the same way, not sure where I stand on that.
Click to expand...
It is literally the exact same thing. "dippers" comes from "bin dippers" which implies people from Liverpool get their food out of bins because they are poor/homeless. "Feed the Scousers, let them know it's Christmas time" implies people from Liverpool can't afford food because they are poor/homeless.

You can't say dippers is not ok but feed the scousers is ok. In reality, both are fine.
 
JB7 said:
In reality, both are fine.
Click to expand...
They probably aren't and we should revisit the things we think are ok to say in public even if they have been said in the past. Someone born in a less privileged family has no fault of their own, no reason for them to endure being mocked in public worsening their already unfortunate situation.
 
Dante said:
You can't have it both ways.

Either selling sex (gay or straight) is neutral and therefore 'rentboy' is neutral.

Or selling sex is symbolic of persecution and therefore an assault on the dignity of its victims. In which case opposition fans can (and should) find an alternative way of making making fun of Chelsea's venality.
Click to expand...
It's a bit more complicated than that. Plenty of people sell sex because that's what they want to do, and telling them that they're "selling their dignity" would definitely offend them.

Rentboy is, like faggot, a homophobic slur. Regardless of whether sex work is neutral or not, the term rentboy isn't, just like terms like whore and hooker aren't.
 
Moby said:
They probably aren't and we should revisit the things we think are ok to say in public even if they have been said in the past. Someone born in a less privileged family has no fault of their own, no reason for them to endure being mocked in public worsening their already unfortunate situation.
Click to expand...
Behave. Odds are if they're forking out £700+ for a season ticket and following their club around the country, they're probably doing ok for themselves. I've never met a scouser that has cried about us referring to them as dippers or us singing feed the scousers, they just come up with a retort. Honestly the desperation of people to be offended on behalf of people they know nothing about is incredible.
 
JB7 said:
I've never met a scouser that has cried about us referring to them as dippers or us singing feed the scousers,
Click to expand...
That's like saying I've never met a black person who gets offended by the N-word, doesn't mean anything.

The song being sung is about scousers, that refers to the entire population of the area, not just the match going fans.

As with the term rent boys, it seems some football fans really have a need to cling to the traditional tribalism than make a change for the better.
 
Moby said:
That's like saying I've never met a black person who gets offended by the N-word, doesn't mean anything.

The song being sung is about scousers, that refers to the entire population of the area, not just the match going fans.

As with the term rent boys, it seems football fans really have a need to cling to the traditional tribalism than make a change for the better.
Click to expand...
Given I worked in Liverpool for several years I'd wager I'm somewhat closer to the situation than you are and I don't see those types of digs likely to change anytime soon.

If you think removing traditional ways for Mancs to dig out Scousers and Scousers to dig out Mancs would change football for the better then you are delusional. Have you ever even been to a football game?
 
JB7 said:
Given I worked in Liverpool for several years I'd wager I'm somewhat closer to the situation than you are?

If you think removing traditional ways for Mancs to dig out Scousers and Scousers to dig out Mancs would change football for the better then you are delusional. Have you ever even been to a football game?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you came to think you're the only person to have lived in England or been to a United game. Not that it matters to the discussion or that your post contains anything to justify why mocking someone's financial situation publicly should be acceptable but obviously yes I have.

The notion that regular match going fans should be the authority on what should be publicly and socially acceptably when they continually stoop to vile and pathetic levels for 'banter' is actually hilarious. They are the biggest culprits as has been shown on multiple occasions.
 
JB7 said:
Given I worked in Liverpool for several years I'd wager I'm somewhat closer to the situation than you are and I don't see those types of digs likely to change anytime soon.

If you think removing traditional ways for Mancs to dig out Scousers and Scousers to dig out Mancs would change football for the better then you are delusional. Have you ever even been to a football game?
Click to expand...

depends on the context doesn't it

some traditions deserve to die, it's as simple as that
 
Moby said:
I'm not sure why you came to think you're the only person to have lived in England or been to a United game. Not that it matters to the discussion or that your post contains anything to justify why mocking someone's financial situation publicly should be acceptable but obviously yes I have.

