Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 10:19:31 EST From: seven little words? Subject: TECH: A Few Good Words (or how do we define obscenity...) (contains some words commonly identified as obscene, but very little erotic interest. occasional crude jokes attempted...) "So it's obscene if politics gets in the way of friendship; friendship should be more important than politics." Norman Mailer, C-SPAN interview. [I may regret this...] Somewhere in the recent (or ongong? hear them balls aringing?) fray, I think someone mentioned the poverty of always depending on the same tired slang, while someone else questioned where one might discover a list of identified obscene words... I suspect both comments may have been rhetorical, but I decided to take a quick look (it started as a quick look, anyway) at my reference shelves. For your edification, this is a list of words for the penis (fair warning, the list is rather long, dry and somewhat boring [should we avoid the obvious cheap comparison? well, probably] ): "Penis n. cock, prick, dick, dork, pecker, peter, pee-pee, pisser, pistol, joint, hose, bazooka, affair, business, agate (small), middle leg, third leg, pencil, dummy, meat, weenie, peenie, stick, joy-stick, dipstick, swizzle stick, bone, enob, knob, joy knob, bishop, bicho, wang, thing, putz, schmeckel, schmuck, schwantz, pup, rod, hot rod, humpmobile, pole, pego, percy, oscar, pinga (Sp.), pud, dong, dang, dagger, banana, cucumber, kosher pickle (circumcised), baloney, sausage, salami, frankfurter, wurst, pork, peppermint stick, shlong, dink, dingus, staff, doodle, gun, head, tool, plunger, fountain pen, arm, short arm, jack, jock, big Ben, Mr. Happy, John Thomas, Johnson, junior, redcap, Rumpleforeskin, jigger, ding, hickey, fag, booboos, yang, ying yang, jang, jing jang, tootsie roll, divining rod, pike, piston, prod, serpent, snake, one-eyed monster, one-eyed wonder, stalk, shaft, prong, spear, sword, jellyroll, meat whistle, skin flute, piccolo, love muscle, rod of love, root, roto rooter, worm, instrument, machine, baby maker, nuts and bolts, banger, poker, hammer, rammer, ramrod, battering ram, charger, stretcher, peace maker, cherry picker, basket, heart, hotchee, log, maypole, pole, pylon, hung (big), hung like a bull, hung like a chicken, hung like a rabbit, stub, dangling participle; meat and two vegetables, Dickie and the boys (penis and testicles) (all Obsc.). [p. 276 in The Random House Thesaurus of Slang, by Esther Lewin and Albert E. Lewin, ISBN 0-679-72700-0] Observations? Well, there's a cluster of mechanical stuff: pistol, hose, bazooka, pencil, stick, joy-stick, dipstick, swizzle stick, knob, joy knob, rod, hot rod, humpmobile, pole, dagger, staff, gun, tool, plunger, fountain pen, big Ben, piston, prod, shaft, spear, sword, rod of love, instrument, machine, nuts and bolts, poker, hammer, rammer, ramrod, battering ram, cherry picker There are a bunch of foods: meat, banana, cucumber, kosher pickle (circumcised), baloney, sausage, salami, frankfurter, wurst, pork, peppermint stick, jellyroll, (hum? could banger be the british banger? in a bun?) meat and two vegetables And there are some interesting ones...(a bit of frivolous commentary by moi, since the list of obscene words was so boring) kosher pickle (circumcised)? what does this imply about sweet dills, baby gherkins, and the rest of the supermarket spread? Maybe we shouldn't think about pickle relish? (hey, hey, I said we weren't going to think about it, now you stop that right now!) pork -- oh my, that's not kosher! so don't let the rabbi know what you had in your mouth...or at least don't swallow...(did I say I was going to avoid all the cheap jokes?) big Ben -- and when the clock strikes twelve! WOW! Rumpleforeskin -- ah, the tales of Rumpleforeskin! Sounds like a wonderful bedtime story, just right for under the covers? divining rod -- dousing for water? meat whistle, skin flute, piccolo -- dadadum, the symphony of love. but what about the violins playing romance, the bass drums pounding, and let us not forget the little bongo drums? kinda puts a whole different slant on that song "Seventy-Six trombones led the big parade...", though, doesn't it? dangling participle -- what? a pseudo-literary turn of slang in the middle of all these euphemisms? not so incidentally, the list of words for vagina is less than half as long. I'll let you draw your own conclusions as to why this linguistic inequality exists...but I do think a campaign for more obscene words is in order! [let's hear