Category Archives: Humour

Bugger: From Heresy to Humour – The Extraordinary Journey of One English Word

Article, General Interest, History, Humour, Social History, , ,

The English language contains few words as adaptable—or as misunderstood—as bugger. Depending on where you are and how you say it, it can express annoyance, affection, admiration, sympathy, frustration, disbelief, or simple bad luck. In Australia and Britain it is often almost harmless, while in North America it remains far stronger and far less common.

Yet behind this everyday expression lies a surprisingly dark history involving medieval religious persecution, sexual laws, kings, executions, and changing social attitudes. Like many words, bugger has travelled a long way from where it began.

A Word Born from Heresy

The origins of bugger have nothing to do with swearing.

It derives from the Medieval Latin Bulgarus, meaning Bulgarian.

During the Middle Ages a Christian religious sect known as the Bogomils flourished in Bulgaria. The Bogomils were considered heretics by both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Their beliefs rejected many official church teachings, wealth, elaborate ceremonies and ecclesiastical authority.

As often happened in medieval Europe, theological disagreement soon became moral slander.

Church authorities accused these heretics of every imaginable vice. Among those accusations were allegations of “unnatural sexual practices.” Whether such accusations had any basis in reality is doubtful. Medieval authorities routinely associated heresy with moral corruption to justify persecution.

By the thirteenth century, words derived from Bulgarus had entered French as bougre, referring not simply to a Bulgarian, but to a heretic supposedly guilty of sexual depravity.

English later borrowed the word as bugger.

Thus an ethnic description became an accusation.

From Insult to Criminal Offence

During the late Middle Ages the word became increasingly associated with male homosexual acts.

English law eventually adopted the term as a legal definition.

This culminated in one of England’s harshest pieces of legislation.

In 1533, during the reign of Henry VIII, Parliament passed the famous Buggery Act.

The Act defined buggery as a capital crime.

Although modern readers often assume the law targeted homosexuality alone, its scope was much broader. Depending on the period and interpretation, it covered:

Sexual relations between men.

Bestiality.

Certain forms of heterosexual intercourse considered “against nature.”

The law carried one terrifying penalty:

Death.

Unlike many church offences, this became a matter for the Crown rather than ecclesiastical courts.

Thousands of lives would be shaped—or destroyed—by laws based upon this terminology over the following centuries.

Ironically, by this stage the original connection with Bulgarians had long since been forgotten.

A Convenient Insult

By the seventeenth century the legal meaning remained, but everyday speech had broadened considerably.

Someone could be called:

“You bugger.”

without necessarily accusing them of homosexual activity.

Instead it implied someone was:

troublesome

dishonest

irritating

mischievous

contemptible

Gradually the sexual meaning faded in ordinary conversation.

Instead, bugger became simply a colourful insult.

Britain Makes It Funny

One reason the word survived is that the British possess an extraordinary ability to drain offensive language of its sting through humour.

Today, among friends, bugger often carries almost no real hostility.

Examples include:

“Lucky bugger.”

Someone who has enjoyed unexpected good fortune.

“Poor bugger.”

Someone deserving sympathy.

“Silly bugger.”

Someone behaving foolishly.

“Funny bugger.”

An eccentric individual.

“Crafty bugger.”

Someone surprisingly clever.

“Old bugger.”

Often used affectionately about elderly men.

Notice how context completely changes the meaning.

Tone matters more than the word itself.

Australia Adopts It

Australians inherited these expressions enthusiastically.

In Australian English the word became almost a national institution.

You might hear:

“Bugger me!”

Expression of surprise.

“Bugger that!”

Absolutely not.

“Bugger off!”

Go away.

“Bugger all.”

Almost nothing.

“I’m buggered.”

Completely exhausted.

“Everything’s buggered.”

Broken beyond repair.

“Bugger!”

Something has gone wrong.

Australians have an extraordinary ability to fit the word into almost any conversation.

It often carries little genuine offence.

Indeed, hearing an Australian exclaim “Bugger!” after dropping the barbecue tongs probably says more about gravity than sexuality.

The Toyota Advertisement

Perhaps the clearest sign that the word had entered mainstream Australian culture came in 1999.

Toyota released a television commercial featuring farmers, fishermen and ordinary Australians repeatedly saying one word:

“Bugger.”

The advertisement became one of Australia’s most famous commercials.

Some television stations initially refused to air it.

Others received complaints.

Yet many viewers regarded it as harmless Australian humour.

Ironically, the controversy made the advertisement even more popular.

It demonstrated just how differently Australians viewed the word compared with more conservative English-speaking societies.

Is It Still Offensive?

The answer depends entirely upon where you are.

Australia

Usually mild.

Often humorous.

Frequently affectionate.

Britain

Generally considered low-level profanity.

Common among older generations.

Often heard on television.

United States

Far stronger.

Many Americans know the word only in its original sexual sense.

Consequently it sounds much harsher than it does in Australia.

Within the Gay Community

This is where history becomes especially interesting.

Historically, bugger was often directed at gay men as an insult because of its association with sodomy laws.

Today many gay men—particularly in Britain and Australia—use it without any reference to sexuality at all.

Like many formerly offensive words, context and speaker matter enormously.

Among close friends it may simply be comic exaggeration.

Used maliciously by strangers, however, it can still evoke its long history as a term of abuse.

Language Loses Its Baggage

The evolution of bugger illustrates one of the great truths about language.

Words rarely remain fixed.

Their meanings shift with society.

What begins as an ethnic label becomes a theological accusation.

The accusation becomes a criminal offence.

The legal term becomes an insult.

The insult becomes a joke.

Eventually many speakers forget entirely where it came from.

Few Australians saying “Bugger me!” while changing a tyre realise they are unknowingly using a word whose ancestry stretches back through medieval heresy, Henry VIII’s legal reforms and centuries of persecution.

The Curious Expression “Bugger All”

One particularly Australian and British phrase deserves special mention.

Bugger all means almost nothing.

Examples include:

“I’ve got bugger all money.”

“There was bugger all left.”

Its origins remain uncertain.

Most linguists believe it simply evolved from using bugger as an intensifier, eventually producing a colourful expression meaning “virtually none.”

Despite its vulgar origins, many speakers use it almost unconsciously.

Why Has It Survived?

Unlike many swear words, bugger is unusually flexible.

It can express:

anger

surprise

admiration

affection

sympathy

exhaustion

disbelief

disappointment

humour

Very few English words perform so many different emotional functions.

Its versatility has ensured its survival.

Conclusion

Few words demonstrate the unpredictable life of language better than bugger. Born from medieval religious conflict, shaped by centuries of legal persecution, and once associated with one of England’s most severe criminal offences, it has become—at least in Britain and Australia—a remarkably adaptable piece of everyday speech.

That transformation reminds us that words are not fixed monuments but living things. They accumulate meanings, lose old ones, and reflect the changing values of the societies that use them. The journey of bugger from the courts of Henry VIII to the Australian barbecue is one of the most extraordinary semantic adventures in the English language.

Today, whether uttered in frustration after dropping a hammer, affectionately describing a lucky mate, or as the punchline to a joke, the word carries echoes of a thousand years of history—though few who say it would ever suspect that such a humble expletive began life as a reference to medieval Bulgarian heretics.

Tim Alderman ©️2026

Sources

Oxford English Dictionary (entries: bugger, buggery, bougre)

Geoffrey Hughes, An Encyclopedia of Swearing: The Social History of Oaths, Profanity, Foul Language and Ethnic Slurs (M.E. Sharpe, 2006)

Eric Partridge, A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English

Paul Baker, Fantabulosa: A Dictionary of Polari and Gay Slang

Randolph Quirk et al., The Oxford Companion to the English Language

H.G. Cocks, Nameless Offences: Homosexual Desire in the Nineteenth Century

The Buggery Act 1533 (25 Hen. VIII c.6)

James A. Brundage, Law, Sex and Christian Society in Medieval Europe

David Crystal, The Stories of English

Rhyming Slang: The Secret Language That Escaped the Streets

Article, General Interest, History, Humour, Social History, , ,

Language is constantly evolving. New words appear, old words disappear, meanings shift, and pronunciations change. Few forms of speech, however, are as uniquely British—or as delightfully inventive—as rhyming slang.

