Making fun of music, one song at a time. Since the year 2000.
Check out the two amIright misheard lyrics books including one book devoted to misheard lyrics of the 1980s.
(Toggle Right Side Navigation)

Song Parodies -> "Dealin' With The Queers"

Original Song Title:

"Reelin' in the Years"

 (MP3)
Original Performer:

Steely Dan

Parody Song Title:

"Dealin' With The Queers"

Parody Written by:

Guy DiRito

The Lyrics

It's an everlasting bummer,
They are playing loose and fast.
So they jab a piece of something,
with that thing into their mass.
They wouldn't know a hymen,
From a pituitary gland.
Their 'girlfriends' all are breastless,
Just need to be manned.

Are you dealin' with the queers?
Blowin' away the grime,
As they're latherin' up their gears,
Get's so tired a-hear 'em whine.

They be talkin' bout their penis,
Just gettin' all obscene.
Don't want to get to know them
It just don't seem all that clean.
In sweeden they get cleavage,
They turn out a bit less manned.
They got this way in college?
Now I understand.

Are you dealin' with the queers?
Blowin' away the grime,
As they're latherin' up their gears,
Get's so tired a-hear 'em whine.

They bend a little funny,
And they bend upon a dime.
Their trippin' out in Hollywood,
They're sweatin' all the time.
After all that's said and done these queens,
Just find another man.
So kinky with their looseness,
What's to understand?

Are you dealin' with the queers?
Blowin' away the grime,
As they're latherin' up their gears,
Get's so tired a-hear 'em whine.

Your Vote & Comment Counts

The parody authors spend a lot of time writing parodies for the website and they appreciate feedback in the form of votes and comments. Please take some time to leave a comment below about this parody.

Place Your Vote

 LittleLots
Matches Pace of
Original Song: 
How Funny: 
Overall Score: 



In order for your vote to count, you need to hit the 'Place Your Vote' button.
 

Voting Results

 
Pacing: 3.9
How Funny: 3.9
Overall Rating: 3.9

Total Votes: 7

Voting Breakdown

The following represent how many people voted for each category.

    Pacing How Funny Overall Rating
 1   2
 2
 2
 
 2   0
 0
 0
 
 3   0
 0
 0
 
 4   0
 0
 0
 
 5   5
 5
 5
 

User Comments

Comments are subject to review, and can be removed by the administration of the site at any time and for any reason.

Pat - August 07, 2003 - Report this comment
Excellently put. Good work on the parody!! 5's
Hoeveel - August 07, 2003 - Report this comment
Obsessive much? *cough* double bluff *cough*
malcolm higgins - August 07, 2003 - Report this comment
good work on a favourite subject of mine
Michael Pacholek - August 07, 2003 - Report this comment
A good job of expressing a very repulsive, and very repetitive, position. I'm almost starting to wish for more songs about the California recall, except I'm afriad you'll call the certain winner, and still Governor of California, "Gay" Davis.
Peregrin - August 08, 2003 - Report this comment
As Michael said - well handled with a powderkeg subject!
Bubba - August 10, 2003 - Report this comment
Now that's funny stuff...and very nicely done! 5's
Guy DiRito's Gay Lover - August 15, 2003 - Report this comment
Give it a rest, honey.
Jay W - November 09, 2003 - Report this comment
Politics is one thing, but I can't see how making fun of gays by way of hackneyed stereotype is funny to enlightened people. I'm not voting because I don't want to be mistaken for one of those who gave this parody 5's. Where you got these votes from, God only knows.
Guy - November 09, 2003 - Report this comment
Lighten up Gay, er I mean Jay. It's just a parody. It's for laughs nothing serious. And I am so glad that you are enlightened. I'll have to remind myself to order up some enlightenment sometime. Thanks for your comment.
Jay W - November 11, 2003 - Report this comment
When I said 'enlightened people' I was alluding to the votes you had already received, not myself. Making fun of gays is fine; they've done it on South Park and The Simpsons to brilliant comic effect, but after looking at a few of your parodies, I sense an underlying hostility--the same type that was projected towards blacks fifty years ago and is looked upon as shameful now. Maybe I should lighten up a bit, but with all due respect, maybe you should too.
Guy - November 12, 2003 - Report this comment
Jay - Unfair comparison to blacks. If a person declares that he or she is black, there is no question in my head about this being true.
Hypothetical case:

