are you good or are you gay?

The English language has a flexibility that is unheard of in many other languages, mostly because of its generation as the bastard step-child of the Germanic Anglo-Saxon language (Old English) and Norman French. Shakespeare took advantage of this flexibility as he created many new words for the young language that we refer to as modern English.

One word which has developed a lot of negative meanings from this flexibility is the word "gay." This word, which originally was positive, meant "having or showing a merry, lively mood" and which was later adopted to mean "homosexual," suddenly developed into an umbrella-like term that covers anything negative.

The word "gay" can be heard frequently in almost every Middle and High School as a term of derogation in reference to all things that are sub-par. Students (and, sadly, adults) use phrases like "That test was so gay," "Those rules are gay," "My pencil's being gay," so frequently that they do not recognize how ridiculous it sounds. These people who are throwing this adjective around generally are not intending to comment on the sexuality of inanimate objects; instead, they are following a tradition that links less-acceptable minority groups with wickedness or deficiency. The ease through which we are able to label something as "gay" without referencing its sexuality reveals how greatly our society links "normal" with "good" and "other" with "flawed."

This very same phenomenon occurred roughly one thousand years ago, leading to the development of one of the most common words in the English language--"bad."

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "bad" is defined as both "Not good" and "Of poor quality or little worth." Notably, if you look up the etymology of this common word, the OED (that's the Oxford English Dictionary, not the Old English Dictionary, for all of you like me who might actually confuse the two) says, "Perhaps related to Old English bæddel hermaphrodite, effeminate, or homosexual man."

Basically, "bad" is the Anglo-Saxon "gay."

Dr. Allen Frantzen at Loyola University in Chicago discusses the label in Anglo-Saxon society of bæddel (hermaphrodite) and bædling (a term that refers to men who prefer to have sexual intercourse with other men, Frantzen argues) in his Before the Closet: Same-Sex Love from Beowulf to Angels in America. Dr. Frantzen notices a significant choice of words in an Anglo-Saxon translation of a seventh-century Latin penitential. The Latin states: "Qui sepe cum masculo aut cum pecude fornicat, X. annos ut peniteret judicavit" ("Whoever frequently fornicates with a man or with an animal must do penance for 10 years so that he should repent"). This is translated into Old English as follows: "Se ðe mid bædlinge hæme. oððe mid oðrum wæpnedmen. oððe mid nytene. fæste X. winter" (Whoever has intercourse with a bædling or with another man or with an animal should fast for ten winters).

The Anglo-Saxon translator felt the need to insert another category to the list of sexual sins--he added the category of bædling. By having both bædling and wæpnedmen listed in juxtaposition, the translator reveals that the Anglo-Saxons had an established label for categorizing a man that does not fall under the typical "manly man," as Dr. Frantzen loosely translates wæpnedmen. Frantzen uses this evidence to define the bædling as "a man who was known to have sex with other men." He continues as follows:

[The bædling] was not the only kind of man who had homosexual intercourse; other men, “wæpnedmen”…could also be sexual partners of “whomever” this canon was directed at. The “bædling” evidently could have sex with two kinds of men: ordinary men, who usually preferred women partners, or “bædlings,” men like himself who usually had sex with other men or with each other.

This specific linguistic categorization of bædling, compared to wæpnedmen, suggests that the Anglo-Saxons recognized differences between sexualities similar to the differences that we recognize today. If there were no strictly homosexual men in Anglo-Saxon England, the Anglo-Saxons would not have required such a specific category for them.

Although this evidence is remarkable for the history of sexualities, it is heartbreaking when we return to my earlier discussion. In Anglo-Saxon society, the wæpnedmen were considered normal. They were the "real men" who followed social norms. They were nothing like the soft-spoken, passive bædlings, , the "others,"the despised men who, like hermaphrodites, possessed the traits of both men and women.

"Normal" equals "good" and "other" equals "flawed."

Are you normal or are you other? Are you a good guy or are you a bædling? Are you good or are you bad? Are you good or are you gay?

If we do nothing to stop the negative use of the word "gay," we continue to allow the oppressive powers of our society to shape the majority's opinion over what is acceptable and what is not. The term "gay" will continue to be linked with the term "bad," forever shading today's wæpnedmen's view of sexual minorities.

Sources:
Allen J. Frantzen. Before the Closet: Same-Sex Love from Beowulf to Angels in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.