I've been robbed. I am a person who uses words and phrases, and I've been robbed. Further, the theft is still in progress.
Ever hear of "the Gay '90's"? It was a merry time in the U.S., the last decade of the 19th century. It referenced the joy, the cheer, oh, and the bright and showy clothing. Back then "merry and gay" was a repetitive statement because they were synonyms. Back in the 17th century, in fact, a gay man was a womanizer. The term represented the abundance of pleasure. Of course, if I reference "the Gay '90's" now, very few will know to what I'm referring. While "gaiety", then, is the noun form of "gay", referencing "merry", "gay" no longer means merry and is now ... a "sexual orientation". I can't have a "gay ol' time" anymore. I haven't been given a word in its place that quite expresses what "gay" used to express. I've been robbed.
"Dating" was a term that essentially described people who would go on dates together. These dates were simply the times that people would use to get to know each other. There were "double dates" where two couples went places together and "group dates" where lots of people did things together and any of them, if they did it more than once, would be considered "dating". Today, of course, it has radically changed. When my kids were in high school the topic came up and my son, who had had a few dates, told me he wasn't dating anyone. "What are you talking about? Didn't you date Jessica?" "Oh, no, it wasn't that serious. We were just hanging out." You see, "dating" at this point meant something serious, committed, exclusive. When you were "dating" in this sense, you didn't have dates with other people. That would be cheating. And I've been robbed. Where is that word that describes the process of spending time together getting to know people without actually having some commitment?
Any fan of old movies has likely been surprised from time to time when some woman in one of these movies says to some man, "Make love to me!" "Making love", you see, has changed. Love was a term used to speak of warm affection, sure, but most often it was intended to convey much more. It included a personal commitment to the loved one. It included self-sacrifice. So "making love" was the process used to engender those things. When a man "made love" to a woman in those terms, he gave himself to her, tried to please her, expressed his affection and commitment and self-sacrifice. It wasn't a tawdry sex act between two people who may or may not have genuine affection (as opposed to sexual passion) for each other. So what do I have now to express that process? I've been robbed.
"Marriage" used to be a word with some real content. It referenced the joining of a man and a woman. It was the process by which a male and a female ceased to be two and became a new entity, a family. This joining wasn't trivial. It included the certainty of children. Those families without children were considered unfortunate. It was a joining for life. Dismembering this entity called "marriage" was a grave, serious problem and something not to be approached lightly. It was the primary building block of all societies, this thing called "marriage" that was for life and made "family". Today it has moved on. We eroded the meaning when we embraced "free love", an oxymoron that encouraged sex outside of any commitment or joining. We eroded the meaning further when we introduced "no-fault divorce". The meaning has so eroded that today the concept of "marriage" doesn't include "male and female", family, children, unity, or permanence. We've left a hollow shell with the casing marked "marriage" and no genuine meaning. So, where do I go now to express to people this thing called "marriage"? What word do I use? I've been robbed.
Today, "gay" and "dating" and "making love" and "marriage" are simple examples of lost words and phrases. Two people separated by a common language. The ideas and concepts that these things once expressed are no longer easy to express. They are, apparently, no longer ... meaning-full. We've been robbed.
7 comments:
Who ever said that the utterances had to change for it to become babble?
Doesn't seem fair. Change the language and then accuse us of being "against marriage" or some such.
You can't use the word "partner" much anymore either. If you are talking about your business partner, you'd better make that very clear. People will think you're talking about someone with whom you are having sex, if you don't stipulate the exact nature of that partnership.
And of course it's not just words and phrases of which we've been robbed. It used to be very cute, sweet, completely innocent, and common to see young girls who were friends holding hands. But, thanks to the gay/lesbian movement, girls can't do that anymore, without people assuming they have something sexual going on between them. That's sad. Actually, it's beyond sad, it's sick.
Never again can people of the same sex show much affection toward each other out in public without knowing someone is apt to assume something sexual is going on between them. That's a thing of the past. We have all been robbed of that.
In fact, as soon as children are old enough to realize that showing any friendly affection toward a friend of the same gender is somtimes construed as something SEXUAL, it puts the idea into their minds -- an idea that never even used to enter most kids' minds up until this generation.
And this is "progressive"?
Yes, Sherry, those were just three meager examples and three meager explanations. "Father" and "mother", for instance, have changed, too. They have become biological terms referencing the people that bore you, not necessarily the people that parented you. If you mean both, you have to be clear. Lots and lots of changes making communication quite difficult.
Robbery indeed!
I once asked a commenter on a blog not to be such a putz. That was the first time I learned that the word "putz" is a reference to the male sex organ of a horse. Never heard that before. Heard people call others "putz" about a zillion times. Of course, nowadays, the slang usage, a slow or dimwitted person, is meant more often and this dude decided to imply something else about me by referring to the more outdated meaning. He did a reverse of the what is going on with words today.
Similarly, visiting another blog, the host spoke of his great-great grandmother being the child of an illicit affair between a young woman and a Confederate soldier. It was part of a discussion of sex as a "wonderful gift from God" (they never gave me chapter and verse for that). Anyhow, I asked him how he felt about this relative being a bastard. He got really nasty, choosing to assume I was using the word as an epithet rather than the word defined by the circumstances of her birth. I have no doubt he's fully aware of the real meaning of the word and how it was appropriate. But as a progressive Christian, otherwise known as a fraud, he didn't want to come right out and say his distant relatives were wrong and they instead "found love in a difficult circumstance". I told him not to kid himself, it was lust plainly and simply. He was redefining the word "love", too, in a manner many like to do.
Except in situations with friends I've known forever, where the use of the worst slang and demeaning terms is common because they make us laugh, I never use "gay" to refer to homosexuality or homosexuals. I refuse. I want that word back. They had no right to steal it and redefine it to mean a vile and deviant act. When someone uses the term in that sense, I question them. "What are 'gay' rights? 'Happy' rights? What's that?" "What's it matter if the guy is happy?" Stuff like that. I refuse to recognize the word in that tense.
I will use the word "homo" instead. They will tell me that I'm using an ugly epithet. I respond, "You mean 'hetero' is an ugly eptithet?" It's an abreviation and saves keystrokes.
One fella we both know, who called "homo" an ugly epithet, speaks of saintly homos in his church who are happily married. I respond that this is not possible because there is no such thing as two of the same gender being married.
So I'm babbling now and will retire. But, though word meanings change over time for a variety of reasons, there are those that are forced by less than holy people for less than holy purposes. These hack me off. These feel stolen. I want them back, so I refuse to use them the way the dark side wants to use them.
I'm done now.
Marshall Art: "What are 'gay' rights? 'Happy' rights? What's that?"
You would probably enjoy this, then.
I did enjoy it, Stan. Not so much the comments, though. I've met Dagoods recently at anothe blog. He seemed to miss the point about the Cal Supreme Court. He also seems to miss the point about abbreviations. (Not the same as words.) He also misses the point about 9-11 or 9/11. (Not the same as 9-1-1. Not even said the same way. "HURRY! Call 9-11!" No. Doesn't happen.)
In any event, I'm not giving in on this point as I consider myself an ardent supporter of overturing this alleged drift toward homosex acceptance. If anyone gets to decide what a word will mean, I don't see how in a democratic republic it should be 2% of the population. I demand those words be given back immediately!
Post a Comment