Jackie O'Hara suggests:
"But I can choose what I want to be around. And anyway, tomorrow is another day! Humph." (And in the background, Loo'ville is silhouetted against the burning skies of Atlanta, as she tosses her windblown auburn hair {do we care that it may be a wig} to show her contempt for that nasty Sherman - really, he can't be a gentleman if he has to win his battles using twice as many men as the poor brave Southerners - Lafitte, Butler, Lee et al.)
Frankly, m'dear, since you have brought up the topic, you have exercised your indubitable right to free speech in explaining your contempt for this verbal register (characterised by you as crude, or mayhap vulgar, 'swearing', rude, childish and the like) - and in doing so have you not therefore made it acceptable for those of opposing opinions (personal though they may be - just like yours) to exemplify their contrariwise attitudes by deliberately saying "I don't give a {gliding coitus, airborne sexual intercourse, soaring carnal knowledge, oh, go on then, we'll use the wussy euphemism} Dutch edam?"
Less convolutedly - could it be construed as offensive to 'innocent' users of such phrases that you might choose to animadvert about it in public - particularly if you brand them childish, know-nothings, rudesbys and so on?
And as an aside, an ass is a thing that Jesus rides in triumph, not a swear word. What you're thinking of is the derivation from Chaucer's wonderful ers (vide "The Miller's Tale", concerning Alisoun's actions in response to Absolon's nocturnal wooing), and, as any good Anglic person knows, is spelled, and pronounced, A-R-S-E. A word of impeccable pedigree, and so much more robust than the Bowdlerian derriere or just plain nauseating: patootiie, behind, bottom etc. If it's good enough for Chaucer and Shakespeare, it's good enough for me.
Yours in ineffably delicious tension in anticipation of your retaliatory effusions...
the sunshine warrior
