NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater?- Page 2

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 12/2/25 at 1:41am

And so it begins.

[John Adams]

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]

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?

Updated On: 12/2/25 at 03:27 AM

[ColorTheHours048]

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.

Updated On: 12/2/25 at 07:04 AM

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 12/2/25 at 7:30am

Delete.

Updated On: 12/2/25 at 07:30 AM

[Dreamboy3]

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. 

[joevitus]

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."

[kdogg36]

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.

[joevitus]

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.

Updated On: 12/2/25 at 11:46 AM

[RUkiddingme]

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]

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."