Donations are essential to keep Write Out Loud going    

LGBTQIA+

entry picture

Don’t get me wrong, I’m more than comfortable with others enjoying a sexuality different from my own.  Whatever pleasure anyone wants to get out of their willy or their fanny is entirely fine by me.

No.  It’s the silliness of the nomenclature which I ridicule.  How many people would know what “LGBTQIA+” stands for without googling it?  Not many, I bet.

And, I’m told the “Q” stands for “Queer”.  How interesting.  The word has been taboo for years; then the tide of politically correct fashion turns. How long before “gay” becomes offensive (and, in time, “LGBTQIA+” for that matter).

But the silliness doesn’t just confine itself to letters no-one understands.  There are plenty of those knocking about; GIF, RADAR, IKEA and NASDAQ to name but a few.  It’s to do with how long it is; as though Carol Vorderman had chucked a fistful at Richard Whiteley.  And why does it stop where it does?  Why no “N” for the necrophiliacs? Or “U” for urolagnists?  My own beef is that we wankers aren’t represented.

Or, perhaps, that’s what the “+” means.  Well, if it does I’m not satisfied.  I bet there’s a lot more of us “W”s than there are “A”s.

I’m struck by an image not unlike that “What-have-the-Romans-ever-done-for-us” scene in “The Life of Brian”.  A committee of the politically correct Great and Good is sitting when someone says after “Q”,

“Isn’t this getting a bit out of hand.”

“I agree” says someone else “But I do think “A” should be in”.

“And “T”” says someone else.

“Okay okay.  But let’s just stop here and stick a “+” on the end for all you necrophiliacs and podophilists and wankers and anyone else who can think of something different to do with their genitals”.

Personally, I wonder if they saw the end in sight, realising that the alphabet would only allow them to represent 26 variations of cock and fanny fun.  I posted this on Facebook and a pal commented back that a googled list of gender identifications numbered over 50 categories.

“We’re gonna need a bigger alphabet” I hear one of the Committee saying. 

Well, I can help.  Apparently the Khmer (Cambodian) alphabet has 54 letters.

But I’m willing to gamble that if we used up all of them you still wouldn’t find my own little peccadillo among them.  Shitting in ladies’ handbags is somewhat niche.

◄ "HEY BO!"

THE FISH PAN ►

Comments

Profile image

John Coopey

Sun 4th Aug 2019 10:21

If it’s hard to understand in 7 words, try 5 minutes’ worth.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1RjBH9psCPI

Profile image

John Coopey

Sun 28th Jul 2019 15:13

“A chaque un son gout”, eh, MC?

Profile image

M.C. Newberry

Sun 28th Jul 2019 14:40

Humanity's sexual capabilities and interest in stretching the .limits
thereof are hardly taboo. What is possible in nature is always within
our range of comment and to concern ourselves with "giving offence"
is hardly logical - taking the legitimate view that is whatever is
possible in nature is natural...and not beyond discourse...even within
the artificially created boundaries that can be imposed for assorted
reasons. There are sexual activities that I have no wish to follow
or indulge in but the fact that some (many?) do is a matter of interest
- even education - insofar that they inform and widen knowledge about the human condition and why we act as we do In life. I suspect that JC's pay-off line was a tongue-in-cheek (as distinct
from elsewhere ?) riposte to such activities.

Profile image

John Coopey

Sun 28th Jul 2019 13:44

But it is well-written, isn’t it?
And, as I ask in my last post below, what is the specific objection?

Profile image

Don Matthews

Sun 28th Jul 2019 13:35

I agree Graham. We can do better than this.

Profile image

Graham Sherwood

Sun 28th Jul 2019 13:18

Believe it or not, I too am a member of WOL who is allowed to post comments on other people's work.

The sad fact is that every time I do, especially in any negative vein it is assumed to be a pre-cursor to moderation.

Be clear! If work or commentary requires moderation, the 'offender' will receive a PM alerting them to the possibility.

Equally sadly, some members of WOL cite their previous convictions like a badge of honour and would seemingly like to increase their record.

Getting back to this piece of work. My negativity concerned the fact that the writer's potentially 'serious' questions about the LGBTQ etc nomenclature was undermined by his own self-professed habit of taking a dump in ladies handbags. How low can we go?

Profile image

Don Matthews

Sun 28th Jul 2019 12:41

Nah John it was that old 'this-is-not-a-poem-thing' again. Grates on some people. I don't know....

Profile image

John Coopey

Sun 28th Jul 2019 12:35

Thankyou Cynthia and Don.
I agree, Cynthia, political correctness is the new taboo. In any event, I struggle to see where the objection lies.
In my ridicule of the unwieldy nomenclature?
In my referencing and hijacking the “Life of Brian” committee scene?
In my citing other sexual activities and peccadillos?
In my speculation about the limitations of the alphabet?
Or is it that the whole LGBTQIA subject is off limits and that there really are things you shouldn’t write about (or else only write the “right” thing?
As for the “ban” a previous poem of mine was pulled for not saying the “right thing”.