The notion that regular match going fans should be the authority on what should be publicly and socially acceptably when they continually stoop to vile and pathetic levels for 'banter' is actually hilarious. They are the biggest culprits as has been shown on multiple occasions.
Click to expand...
I have suggested neither thing. I've also not suggested matchgoing fans should be the authority on anything at all but the reality is they are likely much closer to any given situation at the match than those on a multinational messageboard where posters are considerably less likely to understand deep rooted regional rivalries such as Liverpool/Manchester etc.
 
Instead of whataboutism why don’t we just focus on homophobic slurs being unacceptable?
Why do these debates always descend into “well if we can’t say that then what about this?”
Homophobia is not acceptable and any chants, such as the rent boy chant, are clearly homophobic and should not be accepted. It’s as simple as that. Why keep asking “what about?”.
 
JB7 said:
I have suggested neither thing. I've also not suggested matchgoing fans should be the authority on anything at all but the reality is they are likely much closer to any given situation at the match than those on a multinational messageboard where posters are considerably less likely to understand deep rooted regional rivalries such as Liverpool/Manchester etc.
Click to expand...
And it's been posted in this thread itself that those terms literally originate from the history of poverty in Liverpool. So maybe the discussion should be on why such terms should be publicly acceptable. It'd be great if you can use your vast experience of interacting with the said demographic to provide further context on it's usage rather than using that fact by itself as some sort of winning argument.
 
When I first attended a Utd v Chelsea match at Old Trafford, which would’ve been mid to late 90s, this chant was sung but solely aimed at Graeme Le Saux. I always assumed that was its origin, as there were strong rumours around at the time that he was gay.
 
OnlyTwoDaSilvas said:
Do you not think that is a safe assumption to make, that the vast majority of male sex workers offering sexual services exclusively to gay men are homosexual or bisexual? I would certainly think it is. There's plenty of reading material and documentaries out there about gay escorting if you really do want to find out more about this topic. There was a Dispatches episode on the gay escorting agencies in London a few years ago which might answer some of your questions, it might be on All4. The term in question was denounced by the people being referred to as 'rent boys', which should give you an inkling as to whether or not it is an acceptable term.

But at this point, I believe you're being purposefully obtuse and contrarian. There's numerous explanations as to why it is homophobic in this thread, but you're claiming that there aren't any. You could also have Googled all of this and got answers within seconds, instead of this thread doing the work for you. LGBTQ inclusion groups, GFSN, Kick It Out and others have called for football fans to not use the term. Liverpool FC have condemned their own fans for the use of the term, and I'm sure any club would do the same. Actual gay male prostitutes have made it clear the term is offensive and belittling. I'm not sure what else you need to have tacked on to this. 'Rent boy' is homophobic. It not only has no place in football, but wider society.
Click to expand...

It's hardly a question if the term is offensive or belittling, is it? or if anyone wants to be called it. The answer to that is fairly simple.

The question is if it's homophobic or not, and me wanting to debate what's behind it has very little to do with being obtuse or contrarian. I just don't think it's as crystal clear as some like to portrait it as. There might be numerous explanations as to why it is, but as far as i can tell the vast majority in here just states it is without going into any sorts of debts.

A rent boy was, essentially, a young male prostitute working on the streets and selling sexual services to other men for low fees, but that doesn't mean that the person offering the services was homosexual. You have high end and you have low end, low end is usually pure desperation with nothing else to choose between. It's the lowest level of male escorts..There are far more homosexual men looking for male escorts, than there are women looking for male escorts, so the market is what the market is and you do what you have to in order to survive. There's nothing about the term rent boy that means you're homosexual, you might be and you might not be, so if it's homophobic or not would surely depend on context?
 
Moby said:
And it's been posted in this thread itself that those terms literally originate from the history of poverty in Liverpool. So maybe the discussion should be on why such terms should be publicly acceptable. It'd be great if you can use your vast experience of interacting with the said demographic to provide further context on it's usage rather than using that fact by itself as some sort of winning argument.
Click to expand...
Indeed - it was me that posted that. And there isn't a great deal of context to it, "dipper" or "dippers" was pretty much a nickname in the end in a similar way me being a "Manc bastard". That made no odds if I was in the offices or if we were meeting new people outside of work frankly. It's one of those strange things where there are so many similarities between the people of both cities that you dig out the other city and make out they're worse off than you - scousers will happily tell you Liverpool is a better city to live & work in than Manchester nowadays which is questionable but the reality is that it is now probably a fair debate - both cities have great areas, poor areas and fantastic city centres. Both cities have great people with good senses of humour too - so maybe it is that reason why "dippers" doesn't seem to cause the offence it may have done 30 years ago is because it's just not the reality anymore so they can laugh it off. It's one of those things, none of it sounds great when written down but in reality neither side takes offence and it just became part of every day talk.

