Looks like Esquire editor David Granger heard your jaws hit the ground. When readers received the current issue, they were slapped with an article on "How To Be a Man," which recommended throwing around curse words to show your machismo. This included the phrase "shit-sniffing faggot," which Esquire advised you use when talking to your neighbor. Advocating homophobia much? Now, an apology:
The statement issued by Esquire:
In the “How to Curse” section of our May 2009 feature, “How to Skin a Moose,” we presented a parody of extreme profanity and its users, contrasting exaggerated examples of offensive language with ordinary situations. The target of the parody was profanity itself and not the various people who might be its object, including gay people. But we used a particularly offensive phrase we shouldn't have. It certainly was not our intent to cause pain. Judging from the reaction, we did. For that we are sincerely sorry.
Meanwhile, one of our own Queerty readers contacted Esquire to demand, like, WHAT THE FUCK THEY WERE THINKING. They responded:
In the “How to Curse” section of our May 2009 feature, “How to Skin a Moose,” we presented a parody of extreme profanity and its users, contrasting exaggerated examples of offensive language with ordinary situations. The target of the parody was profanity itself and not the various people who might be its object, whether nine-year-old-boys, female police officers, gay people, or the vision-impaired. The absurdity of the context should be clear. But to those who take particular offense at our mocking of offensive language, we apologize.
Sincerely,
The Editors
It didn't end there. Our reader followed up with:
Thank you for the apology but you have to realize that kids are killing themselves and kids are killing kids because of comments like that. Where do you draw the line when it comes to humor? And I'm not the one you should apologize to. It's a perfect chance for you to step up to the plate with this. There is a lesson in here if you are compassionate enough to see it.
To which Esquire hit back with:
We do appreciate your concerns and are doing our best to address them. Right now, we are putting an apology on the home page of our website and we have recalled a page from the June issue, which had closed, so that we can add a box including that apology to the first editorial page of the issue. The last thing we want to do is cause any reader or any citizen undue pain. In general, we attempt a generosity of spirit that tries to include people rather than alienate them.
Good enough? Case closed? Forgive and forget?
Friday Forum: Can Gay Porn Ever Be Legit? (74)
· Dymnone says: [size=72][color=red][url= http://www.go4you.net/go. php?sid=9]???? ?? ?????... »
Adam Lambert: Out Magazine Can Eat Shit + Die (135)
· Roger That says: Damn…if anything were going to make me ashamed to be gay, it would be the... »
· AxelDC says: I’m not sure why I am supposed to support gay guys who do everything to pretend... »
· dontblamemeivotedforhillary says: Out has sucked since Sarah Pettite left. It’s just soft porn... »
Is It Wrong to Report on a Marine Starring in Hardcore Gay Porn? (22)
· Cheeky says: A soldier performs in gay porn flicks that are broadcast on the internet. The soldier... »
· Another says: Eugene practically captured my longer sentiments. So let me just add to the post count... »
· AxelDC says: I adamantly oppose DADT, but I would think appearing in porn is a violation of military... »
“Did any provision in the Constitution guarantee a right to homosexual sodomy?” (26)
· B says: JRD wrote, “Does that mean the only arms we have the right to bear are single loading... »
Did Our Threats Really Convince Democrats to Announce Their DADT Repeal Timeline? (49)
· AxelDC says: Money talks; Dems glimpsed 2010 without gay cash and began to realize that maybe DADT... »
The D.C. Agenda Refuses to Write the Blade’s Obit (5)
· AxelDC says: Windows Media killed the Blade. It used to be a terrific local gay paper, with lots of... »
Forive, maybe, but not forget, and definitely watch for further offenses. I saw Two & A Half Men last night, and they made jokes about a flight attendant that was a "colored homo" and "thankfully they made him use tongs with the rolls because I can't risk the AIDS" that infuriated me so much I wrote an angry blog: http://hillbillyhomo.blogspot......o-far.html
and an angry letter. You have to watch people to make sure they don't give in to their baser sides.
Yep: you've gotta nail it when you see it.
The litmus test for all everyone; publishers, TV and movie directors, musicians, etc. should be this:
What sort of drama would ensue if you substituted the N-Word for the F-Word?
I am certain Esquire would not publish "shit-sniffing ni**er." because it is offensive and shows a severe lack of intelligence. Can you imagine the media fire-storm that would cause!
Yeah, case closed. But if they fuck up again, there aren't any excuses.
I'm actually kinda embarassed by all this – like when the teacher yells at the class to be quiet when you're up for show-and-tell and you just want to crawl into a ball and die. I don't want people to think that gays are uber-sensitive and humorless.
It's the same way I feel when asians get offended by Sarah Silverman's 'racist' comedy.
I wrote them as well saying that "shit-sniffing faggot" is not funny just like "cotton-pickin' n***** could never be funny, no matter how you spin it." and that they had seen the last of my money as I will never again buy their publications.
I'm all for comedy and parody but there are degrees. If they had used the word "poof" (without the lovely shit-sniffing part) I believe the "article" would not have caused the uproar it did. It would not have upset me at all actually.
Anyway, my two cents …
And people wonder why I'm heterophobic? Give me one good reason not to be afraid of "straight" "people"?
@Brad: Brad, I'm with you up to a point, but for a mainstream publication to use the word "faggot" without a hint of irony, especially referring to a nine-year-old boy, is just over the line, even if it's meant to be funny.
Here's why: http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/i...../2400.html
I got that it was a parody and thought it was funny. And if you think "cotton-picking nigger" (why are you so afraid of that word? You give it more power by those "***") is never funny, you never David LaChapelle's show — which I miss terribly.
@hardmannyc: If this was an article by a gay guy, I'd be okay with it. Given that it's an article about "How to be a (stereotypically heterosexual) Man," I'm not.
@Ed: To be fair, Ed, the whole point of that passage was to point out how horrible that person was, and how nobody wanted anything to do with her.
so swearing shouldn't be offensive? i don't get it.
dangit!
@Sam: Interesting comment. I've heard it before: blacks saying "We can call each other niggers. You can't." Jews "kike"; gays "faggot." Not sure I agree, but I kind of see the logic, such as it is, in your argument.
THe magazine sucks anyway. I'll never pick it up.
@hardmannyc:
well darling, if rick warren can fumble haltingly toward Change, so can you!
It's worth noting that this hilarious attempt at humor on the part of Esquire appeared in a section of practical "how to's." I get the magazine (it's a freebie subscription) and the "how to swear" item is not presented as a joke at all. That this feature was included in their "How to be a Man" issue, makes the apology ring hollow. At a some meeting the Esquire editors made a judgement that calling a 9-year-old boy a faggot is one way to be a man.
Shameful.
@Chip: really??that sounds horrible
In a way, it's almost pointless to even respond to something like that. Esquire makes itself look so bad, so utterly without class (or even humor, as it's pretty lame humor), that nothing more really needs to be said.
really? do we have to be offended by everything? jesus people its a fuckin joke