LGBT issues in Football

Okey said:
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.
Click to expand...

I’m in a similar boat to you. I’ve been out of the country for a long time, but from what I remember Chelsea were always referred to as “the rent boys”. I don’t think there was a great deal of homophobia from the individuals, more that it became a kind of nickname.

I’m not defending it, and I know times change, but it’s useful to know that it’s something we don’t say anymore.
 
Okey said:
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.
Click to expand...
Spaghetti said:
I’m in a similar boat to you. I’ve been out of the country for a long time, but from what I remember Chelsea were always referred to as “the rent boys”. I don’t think there was a great deal of homophobia from the individuals, more that it became a kind of nickname.

I’m not defending it, and I know times change, but it’s useful to know that it’s something we don’t say anymore.
Click to expand...
I did say @711's post would be useful a lot in this thread! :D Here's the history (I don't know if it's still sung by United fans):
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...
 
Cheimoon said:
I did say @711's post would be useful a lot in this thread! :D Here's the history (I don't know if it's still sung by United fans):
Click to expand...

Neither of the posts you quoted asked about the history of the term rent boys. I can’t speak for the other poster, but I know the historical meaning. The posts were asking about now in a football fan sense.
 
The term 'Chelsea rentboys' certainly comes historically from a homophobic slur, but I think when it's chanted en masse these days its very much chanted as a 'nickname' rather than mass homophobia, but its homophobic roots lead it to being a term we should leave to history now.

So if we are to cancel it than we need a new nickname for Chelsea fans that isn't offensive in a way that discriminates against the historically persecuted. Any suggestions anyone?
 
POF said:
I've read that last sentence on here multiple times and it boggles the mind.

They can't change their gender, race or sexuality so that's the line? Why should they want to? Whether they could change it or not is irrelevant. The point is that it should make absolutely no difference to how they are treated.

Is it ok to be misogynistic towards Kaitlyn Jenner or racist towards Michael Jackson?

The belief that abuse on one side of this arbitrary line is fine but on the other side is unacceptable really confuses me.

To me, discrimination and tolerance is the same no matter what it's based on. It's the degree of the abuse or discrimination that is important, not whether the victim can change themselves to make their abuser happy.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with this completely. You're right that the 'unchangeability' of the characteristic isn't what makes the abuse wrong; abuse is wrong full stop.

I guess the thing is that typically abused classes of people tend to be classes of people who can't change the thing about themselves which is attracting the abuse, that's all. Because otherwise, they would have changed it. If millennia of abuse, discrimination and violence had been directed at people who like to whistle, no-one would whistle. But women can't stop being women, black people can't stop being black, and gay people can't stop being gay.

So I think that's where the thing I said comes from, but I agree you're right that it's not actually a relevant point.
 
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...

Appreciate that, I'd never heard it before but it makes perfect sense.
 
Dante said:
True. Just goes to show how prevalent performative knee jerking can be.
Click to expand...
Well no, I still disagree with your view that the sex worker rather than the gay part of the slur is the central plank of the insult, but either way we agree the chant has probably had its day.
 
Longshanks said:
The term 'Chelsea rentboys' certainly comes historically from a homophobic slur, but I think when it's chanted en masse these days its very much chanted as a 'nickname' rather than mass homophobia, but its homophobic roots lead it to being a term we should leave to history now.

So if we are to cancel it than we need a new nickname for Chelsea fans that isn't offensive in a way that discriminates against the historically persecuted. Any suggestions anyone?
Click to expand...
I think we've still got a window where anti-Russian sentiment is socially acceptable in the UK. Should be aiming to make the most of that.
 
Jippy said:
Well no, I still disagree with your view that the sex worker rather than the gay part of the slur is the central plank of the insult, but either way we agree the chant has probably had its day.
Click to expand...
Sigh. Once again, that's not my view.

I asked a question about whether there's a non-homophobic way of insulting Chelsea about their venality, so that the sex worker part of it can become the central plank.
 
Cheimoon said:
'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:
Click to expand...

It doesn't just refer to male prostitutes though, it's the lowest of the lowest of prostitute work, the worst type, which is the intended offensive nature. I don't agree that it's right to narrow that down to homophobia simply because ultimatily it involves acts of homosexuality. Unlike faggot, which only serves one purpose, the use of rent boy plays more on the sex worker, just as there's a reason women are called "whores" instead of "luxury companion"....This nonsense that people would rather use "gigolo" if the sex worker was the main bit is just weird, there's hardly a negative association when people hear gigolo. Though i can easily understand why the term rent boy isn't appreciated by anyone, and that people in the LGBT don't want it to be used, but i don't really see why the term can only be homophobic. If the term was specifically about homosexual workers, then yeah, but it's not.

In terms of 711's post that you refer to, imo he hardly clarifies anything. Yes, it's about sex workers that cater for gay men, but that doesn't mean that a name for those sex workers has to be homophobic.

But hey, if the vast majority only interpret the use of rent boy as an attack on homosexuals, then by all means, i'm the odd one out.
 
