Dirty words?... Obscene words?

[Luvya]

Even if we disregard religion, society as a whole has an opinion of what is proper.

For sure. And I am questioning the rationale behind some of these “proper” behaviors.

Why must you curse? What do you miss by not cursing? Is your life less complete?

Why is it a “curse” to be satisfied with one’s body performing some of its tasks (as “intended”) and giving voice to that satisfaction?

 

[Luvya]

Please pardon, I misread the op to understand that you favored using these types of words in everyday conversation with total disregard for whoever you are talking to.

No harm done. Thanks for your correction.

 

[Daizies]

there are no simple, everyday English words which describe them and which are allowed to be used in every company

Actually, there are, but no one uses them. The problem is not the lack of words, but rather a degradation (as in lowering of quality) of the English language. There are perfectly proper words that you can use in polite company such as defecation, urination, and copulation which are proper descriptors of these actions without being obscene.

 

[Luvya]

Actually, there are, but no one uses them. The problem is not the lack of words, but rather a degradation (as in lowering of quality) of the English language. There are perfectly proper words that you can use in polite company such as defecation, urination, and copulation which are proper descriptors of these actions without being obscene.

Sure. But no one actually uses them, because their usage is contrived and unnatural. One could speak of “eating” as “to engage in mastication and enzyme secretion”. But your post brings up the question: why are these words NOT dirty? Precisely because they are unused. “Obscenity” is not an objective characteristics, it is all in the (dirty) mind of the beholder.

To illustrate, here is an old joke, from the time of the Clinton presidency. Clinton and Hillary are at the first game of the new baseball season. Before the game starts, one of the organizers goes up to Clinton, and whispers something into his ear. Clinton gets up, grabs Hillary, and throws her way out into the field. The organizer turns chalk-white and says in great horror: “No, Mr. President, the first pitch!”.

Did you find the joke objectionable? If yes… why? There is nothing in it, not one objectionable word. Whatever your mind does with it (if it does, of course), is your business. The “obscenity”, if any, is the product of your mind. (Of course if you have no problem with the joke, I apologize for assuming it.)

 

[phoooiee]

But of course! That is a given. I am simply amazed that the perfectly natural actions of our body, used in the way as intended are classified as “dirty” or “vulgar” or “obscene”.

They are not- in fact, it is perfectly acceptable to say “sex” but not acceptable to say the “f” word. Know why? Because the “f” word comes from an Anglo-Saxon word meaning “to beat.” One denotes the actual concept, pure and simple. The other carries a connotation of disrespect for one’s partner, even if traced back to its original linguistic roots.

It is perfectly natural to have sex. However, sex without respect for one’s partner is obscene. Taken to its extreme, this becomes rape- which anyone would agree is obscene.

It’s not because of the level of usage of the word that is it vulgar or not vulgar. It is because the concept is slightly different and denotes a lack of respect. The “b” word is the best example, as it denotes that the woman being referred to is as a female dog- hardly respectful, not even accurate, and not nearly synonymous with “woman.”

I am sure that whatever our differences in values, we can all agree that respect for others is to be maintained?

 

[phoooiee]

Sure. But no one actually uses them, because their usage is contrived and unnatural. One could speak of “eating” as “to engage in mastication and enzyme secretion”. But your post brings up the question: why are these words NOT dirty? Precisely because they are unused. “Obscenity” is not an objective characteristics, it is all in the (dirty) mind of the beholder.

To illustrate, here is an old joke, from the time of the Clinton presidency. Clinton and Hillary are at the first game of the new baseball season. Before the game starts, one of the organizers goes up to Clinton, and whispers something into his ear. Clinton gets up, grabs Hillary, and throws her way out into the field. The organizer turns chalk-white and says in great horror: “No, Mr. President, the first pitch!”.

Did you find the joke objectionable? If yes… why? There is nothing in it, not one objectionable word. Whatever your mind does with it (if it does, of course), is your business. The “obscenity”, if any, is the product of your mind. (Of course if you have no problem with the joke, I apologize for assuming it.)

This illustrates my point exactly. It is not the word at all, but the lack of respect to Ms. Clinton, that would make this joke objectionable. Here the word is not even said, but lack of respect is illustrated, and it is still considered an obscene joke.

 

[Luvya]

They are not- in fact, it is perfectly acceptable to say “sex” but not acceptable to say the “f” word. Know why? Because the “f” word comes from an Anglo-Saxon word meaning “to beat.”

Actually the etymology of this word is unknown. There are lots of speculations, but no one can prove any of them. For all we know it could be an abbreviation of “For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge”.

It’s not because of the level of usage of the word that is it vulgar or not vulgar. It is because the concept is slightly different and denotes a lack of respect. The “b” word is the best example, as it denotes that the woman being referred to is as a female dog- hardly respectful, not even accurate, and not nearly synonymous with “woman.”