Two men are applying for the same promotion. Both have equal qualifications. Both are white, the same age, the same everything. They are totally equal. They both know that a coin toss is going to decide the outcome. The first applicant sees his chance for an edge and declares that he is gay. Tell me how he proves that he is a member of an 'oppressed' minority' other than just declaring that he is? Can you tell by looking? I think not. Want to use your imagination for a way to prove it. You first.

The basis of my parodies is not a deep hostility toward gays. It is the stupidity that is handed out and the so called 'enlightened' people that buy lock, stock and barrel this insane idea about gay rights. There is no such thing and can never be since anyone and everyone can claim to be gay and who could possibly say otherwise.

It is the totally unsound idea that gay rights can ever become a reality because everyone and anyone could use it anytime for anything that they are trying to get over. Convince me how this could ever work and I'll adjust my thinking on this subject.

Thanks for your comments. I'm always ready to engage in a debate that promotes intellectual stimulation.
Guy - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
I see that your keyboard has made digitized text on my screen but this text does not explain why I am so 'F***ing wrong as you put it. If you are asking me to withdraw from this debate then please tell me why you think I should. You have to present a solid argument before I would even consider that. And why did you sterotype Texas? Have you ever lived here? I've lived a lot of places and I'd think a 'self proclaimed' gay would have an easier time here then a lot of other places I've lived.

And what makes you think that I am somehow holding the first amendment hostage? Last time I checked the first amendment was alive and well and I use it everyday. Why would I not want America to have it?

Maybe you can tell me how gay rights would be applied on a person to person basis if the legislature were ever enacted? My heartburn is with the stupidity of the entire gay rights agenda. I just don't see how something like that could work. I have no heartburn with gays. The first amendment guarantees them this sexual freedom.

And not to worry about parody content. I have learned to curb my enthusiasm about parody content. When I first arrived on this site and began writing I took parody content too seriously. Now it is all taken with a grain of salt with just very few things that I find disturbing but I think everyone has a button or two that can be pushed by parody content. So I won't say that I will never go off on content, but I will say that I will do my best not to. Keep repeating, it's only a parody, it's only a parody...

Thanks for your vote, but I don't think a lot of your comment tonight. I would have, however, if you would have presented some strong argument to back up what you are saying. Have a nice night, Bob.
Jay W - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
Guy, I live in Queens, NY and have known and worked with a few gay people. I don't see this preference toward them, but very occasionally I do see biased sentiments expressed against them. I don't feel threatened by a gay agenda; the gays I've known generally seem ecstatic when they're accepted by the people around them. I can say that I've never heard of nor experienced a person pretending to be gay who wasn't to gain advantage. I'm not saying the scenario is impossible, but it seems unlikely; one would have to give up marriage and parenthood in many cases to receive special perks. Doesn't sound likely. I think the most important thing I'm trying to say, however, is that the human sciences are more and more coming to the conclusion that homosexuality is genetic--basically, a person is born that way and repression of that natural disposition leads to real individual and social problems. Look at the Catholic church for evidence of this--notice that the clergy are molesting boys and not girls--the molestation arises not from gayness but from repression of it. A gay is a gay, and the person's life is made harder by ostracism, whether it's social or legal. If this country is a just one, then it will eventually come to a final and just decision about gay rights. I'm sure that in twenty years (or less), gays will have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals in all areas of social life. If these comments are still here in twenty years, and that time bears me out as wrong, I will be the first to admit I didn't know what I was talking about. Only time can settle this debate.
Mr. Horse - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
"In sweeden they get cleavage" ......................................................................... Hey Guy (no pun intended), where did you get that piece of info? Of course there are gays in Sweden, but I don't think getting cleavage are that uncommon in North America, or in any other country either. If I would have written the song I would have put Holland or Britain or something like that, cuz there is a lot more male to female conversion going on there. It seems to be that North Americans have this image of Sweden to be the most immoral and filthy people there is on earth. That is of course a big fat Hollywood cliché' and that’s all there is to it. Just a thought.
Guy - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
Jay - And neither do I feel threatened by a 'gay agenda' but do see fault in a 'gay rights agenda'. My analogy of of the two promotion candidates was as I stated hypothetical. Granted it was not the best analogy but it was only there to make the point and convey the thought. So you are saying that criteria for identifying gays for a gay rights bill would limit it to people who are not married, possibly never been married and have no children? This would disenfranchise a large percentage of the gay population. Many gays are married, or have been married and or have children. You seem to be sterotyping gays now.

