NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?- Page 2
NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?
#25NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?
Posted: 12/2/25 at 1:41am
And so it begins.
John Adams
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/1/13
#26NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?
Posted: 12/2/25 at 3:16am
RUkiddingme said: "I have seen the show and it's not about any real Prince George - it's about a fictitious Prince named George."
I believe it's about an imagined ("fictitious") future for the very real Prince George. (see: "Sex, drugs and S&M: hit play depicts Prince George as grown up and gay")
John Adams
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/1/13
#27NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?
Posted: 12/2/25 at 3:27am
Idiot said: "Censorship is offered validity in comments in this thread and in the 'pearl clutching' impulse revealed by the author of the article."
Can anyone translate that for me? ...especially "Censorship is offered validity in comments in this thread". It seems meant to be "poetic" in some way; maybe even anthropomorphic? 
PS: Why did you insert "censorship" into the discussion when none was being implied or exhibited? And why did you choose "Idiot" as a deserved moniker for yourself?
#28NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?
Posted: 12/2/25 at 7:04am
It’s one of my favorite words and I wear it proudly. It can’t hurt me because I’ve stripped it of that power by embracing it. That said, I wouldn’t use it in mixed company that I wasn’t sure would be comfortable because I know not everyone shares that perspective.
That NYT op ed is a whole lot of nothing. It’s a word used in some titles to provoke because we’re in a political climate that wants to censor anyone non-male, -white, and -heterosexual. If you don’t want use it in your day to day life, you’re free not to. But a play title isn’t going to harm you (nor Prince George, for that matter). Promise.
yankeefan7
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/14/12
#29NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?
Posted: 12/2/25 at 7:30am
Delete.
Updated On: 12/2/25 at 07:30 AM
Dreamboy3
Featured Actor Joined: 10/8/18
#30NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?
Posted: 12/2/25 at 8:04am
While I don’t think Faggot has been broadly reclaimed in the LGBT community — it remains (at least to me and my circle of friends) a slur that homophobes use to put us down and not something we could call each other — the word doesn’t offend me in a title if used by LGBT writers.
Anyone who actually sees Prince Faggot and thinks it is exploitative is missing the entire point of the play and if they are LGBT have some internalized homophobia to work through. Those who haven’t seen the play should consider whether they should even be commenting about it.
#31NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?
Posted: 12/2/25 at 9:59am
TotallyEffed said: "kdogg36 said: "TotallyEffed said: "I actually think Price F*ggot deserves a better title, but hey, it gets people talking I guess."
I haven't seen the play (I wish I had the opportunity), and I'm not clutching any pearls, but I can tell you this: the main thing I know about Prince George at this point is that there's an off-Broadway play about his imagined futurewith a horrendous slur in its title. I think he'll be fine, but if I were his parent, I'd be pretty mad about this."
Careful, the vultures on this board don’t tolerate this opinion very well at all."
Ah, yes, when people are upset about the word that's just "voicing an opinion" when people think a title is no big deal, they're "vultures."
#32NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?
Posted: 12/2/25 at 11:15am
RUkiddingme said: "I have seen the show and it's not about any real Prince George - it's about a fictitious Prince named George."
The point I'm making is that the phrase "prince faggot" is now associated with this real child in the public consciousness (well, that portion of the public that pays attention to off-Broadway theater). And "faggot" is a horrendous slur to most normal people.
I don't normally comment on shows I haven't seen, and I hesitate to do so here. But in this case the fact that I haven't seen it is part of the point: lots of people who haven't seen it now associate this horrible phrase with an actual person.
I would never advocate censoring anyone, incidentally. But criticizing speech is not censoring it.
#33NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?
Posted: 12/2/25 at 11:46am
kdogg36 said: "RUkiddingme said: "I have seen the show and it's not about any real Prince George - it's about a fictitious Prince named George."
The point I'm making is that the phrase "prince faggot" is now associated with this real child in the public consciousness (well, that portion of the public that pays attention to off-Broadway theater).And "faggot" is a horrendous slur to most normal people.
I don't normally comment on shows I haven't seen, and I hesitate to do so here. But in this case the fact that I haven't seen it is part of the point: lots of people who haven't seen it now associate this horrible phrase with an actual person.
I would never advocate censoring anyone, incidentally. But criticizing speech is not censoring it."
I very very seriously doubt anyone seriously associates that name with the actual prince or fails to recognzie the difference between an off-Broadway hypothetical vs. the actual human being. I also think, were people to confuse the two, that this does actual damage only if one actually thinks it's a great insult to be mistakenly thought to be gay.
RUkiddingme
Broadway Star Joined: 12/9/11
#34NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?
Posted: 12/2/25 at 12:42pm
kdogg36 said: "I don't normally comment on shows I haven't seen, and I hesitate to do so here. ."
Really? How many rare comments are you going to hesitantly post then?
John Adams
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/1/13
#35NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?
Posted: 12/2/25 at 3:06pm
RUkiddingme said: "How many rare comments are you going to hesitantly post then?"
Hang on there, Chief. You actually saw the show yet still erroneously posted that the show is "about a fictitious Prince named George."
#36NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?
Posted: 12/2/25 at 5:16pm
RUkiddingme said: "Really? How many rare comments are you going to hesitantly post then?"
I guess... just the two or three on this thread? I have no idea what you're getting at.
RUkiddingme
Broadway Star Joined: 12/9/11
#37NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?
Posted: 12/2/25 at 5:57pm
John Adams said: "RUkiddingme said: "How many rare comments are you going to hesitantly post then?"
Hang onthere, Chief. You actually saw the show yet still erroneously posted that the show is "about a fictitious Prince named George.""
The real Prince George is 12.
The fictitious character in the play is in his 20s and was created from the imagination of the writer.