Respect or lack of it does not hinge on a single word. It all depends on the environment, on the intonation. I had a wonderful co-worker a long time ago, a very nice woman. She had a sign on her own cube-wall: “51% sweetheart, 49% *****! Don’t push it!” She was referring to herself! There was no disrespect.

I am sure that whatever our differences in values, we can all agree that respect for others is to be maintained?

As long as they deserve it. Respect is not automatic. I have no respect for hypocrits. (Not calling you one, of course, just speaking in general).

 

[Luvya]

This illustrates my point exactly. It is not the word at all, but the lack of respect to Ms. Clinton, that would make this joke objectionable. Here the word is not even said, but lack of respect is illustrated, and it is still considered an obscene joke.

Many people have no respect for either Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. Especially around here.

For the fun of it, here is another one, about Dan Quayle. “Dan Quayle entered into the lobby of a hotel. He saw the sign: “Wet floor”, so he did it.” Disrespectful? You bet. Funny? I sure think so. Of course jokes are a specific category. There are very few jokes which are not disrespectful toward someone.

 

[phoooiee]

What I am hearing, then, is that it is all right to be disrespectful toward others, because a) people do it all the time and b) the person might deserve it.

I think this is the issue at the heart of this discussion if you really think about it carefully.

The Christian message holds that it is not all right to be disrespectful to others whether or not it is frequently done, and whether or not the person deserves it.

What do you think of this? Do you agree or disagree?

 

[vz71]

There are no “dirty” or “obscene” words, there are only dirty minds.

So we are to place blame for someone’s foul language upon those that hear it?



Honestly, if you wish to cry scandal that people are not understanding your real meaning, you had better make absolutely certain you are precise in your language.
And that would preclude the use of profanity.

 

[pinay]

I’m Filipino. In my language (no, it’s not Tagalog - I’m Bisaya), the spanish word for milk is vulgar. Yet, I can type it here… look… LECHE… in capital letters even and it doesn’t cause the forum to censor it out.

So, I learned a very good lesson with that - because English is only my 3rd language.

Words are important. The words you choose to speak indicates the thought you are trying to portray. I am teaching my children not to be chained by a word. I am teaching my children to have a very extensive vocabulary so that they can find the proper word to express their meaning without having to go to the gutter for it.

So that, when my neighbor decided to be a backyard dog-breeder and my kids go there to immerse themselves in the experience of dog-birth, they know that every time my neighbor calls his dog a (witch) he is using the proper word for its proper usage.

I had lunch with my niece and she was telling me how she got this new guinea pig, so I asked her, “What sex is it?”, and she looked at me in shock, her face turning red, and said in a really soft voice, “you’re not allowed to use that word”. And there it is - a little girl chained by a word…

Yet, the same little girl is happily calling my sons “cupid” instead of “stupid”… because, cupid is okay to say. My sons know that substituting cupid for stupid doesn’t make the sentence any better. As a matter of fact, it just made it worse - a disgrace to the proper usage of the word cupid. Therefore, my sons do not use “word substitutions” like cupid for stupid. They are told to check their intentions and if they are calling people names, it doesn’t matter what name they come up with, it is still a bad thing to say.

P.S. Leche in Bisaya is similar to the n-word. It is basically calling somebody “white skinned” as an indication of immorality (for example, divorce and abortion are illegal in Philippine law, but it is allowed in America).

 

[Luvya]

What I am hearing, then, is that it is all right to be disrespectful toward others, because a) people do it all the time and b) the person might deserve it.

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that respect or disrespect is more than just the usage of ONE word. And from the fact that I do not consider hypocrits worthy of respect it does not follow that other people are not worthy of respect. I try very hard not to generalize.

I think this is the issue at the heart of this discussion if you really think about it carefully.

That is not what I had in mind, but if you insist, we can talk about it. I am still interested in the “whys” of declaring some words as “dirty”.

The Christian message holds that it is not all right to be disrespectful to others whether or not it is frequently done, and whether or not the person deserves it.

If you say so. I am not aware of this “mandatory” respect.

What do you think of this? Do you agree or disagree?

Of course I disagree. It makes no sense to me to be respectful to a scoundrel, or a politician (But I repeat myself - as Mark Twain said.) .

 

[Luvya]

So we are to place blame for someone’s foul language upon those that hear it?

Where the heck do these misunderstandings come from? I deny that there is such a thing as “foul” language. If someone wants to interpret words as “dirty”, “foul”, “obscene”, “vulgar” (how many more synonyms can we find?) then the fault is with him or her. I am not responsible for the “filthy” connotations in his/her mind.

 

[Luvya]

I’m Filipino. In my language (no, it’s not Tagalog - I’m Bisaya), the spanish word for milk is vulgar. Yet, I can type it here… look… LECHE… in capital letters even and it doesn’t cause the forum to censor it out.

So, I learned a very good lesson with that - because English is only my 3rd language.

Words are important. The words you choose to speak indicates the thought you are trying to portray. I am teaching my children not to be chained by a word. I am teaching my children to have a very extensive vocabulary so that they can find the proper word to express their meaning without having to go to the gutter for it.