You say that human services are coming to the conclusion more and more that homosexuality is genetic. Funny thing though, I've been to a lot of human services agencies and for some unknown reason I did not see a lot of human genome scientists working there. Science has not yet, and I doubt they ever will, actually find a gene that is responsible for this human behavior phenomenon. Until a time where this is actually proven it remains a moot point in this debate.

Now Jay, you seem to be sterotyping Priests and mislabeling pedophilia for homosexuality.

Pedophilia: noun: sexual activity of an adult with a child

Homosexuality: noun: a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex

You are referring a small fragment of the clergy within a named religious denomination and this phenomenon is not just limited to this one denomination. Your mis-identification of homosexuality and pedophilia will no doubt be offensive to people of homosexual, sexual orientation. Pedophilia is classified as a criminal activity and homosexuality is not. You are offending the very people you seem to be trying to protect.

I was accused by another writer of holding the first amendment hostage. Let me say this, The first amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly among other freedoms. I respect the homosexual right to excercise their freedom of speech through the expression of their sexual preference. In the same light I expect that the freedom of religion guaranteed in this amendment allow me to practice this freedom and allow me to express the belief that I am allowed to hate the sin of homosexuality and at the same time love the sinner. This is part of my religious belief and it too is guaranteed under the constitution.
Melhi - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
Mr. Horse, (I could be wrong, but) I think Sweden is associated with gender reassignment surgery by a lot of North Americans because that's where the first successful sex change operation in medical history was carried out, back in the early 50s.
Gay Burrito - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
Give it up, everyone. Trying to get Guy DiRito to accept anything but his own opinion is a useless exercise. As you can see, Robert, your comment has already been removed. For a good laugh, check out his arguments here: http://www.amiright.com/parody/2000s/u216.shtml
Guy - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
So I wonder why Robert's comment was removed? I can't debate seriously when the chain of information that leads to each new point is broken. This is like censorship. I have made all the points I care to make on this and will not be subjected to having the rug pulled out from under me by people who want to pull a comment that is weak rather than rebut it and people like Gay Burrito who will not identify themselves. So hey Gay, you are the pot calling the kettle black by slamming my opinion that is guaranteed by the first amendment. I think you are the one who is baised, insensitive and one who wold like to hold the first amendment hostage when it does not agree with what you believe.
Gay Burrito - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
Don't pretend you didn't read Robert's comment. You even replied to it (November 13, 2003 1:37:58 AM). He strongly disagreed with you and now the comment is gone.
Peter Forsberg - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
I just read Mr. Horse's Comment and hey there were not even a reply from Guy himself....Does that mean that Guy was wrong for once?
Peter Forsberg - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
And heeeeeeee.......Scoooooooooooooores.
Guy - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
No, sorry Peter but I was distracted by the rhetoric. Thanks for reminding me to explain what that cleavage thing meant. It was a reference to the common knowledge that a lot of sex reassignment operations are performed in Sweeden and that was all it meant.

In sweeden they get cleavage,
They turn out a bit less manned.