Born in the crowded streets of Victorian London, rhyming slang transformed ordinary conversation into a verbal puzzle. It spread with migrants throughout the British Empire, flourished in Australia, and eventually became part of everyday speech for millions of people who had no idea they were even using it.

Today, however, rhyming slang is fading. Television, global culture, changing accents, and the decline of close-knit working-class communities have all contributed to its gradual disappearance. Yet its influence remains embedded in English, and many expressions continue to be spoken without their users knowing their curious origins.

What Is Rhyming Slang?

At its simplest, rhyming slang substitutes a word with a phrase whose final word rhymes with it.

For example:

Apples and pears = stairs

Someone might say:

“I’m going up the apples.”

Notice something interesting.

They don’t usually say apples and pears.

They simply say apples.

The rhyme disappears.

This is one of rhyming slang’s defining characteristics.

Once speakers became familiar with the expression, they dropped the rhyming word altogether.

Instead of:

“I’m going up the apples and pears.”

people said:

“I’m going up the apples.”

To an outsider, the sentence made no sense whatsoever.

That was partly the point.

Where Did It Begin?

Most linguists trace rhyming slang to London’s East End during the 1840s and 1850s.

The East End was one of the most densely populated districts in the world.

Its inhabitants included:

dock workers

costermongers (street traders)

labourers

sailors

butchers

market sellers

thieves

prostitutes

entertainers

Many lived in extreme poverty.

It was a district bursting with different dialects and accents.

Cockney speech itself had already developed distinctive pronunciation and vocabulary, and rhyming slang became another layer of linguistic identity.

Why Was It Invented?

No one knows for certain.

Several theories exist.

A Secret Language

The most popular explanation is that criminals used it to confuse police and outsiders.

If someone said:

“Keep an eye on the mince.”

they meant:

Mince pies = eyes.

A policeman unfamiliar with the code would hear complete nonsense.

However, historians caution against believing this explanation too literally.

Professional criminals usually preferred much simpler coded language.

Rhyming slang was often too elaborate to be practical during crime.

Market Traders

Another theory is that market sellers developed it simply for amusement.

London’s street markets were noisy, competitive places.

Traders enjoyed verbal wit.

Rhyming slang became a game.

It also strengthened group identity.

Entertainment

Victorian London loved comic performance.

Music halls were enormously popular.

Performers delighted audiences with clever wordplay, and rhyming slang fitted perfectly into this style of humour.

Many expressions spread because comedians made them fashionable.

How It Works

The process follows several steps.

Choose a word.

Suppose the word is:

Phone

Invent a phrase that rhymes.

For example:

Dog and bone

Then gradually shorten it.

Eventually:

“Use the dog.”

Everyone understands that “dog” means phone.

This shortening is why many expressions appear completely unrelated to their meanings.

Famous Examples

Some expressions remain widely recognised.

Apples and pears = stairs

Dog and bone = phone

Barnet Fair = hair

“I’m getting my Barnet cut.”

Boat race = face

“Look at his boat.”

Trouble and strife = wife

“My trouble’s waiting.”

Mince pies = eyes

“Use your mince.”

Loaf of bread = head

“Use your loaf.”

Many Australians still say “Use your loaf” without realising they are quoting Victorian Cockney speech.

Australian Rhyming Slang

When British settlers arrived in Australia, they brought their language with them.

Many convicts came from London.

So did soldiers, police officers, dock workers and labourers.

Cockney speech flourished.

Australians enthusiastically adopted rhyming slang, but they also created their own.

Examples include:

Captain Cook = look

“Have a Captain Cook.”

This is still widely understood.

Dead horse = sauce

“Pass the dead horse.”

One of Australia’s best-known examples.

Septic tank = Yank

An Australian nickname for Americans.

The rhyme survives only because “tank” rhymes with “Yank.”

Shark’s tooth = truth

Less common today, but once well known.

Australians also mixed rhyming slang with their own tendency to shorten everything.

The result produced expressions almost unintelligible to outsiders.

Modern Rhyming Slang

Rhyming slang never stopped evolving.

New celebrities became new rhymes.

For example:

Britney Spears = beers

“Let’s grab a couple of Britneys.”

Ruby Murray = curry

Named after the famous Irish singer.

This became enormously popular throughout Britain.

Hank Marvin = starving

Named after the guitarist from The Shadows.

“I’m Hank Marvin.”

Many people who use this expression have no idea who Hank Marvin actually is.

Why the Rhyming Word Disappears

This is perhaps the cleverest feature.

Instead of saying:

“Pass me the dog and bone.”

people eventually shortened it to:

“Pass me the dog.”

The listener mentally supplied the missing rhyme.

Removing the final word made the code far harder for outsiders to decipher.

It also made conversation much quicker.

Was It Really Secret?

Only partly.

Many historians think secrecy has been exaggerated.

Once newspapers began printing lists of rhyming slang in the late nineteenth century, much of its mystery disappeared.

Victorian readers loved collecting examples.

Entire dictionaries appeared.

What may have begun as insider humour soon became public entertainment.

Rhyming Slang in Popular Culture

Its popularity exploded through radio, film and television.

Programmes like Steptoe and Son, Only Fools and Horses, Minder and EastEnders introduced Cockney speech to audiences worldwide.

Australian television likewise helped preserve expressions like “Captain Cook” and “dead horse.”

Yet television also changed accents.

As regional dialects became less distinct, younger generations increasingly preferred standard English.

Why Is It Dying?

Several forces have combined.

Urban redevelopment broke up many of London’s traditional East End communities.

Australia’s population became increasingly multicultural.

Global media encouraged more uniform speech.

Young people communicate rapidly through social media, where older slang often feels outdated.

Modern slang now changes every few years rather than every few generations.

Ironically, many surviving expressions have become so ordinary that speakers no longer recognise them as rhyming slang.

“Use your loaf.”

“Have a Captain Cook.”

“Pass the dead horse.”

These phrases continue to live on, even as the system that created them slowly disappears.

More Than Just Humour

Rhyming slang demonstrates how language builds identity.

It signalled belonging.

It rewarded shared knowledge.

It turned ordinary conversation into a game.

Like all slang, it also reflected class, geography and culture.

To speak rhyming slang fluently was to declare where you came from and who your people were.

Conclusion

Rhyming slang remains one of the most distinctive linguistic inventions in the English-speaking world. Emerging from the bustling streets of Victorian London, it blended humour, ingenuity and social identity into a form of speech unlike any other. While its practical use has steadily declined, many of its expressions continue to survive in everyday conversation, particularly in Britain and Australia, often without speakers recognising their colourful origins.

As with much slang, rhyming slang reminds us that language is not merely a tool for communication. It is also a marker of community, creativity and history. Every time someone says “Use your loaf,” “Have a Captain Cook,” or asks for the “dead horse,” they are unknowingly preserving a small piece of nineteenth-century Cockney culture—a linguistic legacy that has travelled halfway around the world and endured for nearly two centuries.

Tim Alderman ©️2026

Sources

Green, Jonathon. Green’s Dictionary of Slang. Chambers/Green’s Dictionary Project.

Ayto, John. The Oxford Dictionary of Rhyming Slang. Oxford University Press.

Partridge, Eric. A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. Routledge.

Beal, Joan C. English in Modern Times: 1700–1945. Arnold.

Coleman, Julie. A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries. Oxford University Press.

Hughes, Geoffrey. A History of English Words. Blackwell Publishing.

It’s Gone to Buggery: How Australians Turned a Tudor Capital Crime into a National Expression Part 3

Article, General Interest, History, Humour, Social History, , , ,

Toyota and One Word That Captured Australia

If anyone doubted that bugger had become part of mainstream Australian English, Toyota settled the argument in 1999.

The television commercial was deceptively simple.

A succession of Australian farmers, stockmen, tradesmen and country characters encountered everyday mishaps.

A gate refused to open.

Livestock escaped.

Equipment failed.

The response was invariably the same.

“Bugger.”

The advertisement became an instant classic.

Ironically, complaints arrived almost as quickly as the laughs.

Some viewers regarded the word as offensive.

Others couldn’t understand what all the fuss was about.

For millions of Australians, however, Toyota had simply reflected everyday speech.

Many people who would never dream of using stronger profanity thought nothing of saying “bugger.”

The commercial became one of Australia’s most memorable advertising campaigns, not because it was shocking, but because it was instantly recognisable.