So that, when my neighbor decided to be a backyard dog-breeder and my kids go there to immerse themselves in the experience of dog-birth, they know that every time my neighbor calls his dog a (witch) he is using the proper word for its proper usage.

I had lunch with my niece and she was telling me how she got this new guinea pig, so I asked her, “What sex is it?”, and she looked at me in shock, her face turning red, and said in a really soft voice, “you’re not allowed to use that word”. And there it is - a little girl chained by a word…

Yet, the same little girl is happily calling my sons “cupid” instead of “stupid”… because, cupid is okay to say. My sons know that substituting cupid for stupid doesn’t make the sentence any better. As a matter of fact, it just made it worse - a disgrace to the proper usage of the word cupid. Therefore, my sons do not use “word substitutions” like cupid for stupid. They are told to check their intentions and if they are calling people names, it doesn’t matter what name they come up with, it is still a bad thing to say.

P.S. Leche in Bisaya is similar to the n-word. It is basically calling somebody “white skinned” as an indication of immorality (for example, divorce and abortion are illegal in Philippine law, but it is allowed in America).

Thank you very much for your great contribution.

By the way the astonomical phrase: “black hole” is an unutterable expression in Russian. Go figure…

 

[phoooiee]

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that respect or disrespect is more than just the usage of ONE word.

Of course I disagree. It makes no sense to me to be respectful to a scoundrel, or a politician (But I repeat myself - as Mark Twain said.) .

But do you agree that one word can contribute to respect or disrespect?

I think it does make sense to be respectful to anyone, whether they are a scoundrel or not. We don’t have to respect their actions, but we do have to respect them.

Do you not see this in Christianity? If not, why not?

 

[vz71]

Where the heck do these misunderstandings come from? I deny that there is such a thing as “foul” language. If someone wants to interpret words as “dirty”, “foul”, “obscene”, “vulgar” (how many more synonyms can we find?) then the fault is with him or her. I am not responsible for the “filthy” connotations in his/her mind.

No, but you are responsible for the language you choose to use.

Words mean things. The meaning is dictated by the usage in society. You do not get to say what the meaning is.
If you choose to use words that are commonly used as profanity, then you accept blame for the use of the profanity. Those that hear such language from you are not at fault for the language you use.

 

[Luvya]

But do you agree that one word can contribute to respect or disrespect?

I certainly do.

I think it does make sense to be respectful to anyone, whether they are a scoundrel or not. We don’t have to respect their actions, but we do have to respect them.

No, I don’t think so. The person’s actions reflect on what they are. I would even say that the person is the sum of their actions - loosely speaking of course. If their actions do not merit respect, why should they merit it? I simply see no reason for it.

Do you not see this in Christianity? If not, why not?

There are many Christian teachings. Some of them I agree with, some of them I do not.

 

[Luvya]

No, but you are responsible for the language you choose to use.

Words mean things. The meaning is dictated by the usage in society. You do not get to say what the meaning is.
If you choose to use words that are commonly used as profanity, then you accept blame for the use of the profanity. Those that hear such language from you are not at fault for the language you use.

I agree with everything you said here. What I do not accept is the arbitrary designation of some words as “profane” (another nice synonym). Let’s be clear. There are many things that a certain society holds good or acceptable. There are also many things that a certain society considers bad or unacceptable. These are facts, and I accept facts. Some of these are simply “words”. What I am wondering about is how come that some “words” get bad reputation?

Here is an interesting and true story. About 70 years ago, a theater wanted to perform a play in Los Angeles. To attract audience they named it: “Twelve dirty plays”, and wanted to advertize it in the paper (oh, yes, most people LIKE dirty stuff). Censorship was prevalent at the time, and the censor declared that the ad was unacceptable since the word “dirty” was “dirty”. Mind boggling suupidity! If the word “dirty” is dirty, then the censor cannot use it, since dirty words cannot be used. But if the censor cannot declare something dirty, then it is not dirty any more. Finally the theater caved in, and placed the ad as “twelve clean plays”. Needless to say no one went to see it. Obviosly people are not interested in clean plays.

 

[phoooiee]

No, I don’t think so. The person’s actions reflect on what they are. I would even say that the person is the sum of their actions - loosely speaking of course. If their actions do not merit respect, why should they merit it? I simply see no reason for it.

The point is that, in some small way, the use of words clearly designed to denote lack of respect contribute to the sum of a person’s actions, using your terminology.

I don’t think you answered my last question.

Do you see this in Christianity- that the Christian is mandated to respect a person no matter what their actions?

 

[Little_One0307]

Hi,

Someone once told me that if one used obscene words it displayed there lack of intelligence. As rich and varies are the words of our wonderful English langauge there are many words that would better express our feelings than obsence words.

I do agree with them. I don’t think one actually thinks when they cuss, it’s just so ingrained.

God Bless.