#38NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?
Posted: 12/2/25 at 6:39pm
I have conflicted feelings over the use of this particular slur. I
Sutton Ross
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/20/13
#39NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?
Posted: 12/2/25 at 6:45pm
The play was 100% inspired by a 2017 photo of Prince George of Wales. But this won't be going to Broadway, and if word does get back to the Palace (doubtful), they'll just off the playwright like they did Diana in 1997.
whatever2
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/25/06
#40NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?
Posted: 12/2/25 at 7:00pm
Sutton Ross said: "The play was 100% inspired by a 2017 photoof Prince George of Wales. But this won't be going to Broadway, and if word does get back to the Palace (doubtful), they'll just off the playwright like they did Diana in 1997."
100% the Palace is **completely* aware of Prince Faggot.
"You, sir, are a moron." (PlayItAgain)
#41NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?
Posted: 12/2/25 at 7:11pm
whatever2 said: "Sutton Ross said: "The play was 100% inspired by a 2017 photoof Prince George of Wales. But this won't be going to Broadway, and if word does get back to the Palace (doubtful), they'll just off the playwright like they did Diana in 1997."
100% the Palace is **completely* aware ofPrince Faggot."
💯
#42NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?
Posted: 12/2/25 at 7:56pm
I admit the article didn't, but this thread has made me analyze my feelings on the word.
My friends and I (various groups, even, though all Millennial) use it frequently. As a term of affection for ourselves, collectively or individually.
So, when I first read the play, I thought nothing of the title beyond the difficulties they might face marketing it.
But a straight cis femme friend of mine in conversation actually paused and asked if it was ok that she say the full title, that she felt odd. And I had strangely never thought of it before. (And it was perfectly fine.)
John Adams
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/1/13
#43NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?
Posted: 12/2/25 at 11:48pm
RUkiddingme said: "The real Prince George is 12.
The fictitious character in the play is in his 20s and was created from the imagination of the writer."
We don't live in The Twilight Zone. Imagining his future didn't displace Prince George, or evaporate him off the Earth.
The character in the play is not just any generic "prince named George". He is intended to be perceived as the Prince George, with a future that's been imagined by the playwright.
John Adams
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/1/13
#44NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?
Posted: 12/2/25 at 11:52pm
BJR said: "I admit the article didn't, but this thread has made me analyze my feelings on the word."
I completely agree. The same is true for me, as well.
#45NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?
Posted: 12/2/25 at 11:55pm
John Adams said: "RUkiddingme said: "The real Prince George is 12.
The fictitious character in the play is in his 20s and was created from the imagination of the writer."
We don't live inThe Twilight Zone. Imagining his future didn't displace Prince George, or evaporate him off the Earth.
The character in the play is not just any "prince named George". He is intended to be perceived asthePrince George, with a future that's been imagined by the playwright."
Thank you lol why do people keep trying to deny this?!
John Adams
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/1/13
#46NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?
Posted: 12/3/25 at 1:52am
kdogg36 said: "The point I'm making is that the phrase "prince faggot" is now associated with this real child in the public consciousness [...] lots of people who haven't seen it now associate this horrible phrase with an actual person."
IMO, Jordan Tannahill completely negated any possible, laudable aspects of the play by creating an association to an underaged, minor child.
For as long as the play remains in the public zeitgeist, that minor child will have to contend with all of the characteristics and behaviors that have been unsolicited, and undeservedly linked to him by the playwright.
I find that to be unconscionable behavior by Jordan Tannahill. Actually, I think he's an a$$h*le.
Tannahill has written in some dialogue for self-protection. “'Yes, there’s a real child named George,' one performer says in the show’s opening moments. 'But obviously this is not his story, only he can write that for himself. This is our story.'” (source of quote: Prince Faggot delivers a royal reality check)
Does Tannahill not realize that by writing that "disclaimer" into the show, he's actually confirmed his intention to create a direct link between his play's character and the "real child named George"?
I don't find any of the graphic dialogue, subject matter, or depictions contained in Tannahill's play to be offensive. I find the playwrite himself to be disgusting and lacking a moral compass when it comes to behaving like an adult, socially-aware human being.
#47NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?
Posted: 12/3/25 at 9:18am
The play would have to be "in the pubic zeitgeist" first. Far as I can tell, the only people among the general public who are aware of it are dedicated theatergoers. And, again, the only problem could be someone considering it an insult to be called gay.
#48NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?
Posted: 12/3/25 at 10:12am
Agree with joevitus. If Prince Faggot had taken off in even the way Slave Play did (which I would argue was more smoke and mirrors driven by the JOH PR machine than actual public interest), I would say there’s perhaps a possibility word could get back to the Palace and we’d be having a larger conversation. Far as I can tell, the Royal Family has issued no such commentary. As it is, it was a show that got lucky in a small theater to be transferred for a short run to another small theater. I sincerely doubt we even see a West Coast production, let alone anything longer-term.
And again, for the millionth time, it is not a play about sexualizing a child and the “disclaimer” in the show is not apologizing for its content; it’s to help the people in the audience chill out who do think it’s going to be a play about a child having sex.
John Adams
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/1/13
#49NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?
Posted: 12/3/25 at 10:15am
joevitus said: "And, again, the only problem could be someone considering it an insult to be called gay."
...If that were the singular, situation imagined for him by the playwright. It's not, though.
Does Prince George's consideration of whether/not it's an insult matter? As a child, should he even need to?
As George is a minor, shouldn't Tannahill have considered his responsibility to the prince before imagining his future and putting it on public display?
It's one thing to express artistic freedom in reference to a real-world adult. IMO, it's unacceptably crossing a boundary when that expression is applied to a minor child.
I agree with you about my mis-use of the word, "zeitgeist", though.
Videos