It spoke Australian.

Lost in Translation

Interestingly, the word rarely travels well.

Visitors from the United States often find Australian uses of bugger confusing.

American English developed along a different path.

Expressions such as:

“Poor bugger.”

“Lucky bugger.”

“Funny bugger.”

carry little emotional weight in Australia, yet can sound surprisingly harsh to overseas ears.

Likewise, Australians visiting Britain occasionally discover that some uses of the word retain a stronger edge than they do at home.

Language is never universal.

It reflects the history of the people who speak it.

A Word and the Gay Community

No discussion of bugger would be complete without acknowledging its place in gay history.

For centuries, the word was unquestionably associated with accusations directed at men suspected of same-sex relationships.

It appeared in legal documents.

Court records.

Religious sermons.

Newspaper reports.

Schoolyard insults.

For many gay men, particularly those who grew up before decriminalisation, the word could evoke painful memories of discrimination and social rejection.

Yet language is rarely experienced in exactly the same way by everyone.

Many Australians of your generation—including many gay men—have spent decades hearing the word used in completely non-sexual ways.

Someone says:

“Poor bugger.”

No offence is intended.

Someone remarks:

“The mower’s buggered.”

No reference to sexuality exists.

Another says:

“Bugger all happened today.”

Again, the original meaning has all but disappeared.

Others, however, still dislike the word because they remain conscious of its history.

Both responses are understandable.

Words carry different emotional baggage depending upon our own experiences.

What one person hears as harmless Australian slang, another may hear as an echo of prejudice.

Neither reaction is inherently right or wrong.

Both reflect lived experience.

The People’s Language

Linguists often observe that governments create dictionaries of law.

Ordinary people create dictionaries of language.

The Buggery Act attempted to define a crime.

Australians eventually redefined the word itself.

No parliament voted for the change.

No court approved it.

No academic committee planned it.

It simply happened.

One conversation at a time.

One generation after another.

The language quietly slipped its legal leash.

Henry VIII Would Never Have Believed It

There is delicious irony in imagining Henry VIII transported into twenty-first-century Australia.

He wanders into a suburban barbecue.

Someone drops the sausages.

Another discovers the gas bottle is empty.

The cricket is on television.

Australia has just lost three wickets for two runs.

Someone scratches his head and sighs:

“Well…it’s all gone to buggery.”

Henry waits.

Surely arrests will follow.

Surely someone will summon a magistrate.

Instead…

Everyone laughs.

Someone opens another beer.

Another throws fresh sausages onto the barbecue.

Life moves on.

One suspects the King would be utterly bewildered.

Five centuries earlier, he had transformed the word into one of the most serious offences known to English law.

Now it had become little more than an expression of mild inconvenience.

History, it seems, has a sense of humour.

The Australian Genius for Understatement

Perhaps this is what the story really tells us.

Australians have always preferred resilience to melodrama.

Rather than dwelling upon catastrophe, they reduce it to a sentence.

The cyclone was “a bit of a blow.”

The drought was “a bit dry.”

The old ute is “a bit buggered.”

The expression is not intended to minimise hardship.

It is intended to make hardship bearable.

Humour becomes a form of endurance.

Language becomes a form of resilience.

That spirit has shaped Australian English from the earliest convict settlements to the present day.

Conclusion

The journey of the word bugger is one of the most extraordinary stories in the English language.

Born from medieval accusations of heresy, transformed into a legal term under Henry VIII, feared for centuries as the name of a capital crime, it eventually crossed oceans with convicts, soldiers and settlers to Australia.

Here, something remarkable happened.

Australians stripped the word of much of its original terror.

They laughed at it.

Adapted it.

Softened it.

Turned it into a dozen expressions of affection, sympathy, annoyance, surprise and resignation.

In doing so, they demonstrated an enduring truth about language.

Governments can pass laws.

Kings can impose punishments.

Courts can define crimes.

But only ordinary people decide what words will ultimately mean.

Today, when an Australian shrugs and says:

“Well…it’s all gone to buggery.”

they are almost certainly not thinking about Henry VIII, Tudor law or medieval theology.

They are participating in a uniquely Australian tradition of meeting life’s frustrations with humour rather than despair.

That, perhaps, is the greatest irony of all.

A word once capable of sending a person to the gallows now most commonly accompanies a burnt snag, a flat tyre, a broken lawn mower or a cricket collapse.

If Henry VIII could hear it today…

…he’d probably think the English language had gone to buggery.

Tim Alderman ©️2026

Sources

Bruce Moore, Speaking Our Language: The Story of Australian English.

Bruce Moore (ed.), The Australian Oxford Dictionary.

Sidney J. Baker, The Australian Language.

G. A. Wilkes, A Dictionary of Australian Colloquialisms.

Green’s Dictionary of Slang.

The Oxford Dictionary of Slang.

Australian National Dictionary Centre.

National Film and Sound Archive of Australia (Toyota “Bugger” advertising campaign).

Oxford English Dictionary (etymology of bugger, bougre and buggery).

It’s Gone to Buggery: How Australians Turned a Tudor Capital Crime into a National Expression Part 1

Article, General Interest, Humour, Social History, , , ,

Introduction

Few expressions are more unmistakably Australian than the resigned declaration:

“Well…it’s all gone to buggery.”

The car won’t start.

The lawn mower dies halfway through mowing.

Your football team is thirty points down at half-time.

The computer crashes just before you’ve saved two hours of work.

Without missing a beat, someone mutters:

“Bugger.”

Or perhaps:

“Bugger it.”

Or simply:

“It’s gone to buggery.”

To most Australians, these expressions are little more than colourful ways of acknowledging that things have gone spectacularly wrong. They belong to the same rich tradition of Australian understatement that turns disasters into jokes and frustrations into stories worth telling over a beer.

Yet few Australians realise that these harmless expressions descend from one of the most feared words in English legal history.

Five hundred years ago, “buggery” was not a joke.

It was a capital crime.

Conviction could lead to execution.

Property could be confiscated.

Families could be ruined.

The word itself carried a fear that is almost impossible to appreciate today.

Its transformation from a crime punishable by death into an affectionate piece of Australian slang is one of the most remarkable journeys in the history of the English language.

Like so much Australian English, it is also a story of ordinary people refusing to allow authority—even linguistic authority—to dictate how words should be used.

A Word Born Far from Australia

Ironically, the story begins nowhere near Australia, England or even Britain.

Its origins lie deep within medieval Europe.

The English word bugger ultimately derives from the Old French bougre, itself originating from the Medieval Latin bulgarus, meaning “Bulgarian.”

At first glance, this makes little sense.

What do Bulgarians have to do with Australian slang?

The answer lies in medieval religious conflict.

During the Middle Ages, a Christian movement known as the Bogomils emerged in Bulgaria. Their beliefs differed significantly from those of the established Church, and they were declared heretics by both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.

As often happened in medieval Europe, accusations soon moved beyond theology.

Opponents accused heretics of every imaginable vice.

Immorality.

Devil worship.

Sexual depravity.

Many of these allegations were little more than propaganda designed to discredit religious opponents.

Gradually the word bougre ceased referring specifically to Bulgarians and instead became a general insult meaning heretic, villain or morally corrupt person.

Only later did it acquire specifically sexual meanings.

The original Bulgarians had long since disappeared from the story.

The insult remained.

Henry VIII Gives the Word Teeth

For centuries, the word existed largely within religious vocabulary.

Then came Henry VIII.

As we explored in the previous article, Henry’s Buggery Act of 1533 transformed what had largely been an ecclesiastical offence into a secular crime prosecuted by the Crown.

From that point onwards, buggery ceased being merely a theological concept.

It became a legal one.

Its consequences were terrifying.

Conviction meant death.

Confiscation of property.

Public disgrace.

The word entered legal records, court proceedings and government documents.

It carried the full authority of the Tudor state.

For several centuries, simply being accused could destroy a person’s reputation.

Words have power.

During the Tudor period, few words possessed greater power than buggery.

Yet language has a remarkable habit of refusing to stay where governments place it.

When Ordinary People Take Over

Laws are written by governments.

Language belongs to everyone else.

This distinction explains much of what happened next.

While judges continued using “buggery” in courtrooms, ordinary people began adapting the shorter word bugger in everyday conversation.