Profile image

Don Matthews

Sun 28th Jul 2019 11:59

Cynthia I'm waiting
Waiting here a'drool
For your posted poem
(To me you're not a fool)

I wrote a followup to John
The XYZ of FF+ and Other Sexual Fripperies
A mouthful yes I do agree
Now what's this 'bout a ban??

My view is that we can post
What we feel we want
Providing Code of Ethics
We stay in, and don't taunt.....

Profile image

Cynthia Buell Thomas

Sun 28th Jul 2019 11:45

I'm not sure what all this fuss is about. I have a poem in my hands right now, that I fully intended to post today. And I think I still will. I don't consider the subject of any kind of sexual activity off limits. If it exists - it exists, and my own taste in sex is irrelevant.

But, I could be just plain naive. I do miss lots of innuendos, mostly because I'm not looking for them. My high school boyfriend used to cringe. And so has my husband, on occasion. Maybe it's a 'man thing'.

And 'nomenclature' HAS gone berserk!

Who said anything about a ban?

Profile image

John Coopey

Sat 27th Jul 2019 23:32

I eagerly anticipate my second ban.

Profile image

John Coopey

Sat 27th Jul 2019 19:36

I rarely disappoint, Graham.

Profile image

Graham Sherwood

Sat 27th Jul 2019 17:35

Well I have been too busy to keep up with this entry. Having first seen it on FB I did think the initial enquiry worthy of merit in line with much of today's nomenclature in all walks of life, what does most of it mean?

Sadly, any credibility goes out of the window as one descends through the piece. Actually it's somewhat distasteful and most of the subsequent comments (I notice there isn't a wide audience) well below schoolboy humour. A shame that a good honest question fell apart.

Come on gentlemen, we're worth more than this surely?

Profile image

John Coopey

Sat 27th Jul 2019 17:13

Many thanks for your comments, MC and Cynthia.

Profile image

Cynthia Buell Thomas

Sat 27th Jul 2019 17:03

Interesting!

Profile image

M.C. Newberry

Sat 27th Jul 2019 15:13

Certainly stimulating for its challenge to this sort of "extended
abbreviation". I confess to being lost after "G". I suspect that
others may be in the same position - which rather defeats the object
which is, I imagine, to put over a message of defiant unity. As it
stands, it seems nothing more that a confusing jumble of letters
that is hardly likely to co-ordinate sympathetic attitudes.

Profile image

Don Matthews

Sat 27th Jul 2019 12:06

Trouble is you'd need a hard-to-find decoder to work out what the title is all about. POTW Judges have told me titles need to be of the fluffy/flowery type....'Shit I'm Feeling Terrible' doesn't qualify.....They'd need a PhD to work LGBTQIA+ out.....

Profile image

John Coopey

Sat 27th Jul 2019 10:20

Your thoughts are always welcome, Don.
But I never really had any doubts as to the true literary merits of my tome. I eagerly await POTW at the very least. Maybe even the Pulitzer Prize.
And thanks for the “Like”, Jason.

Profile image

Don Matthews

Sat 27th Jul 2019 09:58

Me again John

Jeez you gotta watch who's creeping up on you these days. I've only just noticed the P boat myself. Some funny bugga. Think nothing of it. Probably some newbie wanting to steal your thunder. Like many newbies - here today gone tomorrow. Only old dogs like us plod on. The boat'll probably sink overnight. Don't worry......

Profile image

Don Matthews

Sat 27th Jul 2019 09:48

John

Have just realised I misled you. The person I was referring to as having written this 'shitty ditty' was he who wrote the 'shitty ditty comment' and attached my pic to it. I would NEVER John refer to
your work as 'shitty'. I have a pure heart.......

Profile image

John Coopey

Sat 27th Jul 2019 09:19

‘Ey up! I’ve just noticed in my picture that someone’s added a “P” while we weren’t looking. It’s not for “pigfun” is it?

Profile image

John Coopey

Sat 27th Jul 2019 08:28

Au contraire, mon repos. This is entirely my standard, Don.
But nevertheless, Hello.

Profile image

Don Matthews

Sat 27th Jul 2019 05:07

Shitting in ladies handbags
Makes me sorta spew
(Now that is more acceptable)
Than what you gonna do

Putting things in context
It takes more practice, skill
To brownie in a handbag
Than do a sickie spill

Who wrote this shitty ditty?
In gutter he did stoop
It's not his sort of standard
To write this shit, this poop

(Nor mine....who attached my profile image to it?)


If you wish to post a comment you must login.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

Find out more Hide this message