It's just offensive because it's so obvious and lamebrained. It's not even funny - who the hell uses that term anyway? It's like some hangoer from the 1970s.
To me it is the same as if they made Judge Giant the ace of spades. Hur hur.
I'm not normally pissed off by things like this but the fact on this occasion it's just so stupid, unfunny and obvious that's annoyed me. Loads of people have already said 'what's the problem, its a joke' - yeah, but how funny would you find it if the joke was on you? The term is just really dated and shit.
It would have been easier not to bother making a crap joke like this in the first place but by doing so it seems pretty obvious that the editorial bods don't even think they've got any gay readers of whatever - why else take the piss out of them? It's just disapointing to find out I've been paying ?5 a month to read something that the editorial staff think I shouldn't have been buying in the first place.
To me it is the same as if they made Judge Giant the ace of spades. Hur hur.
I'm not normally pissed off by things like this but the fact on this occasion it's just so stupid, unfunny and obvious that's annoyed me. Loads of people have already said 'what's the problem, its a joke' - yeah, but how funny would you find it if the joke was on you? The term is just really dated and shit.
It would have been easier not to bother making a crap joke like this in the first place but by doing so it seems pretty obvious that the editorial bods don't even think they've got any gay readers of whatever - why else take the piss out of them? It's just disapointing to find out I've been paying ?5 a month to read something that the editorial staff think I shouldn't have been buying in the first place.