All this meant was that they reassign the sex and become more like a female than a male, but still genetically a male. I guess I did not do my job as a parodist if I have to explain this although Melhi understood it. Thanks Melhi for your comment.
Gay - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
Hey Gay - please reread my comment. I said no such thing. I said I noted that it was missing. I did read it. How do you think I responded as I did if I did not and why would I pretend to not have known it was there. If you have a point to make, then please make it or keep your hat on and no one will notice.
Guy - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
And before you go off on the name I put on the last comment please note that it was a typo, although I must admit it is funny.
Sweeedish Burrito - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
Funny? Or Freudian?
Peter Forsberg (No. 1 Hockey player ever) - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
Guy! Sweden is not!! spelled Sweeden. Why do you persist spelling it wrong twice?, or was that just to rub it in? There are good spellcheckers out there. Ps you are wrong though. Sweden did not start sex changes, believe me I am a Swede and I know what im talking about.
Guy - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
Sorry for the mis-spelling. Don't tell my wife because she is also half Swedish. Sorry for the mispelling. I will watch this in the future. And Mr, Miss, Ms or whatever Burrito take your pick and assign it anything you like. I called it a typo. Suit yourself.
Robert J. Pagliaro - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
Guy, I'm also a little upset my comment was removed. Can't remember what I said. However, I didn't ask you to withdraw from the debate - basically, I was saying I won't debate the issue with you because we'll never agree. You are entitled to your opinion and entitled to voice it under (what's leftt of) the First Amendment. My shot at Texas was meant in humor - although there is truth in sarcasm. As for the First Amendment being held hostage by the right - can you say Patriot Act I? Patriot Act II? So Guy, when you come to NYC, a few of us on this board would like to buy you a beer in Greenwich Village. Make Love, not war. bob
Bessie Treshold - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
Being an infrequent parody reader and casual author on AmIRight, I happened in today to read the latest parodies and comments and this parody, I must say, has a very disgusting content. I have noticed a gradual decline in the moral content of the parodies being submitted and am rather surprised at this one being allowed at all to be published here. I hope Chucky deletes it all together. Not the sort of thing that keeps the site fun and objective. Sorry but I am just repulsed to read about this kind of smut. 0-0-0
Guy - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
Thanks Bob, I know where you are coming from and I totally respect your opinion. I suspect that your comment was removed because of a four letter word in its infinitive form that was in the first sentence. And I will not even get into anything concerning the patriot act. I do not even know how I truly feel about it. It is a double edged sword. I am torn between my military service to the US and my loyalties here and the fear of big brother, so if you want to change my opinion on something, this woulf be a great place to start and for sure if I ever visit NYC I will look you up and make good on that offer of a social imbibe. As far as my opinions on the issue at hand here my religious convictions will not allow me to stray from the "love the sinner hate the sin concept". So if anyone has heartburn with this then please get over it.
Melhi - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
Peter, for whatever reason, most people in North America have never heard of the operation that took place in Germany in the 30s. (Which is not necessarily first, either, but it is the only pre-50s sex change operation I've ever seen mentioned, specifically... I don't know that I've ever read whether it was successful or even a full reassignment.) The world press, though, was all over the operation in Sweden in the 50s and, in North America, at least, it is still hailed as the first successful such operation in medical history. Partial gender reassignment goes back much, much farther in history, of course. But, again, most people over here don't know that.
Guy - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
Bessie, I agree with you that this parody should not ever have been posted. This parody was submitted several months ago when a lot of this stuff was being played here and not just by me. CG has recently decommissioned the 'What Freaks' site as I have read on this site. He has also tightened up the content of the parodies that he is allowing to get onto this site. If CG wants to delete this one he is free to do so since this is his site and I would not object. I am sorry if it offended you but I can only share in the blame. But give CG a break, he is doing better. I write parodies on all sorts of things, just go through my web page out here. So like anyone else I can slip easily and do a tasteless parody.
Gay Burrito - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
