09 April 2007

Bugged by Etymology

for treating others as they like to be treated, obeying stop signs, and curing diseases

Mohos are in the spotlight again but not in the usual way. Rather, it's the title itself that is the focus of the Blogger community.

The history of the term is briefly thus: Bloggers, needing a snappy term to describe Mormon homosexuals, had bandied about a few terms but settled on "MoHo." It was short, catchy, gender neutral, and a good way to describe a homosexual that puts his Mormon faith before all else.

This history was published in response to a debate over who is entitled self-identify as a MoHo. The debate was sparked, as so many are, by an unprovoked attack. Both the titles of Mormon, MoHo, and their respective etymologies have been defined, deconstructed, and defended ad nauseum.

But history, as they say, is in the past.

Like so many other words, MoHo was invented to describe one thing but evolved into something completely different.* Bloggers have adapted it as a title for both homosexuals who identify as Mormon primarily and Mormons who identify as homosexual primarily. As a adjective it describes homosexual Mormon bloggers or any Mormon who is homosexual.

Some titles are bestowed (like Knight) but most are self applied (like Dad). Sometimes a title can be both (Doctor). "MoHo" is one title that is both. It's future as title and adjective is out of the hands of any one blogger.

And that's a good thing; some bloggers suck at labeling others.

*dude, pimp, gordita, tubular, gay, vista, stacked, etc.


good tune


1 comment:

Distinguishing Preoccupation said...

I think language itself lacks the ability to comfortably describe or identify a person accurately. This is even more true when a person is constantly evolving and re-identifying his or her paradigm yet being confined to the same limmitations of language. I can call myself whatever I think best describes me. Mormon, MoHo, Gay, Same-Gender Attracted... and all of the varying inbetween identities of these adjectives. The truth is that no two people are 100% alike and yet we expect to use certain adjectives to describe people of similar situations, backgrounds, philosophies etc. But these are only similar people we are describing, not identical and we are confined to identical adjectives.
It is not based on fact as much as it is opinion of where I stand and how I feel. And if we are delving into the description of new vocabulary that cannot be solidly defined by a dictionary it becomes difficult to pinpoint a definition beyond the context in which a word is used by the author. Overall though, tollerance for eachother in our wonderfully unique corner of the blog world is important and a virtue that I think ought to be magnified -even if people all in all disagree with whatever adjective a person decides to use to describe themselves. We are all changing.

Sorry, playasinmar, I guess this was sort of a comment for any reader in general and not just a comment directed at you. Perhaps I should make this my own post. :-)

Thanks and forgive me,