At first it remained insulting.

Someone described as a “bugger” was generally considered dishonest, unpleasant or morally suspect.

Gradually, however, something curious occurred.

The word began losing its original emotional intensity.

Linguists refer to this process as semantic bleaching.

Over time, repeated everyday use wears away a word’s original force.

It does not necessarily lose all meaning.

Rather, the emotional sting fades.

Consider words like awful, which once meant “full of awe,” or terrific, which originally described something terrifying.

Neither retains its original meaning today.

The same process happened to bugger.

By the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, many speakers were using it as a general expression of annoyance rather than a literal accusation of sexual behaviour.

The law remained severe.

Everyday speech had already begun moving on.

Convicts, Sailors and Soldiers

If Britain softened the word, Australia truly adopted it.

The earliest generations of European Australians consisted largely of convicts, soldiers, sailors and labourers.

These were not people known for delicate language.

Their speech was practical, colourful and often profane.

Words that shocked polite society frequently flourished among working people.

Many expressions regarded as offensive in Victorian drawing rooms became perfectly ordinary around campfires, wharves, shearing sheds and goldfields.

Australia’s vast distances and harsh environment encouraged a conversational style that valued directness over refinement.

Humour became a survival mechanism.

So did understatement.

When disaster struck, Australians preferred to laugh rather than lament.

The word bugger fitted perfectly into that tradition.

It was flexible.

Expressive.

Slightly irreverent.

Entirely Australian.

Tim Alderman ©️2026

Buddhism 101: The Fat, Laughing Buddha: Who Is He Really?

Article, General Interest, History, Humour, Religion/Lifestyle

Walk into almost any Chinese restaurant, Asian gift shop or garden centre and you are likely to encounter a smiling, round-bellied figure with a sack slung over one shoulder and children climbing over him. He is often rubbed on the stomach for good luck and is popularly known in the West as the Laughing Buddha.

Many people assume he is Siddhartha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism.

He is not.

The cheerful figure that has become one of the world’s most recognisable religious icons is actually based on a Chinese monk named Budai (布袋), who lived some 1,400 years after the historical Buddha. His transformation from an eccentric wandering monk into a symbol of prosperity, contentment and generosity is one of the most fascinating stories in Buddhist history.

The Historical Buddha

The Buddha who founded Buddhism was Siddhartha Gautama, who lived in northern India during the fifth or sixth century BCE.

Traditional depictions of Siddhartha present him very differently from the Laughing Buddha.

He is usually shown:

seated in meditation

with a calm, serene expression

possessing a slender body

wearing simple monastic robes

bearing the elongated earlobes and cranial protuberance (ushnisha) that symbolise enlightenment.

These features represent wisdom, self-discipline and inner peace rather than physical wealth or worldly happiness.

For almost a thousand years after his death, this remained the standard image of the Buddha throughout India.

Enter Budai

Around the tenth century CE, during China’s Later Liang Dynasty, there lived an unusual Chan (Zen) monk named Budai.

His name literally means “Cloth Sack” or “Canvas Bag”, referring to the large sack he carried wherever he travelled.

The bag reportedly contained simple possessions and gifts that he freely distributed to children and the poor.

Unlike many monks, Budai was remembered not for scholarly writings or formal sermons but for his infectious laughter, carefree manner and extraordinary generosity.

Descriptions portray him as:

cheerful

humble

approachable

unconventional

fond of children

completely free from concern over material possessions.

His joyful personality made a lasting impression on ordinary people.

An Eccentric Holy Man

Budai wandered from village to village begging for food.

When people asked profound religious questions, he often answered with humour rather than philosophical lectures.

He laughed easily.

He slept outdoors.

He accepted whatever life presented.

Legend tells us that he possessed an uncanny ability to predict the weather.

If he wore wooden sandals, rain was expected.

If he hurried along wearing wet shoes, sunshine would soon return.

Whether true or not, such stories increased his reputation as a wise but unconventional holy man.

Was Budai a Bodhisattva?

Following his death, many Buddhists came to believe that Budai had been an earthly manifestation of Maitreya, the Future Buddha.

According to Buddhist tradition, Maitreya currently resides in a heavenly realm awaiting the time when the teachings of Gautama Buddha have largely disappeared from the world.

When that distant age arrives, Maitreya will appear on Earth, attain enlightenment and teach the Dharma anew.

A famous verse attributed to Budai shortly before his death states:

“Maitreya, the true Maitreya,

manifests countless forms.

Constantly revealing himself to people,

yet they do not recognise him.”

This verse encouraged many followers to identify Budai with the coming Buddha.

From Monk to Icon

As Buddhism evolved in China, Budai’s image became increasingly popular.

Artists emphasised his:

enormous belly

broad smile

relaxed posture

flowing robes

cloth sack

prayer beads.

These features were not intended to suggest gluttony or wealth.

Instead they symbolised:

abundance of spirit

contentment

generosity

freedom from worry

acceptance of life.

His rounded belly came to represent a heart large enough to embrace the world’s troubles with compassion and good humour.

The Symbolism of the Sack

Budai’s sack carries several meanings.

Some traditions say it contained food and gifts for poor children.

Others say it symbolically carried away people’s suffering.

Still others describe it as containing the blessings of good fortune and happiness.

Whatever its interpretation, the sack reinforces Budai’s reputation as someone who gave far more than he received.

Why Rub the Belly?

One of the best-known customs associated with the Laughing Buddha is rubbing his stomach.

This practice developed largely through Chinese folk tradition rather than formal Buddhist teaching.

Many people believe rubbing the belly brings:

good luck

prosperity

happiness

good health

abundance.

While widely practised, it should be understood as a cultural custom rather than a Buddhist religious requirement.

Children and the Laughing Buddha

Many statues depict Budai surrounded by laughing children.

This imagery developed in China to symbolise:

fertility

family happiness

innocence

generosity

blessings upon future generations.

Again, these ideas reflect Chinese popular culture as much as Buddhist doctrine.

Buddhism Meets Chinese Culture

Budai illustrates something important about Buddhism’s history.

As Buddhism spread beyond India, it adapted to local cultures without abandoning its essential teachings.

Chinese civilisation already valued:

harmony

family

generosity

humour

longevity.

Budai embodied these qualities beautifully.

Rather than replacing Gautama Buddha, he became an additional figure who expressed Buddhist ideals in a uniquely Chinese way.

The Laughing Buddha in Feng Shui

Modern Feng Shui has further expanded Budai’s popularity.

Many homes and businesses display his image near entrances to symbolise:

prosperity

protection

happiness

successful business

welcoming energy.

These practices belong more to Chinese folk belief and Feng Shui than to mainstream Buddhist doctrine, although many Buddhists happily appreciate Budai’s symbolism.

The West’s Misunderstanding

As Chinese immigrants established communities around the world during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, statues of Budai became familiar to Western audiences.

Without knowledge of Buddhist history, many assumed the cheerful figure represented Buddhism’s founder.

The misconception became so widespread that “Fat Buddha” entered everyday vocabulary.

In reality, statues of Siddhartha Gautama and Budai represent two very different figures separated by over a millennium.

One was the historical founder of Buddhism.

The other was a beloved Chinese monk who came to symbolise joy and generosity.

Why Has Budai Become So Popular?

Perhaps Budai’s enduring appeal lies in his humanity.

He does not appear distant or austere.

He laughs.

He smiles.

He enjoys the company of children.

He carries his worldly possessions lightly.

He reminds us that spirituality need not be solemn.

True wisdom may express itself through kindness, humour and an open heart.

For many people, that message is deeply comforting.

Conclusion

The Laughing Buddha is one of Buddhism’s most recognisable figures, yet he is also one of its most misunderstood. Far from being Siddhartha Gautama, he was the Chinese monk Budai, remembered for his carefree nature, generosity and infectious laughter. Over the centuries he came to be identified with Maitreya, the Future Buddha, and his image evolved into a symbol of abundance, happiness and contentment.

His popularity reminds us that Buddhism is not a single, unchanging tradition but a living faith that has adapted creatively to many cultures. Budai’s smiling face has become an enduring emblem of the simple truth that joy, compassion and generosity are themselves profound spiritual qualities.

Whether encountered in a temple, a restaurant or a family home, the Laughing Buddha continues to invite us to smile, to give freely, and to carry the burdens of life with a lighter heart.