It's alarming how Guy DiRito can attribute all of his gay-bashing "parodies" (and there must be at least a dozen of them) to his "religious convictions." It's part of the ancient tradition of committing ungodly acts in the name of god. Guy ends his comment by urging us to just "get over it" if we disagree. Let's make a deal, Guy DiRito--as soon as you stop subjecting us to your hateful views, we'll get over it.
Agrimorfee - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
I'm gonna weigh in here, as a heterosexual who has 1 or 2 gay friends. I see that the "narrator" of this song is a perplexed person who doens't quite understand why gay people "do" what they "do", and is voicing concern. I read it as satirical, and it does't put anyone down at all...veers close to it, but not offensive. Zappa has done worse and still had the same good-natured, if non-PC, attitude. 444, IMHO.
Gay Burrito - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
Agrimorfee, your point could work if this were a stand-alone piece. But given Guy's many other anti-gay parodies and comments, it's clear that he's not just a perplexed innocent.
Gay Burrito - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
Correction--I just reread this and can't think of a way to accept it even as a stand-alone parody. I agree with Bessie--it's disgusting. And Guy DiRito is no Frank Zappa.
Know 1 can hear you dream - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
Just to avoid any misunderstandings: I´m NOT the same Peter as Peter Forsberg and I´m staying out of this debate, except that I have to back my contrymen on one thing. I too have never before heard that Sweden should have been first with this kind of operation. Total news too me. (But of course that doesn´t mean I´m sure we weren´t, just that it is news to me). // The other Peter
Robert J. Pagliaro - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
And Bessie is entitled to her opinion. However, despite how wrong I think Guy is, I would hate to have parodies deleted because someone believes the moral content is questionable. So, Guy, I must disagree with you about the parody "should not ever have been posted." You wrote it for a reason, you're standing by it - it is well-written. Just because a parody is posted doesn't mean it has to be voted on or even read for that matter. Censorship is deadlier than Guy's views. I'll debate the theology whenever I come up with some agnostic-based parody.
Bessie - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
Umm since when has Frank Zappa submitted a parody to this site?
Bessie - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
Bob: Aren't parodies posted here meant to read and voted on? Isn't that a basic thing going on here? Bob, don't give us this crap. How do you know about a parody's content unless you click into it and start reading? Of course it's going to be read and if a huge voice of unrest comes up about it...well doesn't that speak for itself? It should be removed!
Joker - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
Bessie Treshold -- responding to your 1:32:15 PM comment -- I assume you didn't vote at all, cuz' there's no zeros on the voting form; just ones through fives.
Peter Forsberg - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
Thanx for your support "Know (Peter)"
Bessie - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
I'm sure you must have misspelled Joker and instead meant Toker, cuz youre totally buzzed out man! Of course there aren't any zero's...dork.
Guy - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
Thanks Bob, but my point was that it is Chuck's site and he is trying to keep the sexual content down. He has rejected several of mine that were way more tamer than this one of late. I respect him for holding this site to a higher standard. And you do have a point about censorship. He has the right to reject before posting according to the rules but maybe that is a slippery slope to delete something after it received the 'stamp of approval'. You give me something to think about.
Robert J. Pagliaro - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
No argument - his site, his rules - just voicing my opinion. Sure I could have posted without the use of the word. But given the context and what was intended to inject some playfullness into the argument, I chose to use it.
Guy - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
Oh, I understood what you were doing. I even played back a bit. Just expect to get a comment deleted if you use unsavory verbage. It is in the rules.
ChuckyG - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
I do remove parodies that have been posted, if the content violates the site guidelines. I read this one, and while borderline, it still fit within the guidelines. That being said, I'm thinking about getting even harsher about parodies dealing with any kind of sex talk. I'm sick of having to make judgement calls all the time about wether something is "too" dirty, and I'm starting to think I should refuse to post anything dealing with sex.
Joker - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
Bessie -- my name really is Joker. What the heck is "Toker" anyway? I don't think I can find it in my F*** and Wagnalls.
Robert J. Pagliaro - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