UncleBob said:
But hey, if the vast majority only interpret the use of rent boy as an attack on homosexuals, then by all means, i'm the odd one out.
Click to expand...

In this context it's used as an insult, though - it's not a neutral term describing a type of sex worker who may or may not be homosexual. I would agree - if that's your point here - that the term can refer to a heterosexual person, but it hardly seems relevant given the context.

It's used by football fans - whose chants and insults are, let's be honest, notorious for containing homophobic references of all kinds.

The mention of "dippers" and the Christmas time chant above made me think about several other Liverpool related chants that are almost randomly homophobic in nature - like the old Sammy Lee one, or the one about McManaman and McAteer.

(Not even mentioning the Torres one - which falls into a slightly different but no less ugly category).
 
Chesterlestreet said:
In this context it's used as an insult, though - it's not a neutral term describing a type of sex worker who may or may not be homosexual. I would agree - if that's your point here - that the term can refer to a heterosexual person, but it hardly seems relevant given the context.

It's used by football fans - whose chants and insults are, let's be honest, notorious for containing homophobic references of all kinds.

The mention of "dippers" and the Christmas time chant above made me think about several other Liverpool related chants that are almost randomly homophobic in nature - like the old Sammy Lee one, or the one about McManaman and McAteer.

(Not even mentioning the Torres one - which falls into a slightly different but no less ugly category).
Click to expand...
Jan Molby too
 
JB7 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just to pick up on one point here (thanks @Moby for continuing the discussion): I don't know if it should matter if both sides don't care about an insult. I mean, if United fans from now on started calling Liverpool fans 'faggots', and all Liverpool fans go on record go say that they honestly don't care to be called that and it's all in good fun - then it's still not an acceptable thing to say, is it? Cause by using this as an insult, they would imply that there is something wrong with being homosexual (otherwise, there is no insult), which is hurtful to homosexuals.

Not exactly the same as the word 'dippers' maybe, but I'm just trying to say that the two sides doing and being insulted aren't necessarily the only ones that get to have an opinion on the insults used.

I do agree, btw, that rivalries like these are hilarious in the sense that both sides are actually very similar and are insulting each other with words that often apply both ways. :) (It just gets sad when people don't remember that and think there really is something wrong or lesser about the other side.)
 
Last edited:
Okey said:
Thanks. Just a bit curious how it's not been an issue until now.
Click to expand...

It has always been an issue, it's just taken a long time for people to care about homopohobia. A lot of people still don't.
 
Tarrou said:
we should definitely stop calling them dippers as well, yeah
Click to expand...

Maybe football grounds could have a “nursery rhyme only” policy then… as long as they’re not offensive nursery rhymes!
 
Rocksy said:
Maybe football grounds could have a “nursery rhyme only” policy then… as long as they’re not offensive nursery rhymes!
Click to expand...


you think it’s okay to label an entire city’s people as bin dippers?

Why exactly? Because it’s tradition?
 
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. That's fair enough.

But if Chelsea are just piggybacking on somebody else's victimhood, that's kind of offensive in its own right. It's equating unconnected stadium chants to real world oppression.

Football tribalism still needs to be able throw around pejoratives at each other as a part of the pantomime of sporting competition.
Click to expand...

Great post.
 
Rocksy said:
Maybe football grounds could have a “nursery rhyme only” policy then… as long as they’re not offensive nursery rhymes!
Click to expand...
There are many, many ways to tease, taunt, and insult fanbases without resorting to slurs. I mean, if you think the choice is between offensive terms and nursery rhymes, then I think your imagination is a little limited.

Edit: @Bleu is probably right that this sounds a little harsh. :D I assume you were exaggerating for effect in your post, but it does seem there are people who would seriously say something like 'you can't say anything anymore these days!'. I'm trying to say that that's just unimaginative to the point where it's pathetic.
 
Last edited:
Cheimoon said:
There are many, many ways to tease, taunt, and insult fanbases without resorting to slurs. I mean, if you think the choice is between offensive terms and nursery rhymes, then I think your imagination is a little limited.
Click to expand...
Subtle way to call him thick, I like it ;)
 
Dante said:
Which is a slur against people with learning difficulties.
Click to expand...
Youre confusing yourself with the R word bud. Thick is not a slur against people with learning disabilities. Grasp at straws to make a point though :wenger:
 
Bleu said:
Subtle way to call him thick, I like it ;)
Click to expand...
I suppose.you can read it that way! :lol:

It's not what I'm after though, so I added some text like the non-confrontational weakling I am. :)
 
Bleu said:
Youre confusing yourself with the R word bud. Thick is not a slur against people with learning disabilities. Grasp at straws to make a point though :wenger:
Click to expand...
The R word was once politically correct. But once on the euphemism treadmill, it came to be used exclusively as a slur and has since fallen out of common usage.