Tim Alderman ©️2026

Sources

Peter Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices

Damien Keown, Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction

John Snelling, The Buddhist Handbook

Kenneth Ch’en, Buddhism in China: A Historical Survey

John Kieschnick, The Impact of Buddhism on Chinese Material Culture

The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, edited by Robert E. Buswell Jr. and Donald S. Lopez Jr.

Encyclopaedia of Religion, entries on Budai and Maitreya

Chinese Buddhist canonical traditions relating to Budai and Maitreya

What the Hell is a Doodlebug?

Article, General Interest, Humour, , ,
A doodlebug is much more than just a bug. (Photo: Scott Robinson/Flickr)

“DOODLEBUG” IS ONE OF THOSE quaint old terms that seems to have been around forever, and crops up in the news repeatedly: this past year saw the discovery of an orphaned kangaroo by that name and deep dive on the actual insect. At this point, though, the word can be used for any number of meanings from someone who simply likes to draw, to a person who wastes all sorts of time.

So what exactly is a doodlebug? All of these things.

1. A simpleton or time-waster

Just look at this doodlebug… (Photo: Library of Congress/Wikipedia)

The term “doodle” actually dates back to the 17th century when it was used as a pejorative to describe simpletons. Over the next couple of centuries it increasingly came to be used as a verb meaning to waste or fritter away time, and it wasn’t until the mid-20th century that it seems to have taken on the specific association with drawing and scribbling. The term “doodlebug” seems to have arisen in 1800s, initially meant to once again mean, “idiot.” Today, the term has evolved to describe someone who incessantly draws.

2. An actual bug

Doodlebug seems like a pretty cute name for this monster. (Photo: Jonathan3784 on Wikipedia)

The other most frequently used meaning of doodlebug is probably as a description of an actual insect. Doodlebugs, as they refer to an actual creature are usually associated with ant lions in their larval form. These squat little bugs, who mostly live in loose sand where they create pit traps, earned their goofy nicknames not because they are thought to be stupid, but instead because of their unintentional drawings. When the (frankly kind of scary-looking) ants move through the sand, their big butts drag behind them, leaving behind scribbly little trails. While ant lions are the most well known as doodlebugs, the term has also been used to describe other insects like pill bugs and some beetles, although this seems to be earned simply thanks to how goofy the nickname sounds.

3. Someone in the business, reputable and otherwise, of locating oil deposits

Doodlebugging was once pretty close to dowsing for water. (Photo: Wikipedia)

This usage of doodlebug actually started as an insult but seems to have been coopted as an affectionate name for those bold souls who head out in search of black gold. Dating back to 1940s America, the a “doodlebug” initially referred to devices that were said to be able to locate oil deposits, although in in the day, they were mainly just scams as miraculous oil detecting technology did not actually exist. The snake oil salesmen who peddled such devices came to be known as doodlebuggers. However, as the technology progressed, and more reliable methods of finding underground oil actually emerged, doodlebuggers came to mean people who head out into the wild and use actual methods (usually seismic mapping) to try natural resources trapped underground. It seems to be a much more affectionate nickname today.

4. A World War II-era drone bomb

The Nazis were into drones too. (Photo: Jessica Paterson/Flickr)

Long before we were afraid of drone aircraft zooming silently overhead, there was were V-1 flying bombs, otherwise known as “doodlebugs.” This Nazi missile looked like a small plane, but inside was nothing but machinery and death. During World War II, the large bombs were deployed against Britain with devastating effect before countermeasures were developed that made the bomb planes essentially obsolete. The bombs got their misleadingly whimsical nickname from the sound their pulsejet engines as they flew overhead.

Alternately they were also known as “buzzbombs.” The nickname would later be applied to other experimental aircraft as well.

5. A self-propelled rail car

All aboard the doodlebug! (Photo: N2xjk/Wikipedia)

In the early 20th century, short rail lines and tracks that were in light use would employ single, self-propelled train cars that were known as “doodlebugs.” These autonomous cars were a welcome alternative to large locomotives and carriage cars, and often ran on gasoline or electricity. The nickname supposedly popped up when the first of these cars hit the tracks and a rail person described it as a “potato bug” (see above) which morphed into doodlebug.

6. A DIY tractor

This ol’ doodlebug has seen better days. (Photo: David Berry/Flickr)

From the Great Depression on into the World War II, material resources were scarce in America’s heartland, but that didn’t stop them from working! During this period a specific variety of homemade tractor began to pop up on farms across the country. Generally using old cars as the base, inventive farmers would crop and chop the vehicles into makeshift tractors most often called, doodlebugs (they were also known as Friday tractors and scrambolas, among other names). The conversions became so popular that custom kits even began being sold through catalogs.

6. Brogan Doodlebug: Frank Brogan Offered “Minimal Motoring” in Small Numbers

Sleek 1946 Brogan Doodlebug looked like an escapee from an amusement park.

Minimal motoring” – small, no-frills, basic transportation – has never satisfied the American automobilist. In 1912, a cyclecar craze began in Europe and quickly spread to the United States, where more than 200 manufacturers sprouted and shriveled within 18 months. After Ford stopped producing the Model T in 1927, upstarts like Martin, Littlemac, American Austin, and Bantamattempted to fill the economy car void. But the public preferred large used cars over tiny small ones.

However, as the supply of dependable used cars dried up during World War II, pilot Frank Brogan believed attitudes would change. His B & B Specialty Company at Rossmoyne, Ohio, primarily manufactured a variety of screws, fasteners, and other machine products. But he also created the lightweight Brogan Foldable Monoplane that could be towed from the airport to the owner’s home for garage storage. Later, he designed a motor scooter for his daughter. And in 1944, his wife asked him to design a small car to make shopping tasks easier for women whose husbands took their primary vehicles to work.

So, Frank Brogan crafted a sleek, two-passenger runabout he called the Brogan Doodlebug. It featured a highly streamlined steel body with headlights and windshield posts seamlessly blended in. The topless, doorless three-wheeler measured 96 inches long, rolled on a 66-inch wheelbase, and could be turned around within its own length. With the buyer’s choice of rear-mounted, single-cylinder Briggs & Stratton or twin-cylinder Onan air-cooled engines, the Doodlebug could achieve a top speed of 45 miles per hour and travel nearly 70 miles on a gallon of gas.

Brogan designed the Doodlebug especially for women, so he made sure operation and maintenance were easy. Gear-shifting was automated using a mercury-actuated system similar to fluid drive, which eliminated the clutch pedal. Changing the hidden front tire simply required popping out the grille and unscrewing two bolts. The engine was removed just as quickly—lift the rear deck lid, release three pins, disconnect the gas line, and lift the engine from its position beside the five-gallon fuel tank and battery. Frank Brogan referenced an October 1944 clipping from The Washington Post, which featured Ray Russell’s Gadabout in his patent application.

After photos of the Doodlebug appeared in the nation’s newspapers and popular magazines, Brogan received an average of 200 postcards and letters per month. Requests to buy and distribute came from every state and 20 foreign countries. Brogan hand-built 30 Doodlebugs and sold them for $400 each before realizing he lost $100 on every car he turned out. Tooling for mass production required $150,000 that he didn’t have, so he suspended Doodlebug sales. Instead, he used the same chassis design for the three-wheeled Errand Boy delivery scooter, and developed the four-wheeled Brogan-Truck pickup and delivery van. Brogan-Trucks featured one steerable wheel upfront and three independently sprung wheels in the rear with power transferred via chain to the center rear wheel. The odd configuration eliminated the need for a costly differential. Brogan-Truck prices started at $450, and Frank Brogan sold more than 200 of them. But he still wanted to build passenger cars.

Ten-horsepower Doodlebug rolled on a 66-inch wheelbase

More information on Frank Brogan and his inventions is available from the second link below/

Reference

Five Sydney Building Shockers Worth A Miley Cyrus-Sized Wrecking Ball

Article, General Interest, Humour, Icons, , , , , , ,

THERE’S no nice way to say this. These are Sydney’s ugliest buildings. Where are Miley and her wrecking ball when you need them?

Sirius … not exactly a star amongst buildings.Source:News Corp Australia

SIMPLY being old should not guarantee buildings protection from the wrecking ball. 

