Boogers

When I was growing up in Pinetown, there was a mentally-challenged man who lived in a small town nearby. In those less politically-correct times he was simply known as the village idiot. I don't know what his actual intellectual capacity was, but in retrospect I believe he was probably afflicted with a form of autism. Even though he was an adult, he still lived at home with his parents and was only occasionally seen on the street, usually hanging around the fringes of local activities such as the annual village carnival and Halloween trick-or-treat nights.

Paul also ate his boogers, mining his nose frequently with an index finger seemingly inserted to the second knuckle, digging out, removing and examining the results and then, promptly eating them. Disgusting, revolting, even nauseating, but not something to fear. One could be a rabid booger-eating hater but it seems a thing nearly impossible for anyone to be afraid of.

What's to fear?

 There are a number of words which have become commonly misused in our society. The word 'busted', popular vernacular for successful police drug apprehensions, is often misused by a reporter covering the story where the word 'broken' would be far more appropriate. "In order to bust a drug dealer, the police busted down his door". In truth, many misused words are relatively harmless; simply evidence of poor attention to detail, sloppy writing or a lazy editor. However, there is one word which has crept into the language and become quite misleading.

a phobia is defined in the dictionary as an irrational and incapacitating fear of something which may or may not cause harm. A fear of heights, a fear of crowds or a fear of enclosed spaces such as elevators or closets are common examples. There is another politically-loaded term which is misused many times in the news media every day. That word is "homophobia", a word I once heard defined by a rather flamboyant gentleman of my acquaintance as meaning "anything we want it to mean"; the "we" referring to members of the LGBTQ+ community, to use the currently-accepted self-identity of that group.

Let me first state that I am a heterosexual male, happily married for more than 30 years to the same woman. I have absolutely no doubts about my sexual orientation. I cannot speak for those folks who have different leanings but I can state I am personally offended by the blanket term 'homophobic' being used to label any and all who do not actively and positively endorse the gay lifestyle. I have absolutely no fear of homosexual beliefs; they're simply of no interest to me. I also don't believe the constant public regurgitation of homosexual views is going to change anyone's settled values, although, much like Paul gobbling down his boogers, I would prefer not to be forced into constant exposure to either.

I was pleased to see a refreshing change emerge in a recent online news article. The click-bait 'homophobic' was used in typical bold-faced type in the headline with the perhaps more accurately descriptive 'anti-gay", in a lower-case font, used in the article. I would actually have preferred to see an even more-neutral term,  rather than the still-somewhat combative "anti-gay" label be used to replace the fear-based  term. An ideal description would be both morally-neutral and politically correct, while still acknowledging an existing preference for non-involvement with a lifestyle many view as unappetizingly as Paul's booger-eating once was, all without attaching any totally inappropriate fear connotation to their preference.

After all, what's to fear?