I solemnly swear...

[undyingking]

I'm trying to do something to sort out my swearing. Not whether I do too much of it or not -- that's a subject for another day, and for the disapproving parents of any children who might be listening. But I'm concerned that most of my swearing doesn't really make sense. Can you help? Things I feel I should exclude:

• Parts of the body -- what's insulting about calling someone after a part of the body? We've all got one (or, more often, about half of us have got one). Some of the parts commonly so used are actually among my favourites, and even the others are very usefully functional. So I think to implicitly malign them in such comparisons is nonsensical. Likewise normal bodily functions and waste products.


• Sexual practices -- whether or not I indulge in, or even approve of them, myself, I don't think it makes sense to impute specific sexual practices to the insultee. Outside the world of swearing I wouldn't dream of judging someone on the basis of their sexual preferences, so how can it work as an insult?


• Suggesting their parents weren't married -- really now, we're living in the 21st century guys. This is true of half the kids I know, and nothing wrong with that.


• Blasphemy -- generating invective via terms associated with religious belief makes no sense if you're a believer yourself, and even less if you're not.


• Euphemisms associated with any of the above -- should also be excluded, for the obvious reason.

That doesn't seem to leave much! Any ideas?

[Poll #1359991]

Comments

I think you left some off the proscription list

[cleanskies.livejournal.com]

Like, everything involved in dirt filth and the fecal zone -- not just some shitting crapping piss-fiddling slimemould wormy lice-ridden piddling mealy-mouthed scab omission there, but a major zone of filth dirt scum talk, you poxy two-headed son of a bitch*!

Dog, the point of the swear is it's what the mind first reaches for to express discontent. It's going to be something you think about a lot, so good luck with banning sex. You can probably get rid of god, he only comes to me as an expression of mild irritation at something going wrong in an absolutely typical way nowadays.

*I think that plenty of pirate talk may still be open for business also.

Re: I think you left some off the proscription list

[bluedevi.livejournal.com]

"Pox" is an interesting point. You can get rid of normal, healthy bodily functions, and still have the whole area of bodily malfunction and disease, without being body-negative.

You syphilitic snotrag, you. (Not actually you. Or you)

Re: I think you left some off the proscription list

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

There may be some fruit there, although I think a lot of them come under the "normal bodily functions and waste products" proscription.

Oh, and I should have excluded animals too. What's insulting about nice cuddly animals? Nothing. Even slimemoulds.

And genetic defects such as two-headedness. Such a condition should inspire sympathy and understanding, not rudery.

Although people do think about sex a lot, hopefully they do so in a generally positive way? So I'm not sure that really is the inspiration channel... "You [put down that Nespresso and take me, George Clooney]!" doesn't ring true to me.

I take the point about the two-headedness, though

[cleanskies.livejournal.com]

I fucking HATE those Nespresso ads. Actually, I don't really like putting George Clooney into the same area of my brain as fucking at all, ew. Perhaps the swear intrusion is a contextual one -- introducing a fuck into a context where it would be wholly inappropriate, thereby removing its original meaning and leaving only outrage.

I'd hold out for finding various bodily function highly unpleasant, and therefore entirely appropriate to sling at horrible things. Although by that logic I'd be calling people puke and vomit, and things period and bloody tampon.

Animals are cuddly, sure -- but when you're calling a person bitch, rat, weasel, you're actually calling them a furry.

Furry godmother

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

I guess anti-furry prejudice is bad too, although maybe not as bad as anti-Clooney prejudice.

I think you're right that it's reasonable to retain bodily functions as available, although I suppose I personally would prefer not to. "Bloody tampon" would certainly apply to Prince Charles.

Re: I think you left some off the proscription list

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

Hmm. "You utter Nestlé" has a certain something...