That said, this has made me wondering if they would be more likely to be offended if it was Chelsea or another London clubs fans calling them dippers or singing feed the scousers. I'll ask the question.
 
UncleBob said:
It's hardly a question if the term is offensive or belittling, is it? or if anyone wants to be called it. The answer to that is fairly simple.

The question is if it's homophobic or not, and me wanting to debate what's behind it has very little to do with being obtuse or contrarian. I just don't think it's as crystal clear as some like to portrait it as. There might be numerous explanations as to why it is, but as far as i can tell the vast majority in here just states it is without going into any sorts of debts.

A rent boy was, essentially, a young male prostitute working on the streets and selling sexual services to other men for low fees, but that doesn't mean that the person offering the services was homosexual. You have high end and you have low end, low end is usually pure desperation with nothing else to choose between. It's the lowest level of male escorts..There are far more homosexual men looking for male escorts, than there are women looking for male escorts, so the market is what the market is and you do what you have to in order to survive. There's nothing about the term rent boy that means you're homosexual, you might be and you might not be, so if it's homophobic or not would surely depend on context?
Click to expand...

It has been explained to you by several people. At this point you are either trolling or wumming if you are still claiming ignorance. You have ignored the posts that laid it out in very simple terms.
It’s not a debate, it is homophobic. Yes I am stating that without explaining why. There are enough posts explaining why it is homophobic in this thread that I don’t need to. Continue to ignore them as much as you want, it only serves too look bad on you.
 
AllGoodNamesRGone said:
It has been explained to you by several people. At this point you are either trolling or wumming if you are still claiming ignorance. You have ignored the posts that laid it out in very simple terms.
It’s not a debate, it is homophobic. Yes I am stating that without explaining why. There are enough posts explaining why it is homophobic in this thread that I don’t need to. Continue to ignore them as much as you want, it only serves too look bad on you.
Click to expand...

Can you quote them?
 
Manncunian said:
If you think 20 year old heterosexual men just suddenly “decide” to be gay, then you are very much part of the problem.

And would you rather there wasn’t still negative association in 20 years time for your child’s benefit, or for your own benefit? So you’re not brought to shame over it?

I actually cannot believe what I just read.
Click to expand...
People attacking less enlightened people because they try to fit the enlightenment.

There is all u have to know about left's victim mentality right there.
 
Manncunian said:
If you think 20 year old heterosexual men just suddenly “decide” to be gay, then you are very much part of the problem.

And would you rather there wasn’t still negative association in 20 years time for your child’s benefit, or for your own benefit? So you’re not brought to shame over it?

I actually cannot believe what I just read.
Click to expand...
I can’t believe you took it so seriously. I think it was just badly worded, poster obviously meant “decides to come out” or “realises he’s gay”. No issue.
 
I only just heard about this. Don't we always sing 'Chelsea rent boys'? Is it no longer allowed? I'm a little lost here.
 
UncleBob said:
Can you quote them?
Click to expand...
'Rent boy' specificallly refers to male prostitutes having sex with other men. It's used to cause offense. A particular element of that intended offensive nature is that it's about homosexual sex. It thus uses homosexuality as an insult, and is therefore homophobic.

There you go. I'lll also quote @711's post again for your benefit:
711 said:
Suggestions that rent boy chants are about Abramovich or female prostitutes are nonsense.

Chelsea have been called the rent boys for decades. The reason is that Chelsea are in the West End of London, and Piccadilly/Soho was renowned as the destination of choice for gay men to find each other, and to find young male sex workers, the rent boys. I can understand younger people or those not from England not knowing that but now you do you will find references everywhere, from the radio comedy Round the Horn of the 60s (Julian and Sandy) to the Pogues song ' The Old Main Drag'. Check out the lyrics on that one.

'Rent boys' is not about Abramovich, there is no straight context, it is about sex workers that cater for gay men and it is most definitely homophobic.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.