It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man, with a respectable fortune, finds coitus fun. It need not be mentioned, since it is taken for granted in his case (and more and more so in the case of women too), but it may be worth while, from time to time, reminding ourselves of why we so often make the beast with two backs, violating our so-closely-guarded personal space and lack of desire of intimate personal contact: we wouldn't want our children to think we're ashamed of this activity, surely?

Jackie says:

I agree that there is a time and a place for crude language and behavior, and that most group settings, including work, is not one of them. In my opinion, this demonstrates one or more of the following: the speaker doesn't know any better, which is really sad; is demonstrating a lack of consideration for others, as though they are thinking, "My words offend you? Too bad for you, sucker!"; the speaker believes/hopes this usage will demonstrate the allegation that they are something they really aren't--similar to the effect young teens are trying to give by smoking.

In deconstructionist mode (oh, go on, indulge my pretensions, please) I thought I'd treat this text as an example. The use of the phrase 'crude language' instantly alerts the close reader to the idea that lurking behind the denotative patina of words is a strong connotation of judgement. The words are crude why? Here one is compelled to take a contextual stance. They are surely neither less euphonious than other words, they are often far more onomatopoeic, and their spelling is neither more nor less Byzantine than that of words with far greater respectability in the English language.

Are they, perhaps, then sacrilegious words? Are any gods, or religions, being referred to when the act of coitus is described in four-letter form (a word of ancient and respectable provenance, as far as we can tell)? Again, this is unlikely - there are few if any gods whose names, in English, are rendered as the acronym of 'for unlawful carnal knowledge'.

Vide our discussion regarding the pleasures of the flesh (above) it seems unlikely that this word refers to anything shameful either.

So whence the crudity?

The answer must lie purely in social context. The word is a shibboleth - a marker of distinction between one group and another. If one uses the word one is either in a very peculiar circumstance (of great stress or inebriation) or one comes from a group whose use of the word signifies some failing of mind in them (misogyny, lack of education, lack of aesthetic sensitivity, lack of social skills - you take your pick, mix'n'match).

In such a context, given the liberal nature of political correctness today (respect all cultures, do not discriminate against those with different practices and beliefs from your own, etc) can we justify the superiority of attitude inherent in the practice of describing a word as ''rude'' or bad mannered? Surely such judgements always redound upon the judge - as one who may not have expanded the compass of his or her tolerance sufficiently to accept differential speech practices of other groups?

This could, from being a purely linguistic analysis, expand to become one concerning the entire issue of liberalism, tolerance, political correctness and the like, but for this Board, perhaps thus far and no further should suffice.

cheer

the sunshine (in defence of fucking) warrior