Jack Mundey and his union green bans saved Sydney’s The Rocks area from certain demolition, the result of which would have been a tremendous aesthetic and cultural loss. They saved buildings that meant something.

Now we save buildings of questionable character, and protect others that are downright ugly.

This week’s battle is over the striking Sirius apartments. Too ugly too stay? Too ugly to go?

And there are plenty of other eyesores in Sydney that really shouldn’t be allowed to stand the test of time.

Devoid of anything attractive … Greenway Housing Commission Flats.Source:News Limited

One example is found in Kirribilli. Grounded in the housing shortages of the post-war era are the terrifyingly ugly Greenway Housing Commission Flats on McDougall Street. They are an eyesore for commuters who cross the bridge north to south each day, as deep red brick adds an unfortunate flash of colour to what should be one of the most beautiful commutes in the country.

The oddly shaped footprint was created by left-over public land after the completion of the Harbour Bridge. Perhaps inspired by the equally aggressive design elements in America, the building was completed in 1948 and its style nominated as “functionalist”.

I saw an eyesore … Greenway is in a prime harbour location.Source:News Limited

A heritage listing note conveys that the building is “devoid of decorative detailing”. No kidding.

The worst part of the whole debacle, beyond the sad window coverings and slogans that appear in the windows from time to time is that the block appears to have been named after a true architectural genius — Francis Greenway, a convict turned public servant who is responsible for many of the great buildings left to us from colonial times.

Ferry silly … the Sydney Tower looks like a pot plant on a spike.Source:News Corp Australia

There are more modern creations that many believe could be flattened without many tears shed.

Architect Vince Squillace, from the award-winning architectural firm Squillace, wouldn’t lose sleep if the Sydney Tower was dismantled.

“It looks like a plant room at the top of another building,” he said. He believes if it was a third taller, it might not be the eyesore it is today.

“Sydney has a height restriction that should be challenged,” he said.

UNIT BLOCKS: THE HORROR STORIES OF TOMORROW

Over to you, Miley … the city is yours (well, parts of it).Source:Supplied

More worrying for him is the standard of many of the unit blocks being built at breakneck speed today, that will surely be the architectural horror stories of tomorrow.

“Already you can see render cracking, and stains from tiles leeching,” he warned. But back to the bucket on a stick, the Sydney Tower. At 309 metres it’s very tall. You see, there is something good about it. And it does have the Skywalk attraction, and the restaurant, 360 Bar and Dining is really quite yummy. But the architecture is awful, and being capped off with a Westfiled sign makes Sydney appear to be one giant mall.

What might have been … Blues Point Tower apartment building.Source:News Corp Australia

Blues Point Tower, stands like a lost kid’s building block on the carpet of North Sydney’s beautiful foreshore. It was completed in the early 60s and designed by the revered Harry Seidler. It doesn’t fit, work or enhance the harbourside landscape, and stands as a monument to what might have been.

The backstory to this edifice is that the tower is just one of many that were planned in a high density proposition for the location, but a planning backflip resulted in just one coming to fruition. Over the years there have been calls to tear it down, but in 1993 it was added to a local heritage register. Its saving grace is that the apartments themselves are good, and perhaps the building does tell part of Sydney’s architectural story.

Check it out … Dr Chau Chak Wing Building at the UTS Business School is seen as a work of art.Source:Supplied

UTS architecture has had a lot of publicity over the years. Most recently headlines were made after the Frank Gehry designed campus was opened to the public. The $180m Dr Chau Chak Wing Building demands a response — as do many of the world’s great artworks. They challenge the audience, they provoke discussion, they take the architectural landscape forward.

Does that make them successful, or even acceptable as part of our city? Here is a building that polarised opinion, from those who decried the wet paper bag aesthetic, to others who felt it was exciting.

Brutal … the UTS Tower at Broadway. Understated doesn’t even touch the edges.Source:News Limited

At the very least it is a creative diversion from the other buildings in the UTS portfolio.

Who, in their right minds, could admire the brutalism (there’s that word again) of the UTS Broadway building? To say it lacks humanity is to underplay the ghastly functionality so popular in the late 60s.

It needs a makeover, as do so many of Sydney’s buildings, soon.

Reference

12 Politically Incorrect Toys We Never Knew We Were Missing

Article, Gay Interest, General Interest, Humour

Warning: Some people might find the following images to be offensive.

It seems like just yesterday that Little Suzy and Bobby were playing with miniature minstrel kits and toy dogs that could smoke cigarettes. Well… maybe not yesterday.

Thanks to a Kickstarter campaign titled “Politically Incorrect Toys,” our eyes have been opened to the ridiculous and highly insensitive world of vintage playthings. From a suspiciously accurate replica of a detective’s gun to a packet of “housewife” necessities aimed at young girls, the project seeks to bring odd relics of our past back into the spotlight.

“This project is a social commentary on how toys have changed over the years and how we, as a society can change our views about what is or is not socially acceptable,” explains Hawaii-based photographer David Murphey, the mastermind behind “Politically Incorrect Toys,” on his Kickstarter page.

“As a country, we’ve made great strides to equality, but at the same time we’ve gone backwards in some ways. We’ve lost the ability to laugh at ourselves and enjoy the individuality in each other. Wouldn’t it be great if we could put aside some of our sensitivities (once in a while) and find humor in our differences?”

Murphey has photographed a plethora of strange (and often shocking) toys, hoping to create a limited edition photography portfolio of all the knick knacks that somehow evaded exile on the Island of Misfit Toys. Scroll through a preview of the portfolio below, but be warned — your eyebrows will likely rise in confusion. If you’re hooked on the idea, you can help fund the project here.

1. Tiny Ding Dong

tiny

2. The Smoking Pet

smoking

3. Detective Gun

dick

4. A Gay School Bus

gay

5. Minstrel and Chinese Makeup Kits

makeup

6. A Chemtoy Cap Bomb
7. A Red Indian

red indian

8. ET Finger
9. Mary the Housewife

et

10. Junkyard Dog

dog

11. Beetle Bailey Rubber Band Gun


12. Am I Like Father

Reference

Gay History: Has Orange Juice Turned Bluto And Popeye Gay?

Article, Fiction, General Interest, Humour, Icons, , , , ,

Classic cartoon enemy musclemen Popeye and Bluto haven’t kissed but they have made up in this animated campaign behind Minute Maid orange juice. The two have overcome their differences to such a degree that some in the gay community (and the straight media too, such as Slate.com ad reviewer Rob Davis) have wondered if the sailors are supposed to suddenly be romantic partners. 

The two play like school children on a swing, a see-saw, bury each other in sand on the beach, and get tattoos together that say “Buddies for Life.” At the end, they ride a two-person bicycleùpassing usual romantic interest Olive Oyl, who calls out “Oh, boys!” and they ride past her without notice. She offers a confused, if not suspicious, look as they pedal away. 

An ironic development for Minute Maid, given the anti-gay “Save Our Children” crusades by former Florida Orange Juice spokeswoman Anita Bryant in the 1970s.

Before the campaign was conceived, Dave Linne, the Popeye ad’s creative director at ad agency Leo Burnett Co says the concept is “the opposite of the clich? of getting up on the wrong side of the bedö where people wake up in a good mood. 

Linne came up with about 12 conceptual examples of people acting out of character and being nicer than normal, including an elementary school cafeteria line that resembles a Depression-era soup kitchen — except for one cheery server. Another example has a husband doing “wifely” weekend activities such as laundry and brings breakfast in bed to his wife to her surprise as she wakes up. 

They also wanted an example of classic enemies who become friends. “We looked at movie villains and there are so many arch enemies, so we thought, ‘Let’s do an animated spot.’ We looked at lots of cartoon characters and we liked Popeye and Bluto for two reasons: I haven’t seen them in a commercial before, and they’re human characters instead of animals.” 

So as they were making the ad, the creative team decided to put Popeye and Bluto in various playful situations. “The only reason we put them on a two-person bicycle was because it seemed so stupid,” Linne says. As they pass Olive Oyl, who Linne notes “is usually the catalyst to make them fight” not even she can get between them this time. 

Linne says gay innuendo was not intentional but is intrigued about its possibility. “I think it’s interesting if you can read it both ways. I guess it’s working on all kinds of levels,” he mused. 