In much the same way, 'thick' may not have traditionally been considered a slur. But it is being used to insult those with learning disabilities now that other words are considered beyond the pale. That's true whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
 
Tarrou said:
you think it’s okay to label an entire city’s people as bin dippers?

Why exactly? Because it’s tradition?
Click to expand...

Absolutely think it’s okay in the context of being in a stadium with your biggest rivals and where it’s only a small percentage of people (like you, it’s seems) who are bothered by it.

When Rovers play Burnley we sing about them being “interbred Burnley scum”. Doesn’t mean we really think they all are and it’s not taken that way.

If a few do get upset by it I couldn’t care less. There’s always something else they could go and do/watch and why be surprised that you might hear some rough language at a stadium, especially at derbies?
 
I always took the rent boy thing as a reference to prostitution in lieu of abramovic.

No skin off my nose to drop it if it actually has homophobic connotations though. I like a good creative slur, but it's not a bad thing that a fair number are getting dropped and anyone who actually get wound up about their usage of slur words being restricted should re examine their priorities in life.
 
Longshanks said:
The term 'Chelsea rentboys' certainly comes historically from a homophobic slur, but I think when it's chanted en masse these days its very much chanted as a 'nickname' rather than mass homophobia, but its homophobic roots lead it to being a term we should leave to history now.

So if we are to cancel it than we need a new nickname for Chelsea fans that isn't offensive in a way that discriminates against the historically persecuted. Any suggestions anyone?
Click to expand...
cnuts?
 
Rocksy said:
Absolutely think it’s okay in the context of being in a stadium with your biggest rivals and where it’s only a small percentage of people (like you, it’s seems) who are bothered by it.
Click to expand...

Never met a Liverpool fan who just laughed it off. It's still a somewhat unjust stigma on the city. It is at best simply ignored.
 
B20 said:
Never met a Liverpool fan who just laughed it off. It's still a somewhat unjust stigma on the city. It is at best simply ignored.
Click to expand...
All of my mums side of the family are from Liverpool, a vast amount of my mates are Liverpool fans. I've never seen one person react to it, or associate it to talking about the city rather than it just being a word for talking about the club. I use it constantly about the club, never is it intended as a slur towards the city my family come from.
 
Rocksy said:
Absolutely think it’s okay in the context of being in a stadium with your biggest rivals and where it’s only a small percentage of people (like you, it’s seems) who are bothered by it.

When Rovers play Burnley we sing about them being “interbred Burnley scum”. Doesn’t mean we really think they all are and it’s not taken that way.

If a few do get upset by it I couldn’t care less. There’s always something else they could go and do/watch and why be surprised that you might hear some rough language at a stadium, especially at derbies?
Click to expand...

People from Blackburn think those from Burnley are inbred. People from Burnley think those from Blackburn are inbred. When will they both learn...
 
Adcuth said:
All of my mums side of the family are from Liverpool, a vast amount of my mates are Liverpool fans. I've never seen one person react to it, or associate it to talking about the city rather than it just being a word for talking about the club. I use it constantly about the club, never is it intended as a slur towards the city my family come from.
Click to expand...

The nickname is part of the rhetoric we use to say the people of Liverpool are unemployed. Of course it's against the city and not just the club.
 
Carl said:
People from Blackburn think those from Burnley are inbred. People from Burnley think those from Blackburn are inbred. When will they both learn...
Click to expand...

… which shows it’s daft to take football chants seriously…
 
Adcuth said:
All of my mums side of the family are from Liverpool, a vast amount of my mates are Liverpool fans. I've never seen one person react to it, or associate it to talking about the city rather than it just being a word for talking about the club. I use it constantly about the club, never is it intended as a slur towards the city my family come from.
Click to expand...
That's a bit of an odd history-less adoption of it.

It has always been about the city of Liverpool. You reckon "thieving scousers" or "in your Liverpool slums" are also just good natured slurs strictly about fans of a rival club?
 
Rocksy said:
Absolutely think it’s okay in the context of being in a stadium with your biggest rivals and where it’s only a small percentage of people (like you, it’s seems) who are bothered by it.

When Rovers play Burnley we sing about them being “interbred Burnley scum”. Doesn’t mean we really think they all are and it’s not taken that way.

If a few do get upset by it I couldn’t care less. There’s always something else they could go and do/watch and why be surprised that you might hear some rough language at a stadium, especially at derbies?
Click to expand...

I'm not a scouser so it doesn't bother me personally. I just don't think we should do it. It's too crass and toxic in my view.

It's a fine line and a slippery slope with these things that eventually leads to a group of seemingly otherwise sensible individuals thinking it's okay to say homophobic things to a random footballer, which is what we have here with some in this very group.

In fifty years time we'll all be seen as dinosaurs for even contemplating that this sorta stuff is okay.

edit: I take your point about the context of it being in the stadium. There is certainly a time and place where these comments are more appropriate that others. I have scouse mates that I'll call scouse cnut and they call me manc cnut and wotnot.

But seriously have you ever taken a young kid to a football match in the UK? It's a bloody minefield honestly.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.