Guy, my deleted post never accused you of holding the First Amendment hostage, I accused the rightwing of taking it away. Just read one of your earlier posts and I want to clear that up. In fact, I think you appreciate it as much as I do. Bessie, then vote against it and leave your comments, as you did. But to call for its censoring (deletion) because you don't like the content is "anti-parody", not to mention the fact that it completely takes away the right which we have been talking about. I disagree with everything Guy has to say in that parody (and generally, everything Guy has to say) but I defend his right to say it. bob
Claude Prez - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
I can't help but stick my nose in here. I like a lot of what Bob has to say about this--if you don't like something, feel free to voice your opinion. To call for a deletion is stupid. Obviously you won't read it again if you dislike it. What do you think you gain by getting it removed? You've simply taken opportunities away from others to read something YOU didn't enjoy. How does that benefit you? I don't get it. People are way too easily offended. Of course it's your right to ask Chuck to delete something; it's also his right to tell you to get a life. That said, it's also his right to reject or delete whatever he chooses on his own site and his are the only rights that exist here; the rest of us just have privileges and he's always been very tolerant of language and content. Frankly, I'd prefer he do away with guidelines altogether since people are gonna find stuff to b**ch about no matter what. But I'm guessing that won' t happen. Anyway, if I got a vote, that would be it. Freedom Rules
Jay W - November 13, 2003 - Report this comment
Just for the record: When I alluded to Catholic clergy molesting boys, I meant specifically only the small percentage of priests who are both gay and pedophiles, certainly not all Catholic clergy. ( I thought this would have been understood implicitly; my error.)
Bessie - November 14, 2003 - Report this comment
Since this parody wasn't even remotely funny, it must been written with a spirit of hate. That leaves nothing left but a hate message for gays and it becomes anti-gay propiganda. I'm not pro gay myself but I see this parody and others like it as only gay bashing and not done fro humour's sake at all. This stinks up the site. And so jerks like Joker with his immature comments.
Joker - November 14, 2003 - Report this comment
Excuse me, Bessie, I am not a jerK. If you call me one more name I may have to report your commetns as inappropriate.
Brandon Ahrons - November 14, 2003 - Report this comment
How can anyone take rebuttals from mates like Bessie here when the flavour of the rebuttal is seasoned with personal attacks? I may not agree with the content and spirit of intent of this number but I would never stoop to personal attacts to make a point.
malcolm higgins - November 14, 2003 - Report this comment
CHUCKY! please don't stop the sex parodies!! what will I write about?? really??? Guy, you lucky devil.. I havent seen the site so stirred up in the eight months or so I've been here. good for you, keep writing what you find funny or parodical. write for yourself, as I write for me. I wrote a "supportive gay parody " on the same original song today, and it'll be out tomorrow. less overtly sexual than yours, but I was killing myself laughing as I wrote it.. maybe I'll get slaughtered too, but who cares? great song.. the farther off they wall people get, the more I like the songs.. keep up the work
Jake A Ralphing (Luke Brattoni) - August 01, 2004 - Report this comment
If I may put forth my sage teenage (oh! it rhymes!) wisdom, homosexuality has been around for MILLENIA and all of a sudden there are huge debates (mass debates?) regarding rights and slurs etc. Why is this so? Well, I think Michael Moore has a fair point about how American media is the driving force of your society's views and the AIDS advertising thirty-ish years ago would have scared the generation of the time and it is inevitable that it would have rubbed off on current generations, being a fear of the unknown. Basically all I'm saying is that the media now have seized the niche of homosexual humour as it one that the majority of society can laugh about- because they are afraid of what they don't understand. If you haven't noticed, Queer As Folk, Queer Eye For The Straight Guy, Will & Grace and numerous other mainstream sitcoms, and films, have gay characters put in for their stock comedic purposes. I can see within fifteen years or so a new area of society will be brought up by the media for a new wave of fear that stimulates the laughter response. Well, I've raved on and on, I think I should be out stealing booze or brooding in angst like my other teen rebel peers. I found the parody humorous in parts 'wouldn't know a hymen from a pituitary gland' and a bit off in others 'What's to understand'. 544
C.J. Spindler - April 06, 2005 - Report this comment
Yeah bessie leave Joker alone he didn't do any thing wrong.

The author of the parody has authorized comments, and wants YOUR feedback.

Link To This Page

The address of this page is: http://www.amiright.com/parody/70s/steelydan8.shtml For help, see the examples of how to link to this page.

This is view # 668