While Linne seems impressed that his work can be read into by the gay community, the same cannot be said for officials at Minute Maid headquarters. “We’re not going to go there,” says Dan Shafer, a spokesman for Houston-based Minute Maid. “Any intent to draw a (gay relationship) parallel would be wrong. Anyone who knows Popeye and Bluto understands that’s not the case, there’s no intent like that.”

Commercials: Out of the Closet

Is Popeye gay? An ad company using the cartoon sailor’s likeness says no, but the commercial is still being featured on a new site of gay-themed ads.

POPEYE AND BLUTO may be the most recent celebrity couple to be outed by the media. 

In a recent Minute Maid orange juice ad, the pair is seen palling around on a swing-set, burying each other in sand on the beach and riding a bicycle built for two as they gleefully pass by a scorned Olive Oyl. They even get matching tattoos that say “Buddies for Life.”

The animated spot, created by the ad agency Leo Burnett, is one of the latest additions to The Commercial Closet, an online museum of gay-themed ads from around the world, which launched Monday.

CommercialCloset.org compiles video clips and storyboard stills of hundreds of commercials featuring gay characters or themes, including several that never made it on the air. The archive includes ads representing 150 different ad agencies and 250 major advertisers, including American Express, Coca-Cola, Nike and the Gap.

Ranging from innocuous to offensive, the ads are grouped into four major categories: positive, negative, neutral and gay vague; and 50 subcategories such as “hustlers/ pornographers/murderers/pedophiles” and “sissies and queens.”

Michael Wilke, a former reporter for Advertising Age, created the site to promote awareness of the “evolution in the portrayal of lesbians and gays in advertising as it reflects the public’s perception of them,” and to raise money for a documentary film he’s making to further explore that theme.

Over the past 30 years, “there’s been an evolution from complete invisibility to popular stereotypes to more neutral and positive portrayals of gays in advertising,” Wilke said.

While there’s an increasing number of gay-themed ad campaigns cropping up today, according to Wilke, it’s still a mixed bag. “There’s definitely an increase in gay-positive ads, but the negative stereotypes continue to be a popular source of comedy in commercials,” he said.

Transgendered individuals in particular almost always end up the butt of the joke in commercials, which earned them their own sub-category in Wilke’s archive, called “(Straight) Dude Looks Like A Lady.”

But not all ads in this category are negative. Some manage to cast transgender characters in funny situations without making them out to be villains or clowns.

A 1996 Australian commercial for air-freshening spray Domestos, for instance, riffs off the cult classic Priscilla: Queen of the Desert, featuring a Terrance Stamp look-alike who asks to use the ladies’ room in a roadside bar. Finding it filthy, she pulls Domestos out of her purse and clears the air. Later she proclaims the bathroom “fit for a queen.”

“It’s not that transgendered people can’t be funny,” Wilke said, “but there’s a difference between laughing at someone and laughing with them.”

Although there may be more gay-themed ads on the air today, there’s a popular misconception in the media about who gay people are and what motivates them as consumers, according to Kathy Renna, a director at the media advocacy organization Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).

“There’s the perception that gays and lesbians are very affluent, own three cars and buy 100 CDs,” Renna said. “That’s not reflective of the whole gay community. One thing that is true is that it’s a very loyal demographic.”

Companies with gay-positive reputations include American Airlines, Absolut vodka and Coors, she said.

But while marketing to gays and lesbians is an important priority for many corporations, advertisers and ad agencies must still walk a fine line when depicting them in ads.

Today, ads featuring gay people among other minorities in a happy-people world are relatively safe bets for corporations wanting to project a multicultural image.

A 1994 Ikea ad about a gay couple buying a dining table together, for instance, was controversial as one of the first gay-positive commercials by a major corporation.

Part of a three-part ad campaign depicting people in alternative lifestyles buying furniture -– the other two being a single mom and a white couple with an adopted Asian baby -– the ad was meant to “reflect real life and real people and not the middle-of-the-road all-American family,” according to Kathy Delaney, the executive creative director at Deutsch, the agency that made the ad.

But while homosexuality remains a touchy subject fraught with political correctness, that doesn’t mean advertisers should only approach it with kid gloves, Wilke said. Still, many agencies and advertisers would rather avoid the topic altogether than open a can of worms.

Then there’re companies such as Calvin Klein, Diesel and Benetton that, instead of shying away from controversy, promote a fashion-forward or youth-oriented brand and deliberately provoke people with their ads.

A notorious example is Benetton’s 1992 “Pieta” print ad depicting AIDS activist David Kirby on his deathbed. The emaciated Kirby, surrounded by his friends and family, bore an eerie resemblance to Jesus, which sparked controversy among Christian groups and AIDs activists who were uncomfortable with the religious tone used in association with the disease and, ultimately, to sell clothes.

On the other hand, the ad was also one of the first in many countries to show AIDs in the context of real human suffering and compassion. Although it was singularly criticized, the ad was part of a larger, ongoing campaign for AIDs prevention and awareness that included the distribution of condoms in Benetton stores.

Some companies, by contrast, seem reluctant to acknowledge any controversy their ads may create.

The Popeye and Bluto spot, for instance, is included in the “Gay Vague” category, because the advertiser’s message related to gay people isn’t very clear. In fact, there’s no substantial proof that the two adversaries are in fact lovers, as they are never seen kissing.

In a interview with Wilke, the creative director for the Popeye ad seemed pleasantly surprised at the suggestion that it implied a relationship between the two erstwhile foes, and that the spot was simply meant to show two enemies who become friends, supposedly transformed by drinking Minute Maid orange juice.

Minute Maid, meanwhile, firmly denied that Popeye and Bluto are an item.

“Any intent to draw a (gay relationship) parallel would be wrong,” Minute Maid spokesman Dan Shafer told Wilke. “Anyone who knows Popeye and Bluto understands that’s not the case, there’s no intent like that.”

Ad Report Card: Minute Maid Makes You Gay! (Happy, That Is)

Some months ago the Ad Report Card devoted not one but two installments to commercials that turned on references (oblique or otherwise) to homosexuality. Often the reference served as a punch line of one sort or another, and in some cases I was critical of the way in which this or that advertiser used gayness as a joke. Responses were many and spirited. Some suggested I was being ridiculous, seeing gay themes where there were none. Others, some claiming to have inside knowledge of the ad business, argued I was naïve, overlooking the benign influence of gays who work in “ad creative.” I have no way of checking the latter claim, but both critiques came to mind when a couple of people e-mailed me recently about a Minute Maid orange juice spot featuring Popeye and Bluto. The ad is part of a series, the theme of which is that drinking Minute Maid makes you gay.

As in happy.

Now, some observers have suggested that, in addition to promoting the happy-making power of Minute Maid, the Popeye spot might just be an example of “gay vague,” along with another commercial that I haven’t seen, which is airing in Europe—read this for more. You can see the spots in the U.S. campaign below: the Popeye one, another featuring Bobby Knight, a third about a “helpful hubby,” and a fourth centered on a suspiciously cheerful lunch lady. My main focus is the Popeye spot.

Popeye The ad: Here they are, two of the most famous rivals in cartoondom, playing happily together on a swing and then a seesaw. Popeye good-naturedly pats sand over Bluto on the beach; sappy pal music plays. The pair gets matching “Buddies for Life” tattoos. What’s going on? An announcer says cheerfully: “Somebody had their Minute Maid this morning. It takes a minute, but the feeling”—the unbridled joy and affection we’re seeing here—“lasts all day.” Popeye and Bluto pedal along on a tandem bike. Olive Oyl waves (“Oh boys!” she calls), but they ride straight past, blithely ignoring the object of their traditional erotic rivalry.ADVERTISEMENThttps://39598048fe002d9e70fc861e576fdf63.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

Coach Hmmm. Perhaps it’s ridiculous of me to ask, but what exactly is it that’s preventing these Minute-Maid-drunk boys from including Olive in their fun? On the other hand, what is it that makes it inevitable that almost any prominent male pair is inevitably subject to some kind of what-if-they-were-gay speculation—good-natured, homophobic, or somewhere in between? (Perhaps you’ve heard spurious gossip about the relationship between Ben Affleck and Matt Damon. Or read my Slatecolleague David Plotz’s exploration of the fan fiction subgenre devoted to the imagined couplings of Kirk and Spock, among others. Or recall a New Yorkercartoon that one of my correspondents remembers, featuring none other than Popeye and Bluto holding hands, having finally figured out “where all that anger was coming from.”)

Bed What about the other Minute Maid spots? You could say that they all play it straight. Hothead basketball coach Bobby Knight, having had his Minute Maid, coddles and dotes on his players, bursting into the post-game locker room to ask “Who wants a treat?” A spot featuring a surprisingly helpful husband has him forsaking football to bustle around neatening things up, heading off to “market,” and setting his iron for chiffon. A chipper lunch lady minces through a school cafeteria asking, “Who wants tiramisu?”

School Anyway, subtext or no subtext, this is a pretty good campaign. All the spots, but especially the Popeye one, are attention-getting and make a clear case for the alleged powers of a morning glass of Minute Maid. The helpful hubby installment is the weakest, but the Bobby Knight one is hilarious. Mushing together grades for all four into one composite score, I’d give them a solid B. When I watch these ads, I feel … happy.

Reference

Gay History: Things You Should Never Say To Your Gay Mates

Article, Gay Interest, Humour, ,

‘Which one is the man and which one is the woman?’ just isn’t cool, says The Guyliner

It’s the 21st century, so there’s a very, very good chance you already have at least one gay friend in your circle – but how do you talk to these most precious and rare of beasts? Will they still understand your banter? Does your chitchat have to be a no-fun zone, packed with PC platitudes and virtue signalling? Well, no, of course not. But if you’re going to be getting tanked up with your ‘mo mates, it might be worth remembering there are some subjects that might make them a little… prickly.

Which one is the man and which one is the woman?

If being a gay guy around straight men has taught me anything, it’s that they’re all secretly fascinated by gay sex. Usually this curiosity manifests itself in fear or suspicion that they’ll catch whatever mythical illness it is that makes you want gay sex, but occasionally straight guys will go on a fact-finding mission. The detailed machinations seemingly beyond them, one of the first questions they’ll ask – and usually the deepest level they’re prepared to go to – is who plays at being man and who is the woman. It’s like the only way they can process what happens is to apply it to what they do. The thing is, when two gay men are doing it, there is no woman present – that’s generally the whole point of it, to be honest – so this doesn’t really make sense. Also, it’s not particularly appropriate to ask anyone what they do in the sack, let alone when you’re steamrolling in there with your clumsy comparisons. Get a gay man drunk enough and he’ll tell you what they get up to. Just don’t wince when he does. We literally get to hear about your ins and outs all the time; your turn now.

When did you first decide you were gay?

It was a beautiful day, a proud day. I’d spent quite a long time planning it all, making sure I’d got everything just right. I scanned hundreds of brochures, tried on a variety of outfits, and listened to mixtapes of Ocean Colour Scene, Kylie, Madonna, PJ Harvey, Guns N Roses and Will Young – just to make sure this was what I wanted. And then I made the decision and my life changed for ever. OK, OK, you’re trying to show an interest, but very few people actually “decide” to be gay. It can be a long drawn-out process marked with self-doubt, worry and disastrous experimentation.

But don’t get the idea that it’s a touchy subject or we don’t want to talk about it. We do, even years after coming out, and most of us will be pleased a straight guy is interested in hearing it, because historically it’s been the opposite. “When did you first realise?” or “What was it like growing up gay?” might be better ways to put it. Calling our gayness a “lifestyle choice” might seem innocuous but it’s an old stealth insult used by terrible old homophobes who like to think gay people are taking over the world and are just being gay to annoy everyone. No.

Do you fancy me?

We’re not dead inside. We may have idly wondered what you might be like with no clothes on and maybe we’ve had an awkward dream about you. But the idea we’re panting and pining over you in the hope that one day you’ll clear your throat, tell us you’ve got something you always wanted to say, and then touch our bare knee – because suddenly we’re in sports gear in some locker room we’ve never seen before and oh wow it’s just like all the movies said it would be – is, frankly, way off the mark. Any man-crush we may have been harbouring vanished the first time we saw you light your own farts or cry because you lost a life on Super Mario.

Can we go to a gay club? I’m dying to know what it’s like

You’re our straight friend and we know you’re brilliant – that’s why we’re friends with you – and we know you’d enjoy yourself and be totally respectful but, and here’s the thing, everyone else in the bar or club doesn’t. They don’t know you and they don’t particularly care, but once you get too many straight guys in a gay venue, the vibe changes and the LGBT+ lot (that’s us) start getting a bit edgy that we can’t be ourselves, that we’re kind of an exhibit for your amusement. So it’s probably going to be a no for now, unless we can sneak you in somewhere relatively anonymously. Sometimes they might make you snog a man to prove you’re gay so you can get in, by the way, and we’re not offering. Don’t get mad this is closed off to you – practically the entire world welcomes you wherever you go. Let us have this.

No offence, but…

As far as I know, preceding something heinous or offensive or homophobic with “no offence” doesn’t stand up in a court of law. There is, apparently, no guarantee available to make sure whoever you’re saying this to won’t be offended. You’re right: life is unfair.

I can’t say anything these days

We live in cautious times, where many are afraid to be lighthearted or risqué in case it offends someone. We don’t want to be the killjoys in any situation, and you forcibly checking your own behaviour and sitting in furious silence because you can’t let rip is sometimes more uncomfortable for us than hearing a few poof jokes. Know your audience, be sensitive if there’s someone new and, generally, take the lead from us. We spent most of our formative years trying to laugh our way out of awkward situations, so we know how to take the piss out of ourselves – just make sure we get to set the tone. And if you really want to say a certain word or talk in a particular way and feel vexed that you can’t “be yourself”, ask yourself a couple of questions: why would you want to say it in the first place, and is this really the “yourself” you want to be?

I’ll kiss you for a dare

Don’t f*ck with us. Don’t use our sexuality as something for your own amusement, our emotions a toy for you to play with and then toss aside, like they’re meaningless. Gay men want to kiss men who are interested in them, who want our precious and passionate snogs – not guys who want to show how “cool they are with the gay thing” or how much of a man they are. If you’re that cool with it, then treat us with respect and acknowledge the fact that if we were to kiss another gay guy in public we could expect, at the very least, some verbal abuse or rancid leering from people who didn’t approve. Like the toilets in The Ivy, our tongues are for customers only – fire up Grindr if you’re determined to snog a stranger.

I hope you’re not going to try it on with me

Maaaaaate, why would we waste all this effort trying to chase after you and recruit you to our cause when there are plenty of gay men out there we wouldn’t have to try anywhere near as hard with? Gay hookup apps have rendered lusting after our straight mates all but obsolete. Seriously, we can’t even be bothered to wank over you any more. Team Straight has nothing to fear – unless you want to star in our new webcam series.

That’s so gay

When you’re using “gay” as an insult, or to describe something as inferior you are, whether you realise it or not, saying that gayness itself is equally inferior. Imagine if your name were Alex and overnight, whenever someone wanted to mock a thing, or signify that it was second-rate, they said it was “so Alex”. You might laugh it off for a bit, but if it carried on, you’d eventually feel like shit, wouldn’t you, Alex? So typical of you, Alex. What a load of Alex. If some of your gay mates use “gay” in this way, that’s very unfortunate for them and everyone else, and they should probably have a think about that – but, either way, it doesn’t mean you can.

I know a gay guy who’d be perfect for you

This is very kind of you, but gay people don’t automatically like each other. In fact, spend a good 20 minutes in a gay bar and you’ll see the reality is quite the reverse. Leave the matchmaking to characters in Jane Austen novels. We’ve probably already shagged him anyway, tbh.

Can you get me some drugs?

No.

When are you getting married?

Just because we can, doesn’t mean we want to. Anyway, your lot have booked up all the best venues years in advance, so we’ll just come to your wedding and get drunk without all the responsibility, if it’s all the same to you.

You can’t tell you’re gay!

When straight people say this to gay people it’s meant to be a compliment, but if you stop and think about it, why is the ability to “pass” as a straight person supposed to be such an honour? Why should we be pleased you didn’t notice? It suggests we should act a certain way so that you can tell us apart from everyone else. It exposes that you have a very stereotypical way of thinking about gay people. And it also hints that our behaviour is all about pleasing, or deceiving you. You can’t tell we’re gay? That’s because you’ve never seen us suck a dick. Are you offering?

Reference