it for obscenity! give me an F! F give me a U! U give me... oh, that's right, I'm supposed to be agin it? but you should see the list of words for sexual intercourse (verb or noun?). really...there's lots more to play with than just penises!] But...in regards to this notion that single words are somehow objectionable...well, there are some problems. First off, a single word, untimely ripp'd from his mother's womb (Macduff, in Macbeth, V, vii, 44) lacking all context and so forth...it's a little like taking one of the 26 letters of the alphabet and declaring it obscene. Can't hardly be done. ++++++++++++++herewith, an interlude+++++++++++++++++++++++ Story the first...suppose, just for a moment, that someone walked by you and said "chickshow." How would you react? Puzzled? Maybe a "huh?" If you are in Japan and happen to understand Japanese, you might react a bit more strongly. This is perhaps one of the strongest words available--and all it literally means is "YOU ANIMAL!" (but in a thoroughly unacceptable way in the Japanese context). I think this says something about words only having meaning(s) in context. ++++++++++++++here endeth interlude the first+++++++++++++++++++++++ Secondly, even if we look at the Miller test for obscenity (our current best judicial pronouncement on the business): (a) whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the work taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. [from Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)] Do the three parts of the test implicate single words? 1. Would an average person with contemporary standards think that the work AS A WHOLE appeals to the prurient interest? (note: single words need not apply) 2. Does the work depict or describe in a patently offensive way sexual conduct which has been specifically defined in state law? (I sort of suspect that depiction or description of sexual conduct in a patently offensive way may take more than a single word in most cases) 3. Does the work AS A WHOLE lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value? (again, single words need not apply) It seems rather clear that this legal test for obscenity has little or nothing to do with single words. Instead, it requires us to look at the work as a whole. [BTW--prurient appears to be interesting...having or arising from lewd thoughts is what the OAD says...other sources refer to the "obsessive interest in sex" or "a lascivious, shameful, or morbid interest in sex." one of the legal footnotes referred to suggests that prurient interest is "a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion, which goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters and is matter which is utterly without redeeming social importance."] ++++++++++++++herewith, another interlude+++++++++++++++++++++++ Story the second...imagine for a moment that you are out with my uncle. You watch him raise a hammer and firmly bring it down on his thumb. And in a loud voice, he says, "JELLYBEANS!" Jellybeans? My uncle grew up in a time and place where public swearing was not acceptable. He has taught himself for years to use "Jellybeans" in place of other forms of cursing. It may be hard to imagine, but the depth of feeling and anger that he puts into those innocent syllables certainly transformed it from an ordinary word into something special when I was growing up. Again, I think this says something about words, meanings, and their context. ++++++++++++++here endeth interlude the second+++++++++++++++++++++++ Let me see if I can summarize this in a way that makes some sort of sense. Q: Are there single words that are so offensive that we cannot use them on this list? A: You must be joking, right? Q: Well, then, are there ways of interacting which are so offensive that deliberate, repeated use of them on this list will lead to sanctions, up to and including removal of the privilege of membership on this list? A: Sure there are. For example, off the top of the past exploitations, we have stalking, spamming, harassment, trolling for emotional reactions and fights, etc. Notice that none of these involves specific words--although the use of so-called obscenities and other "humor" may indeed be part of the pattern of abuse of the social interaction. (see http://web.mit.edu/mbarker/www/faqs/w21535.txt "FAQ: A Preliminary List of Sparks and Irritants" http://web.mit.edu/mbarker/www/writers/fill951205.txt "FILLER: List Abuse and Great Writing" http://web.mit.edu/mbarker/www/faqs/hara970530.txt "SUB: FAQ: Draft Harassment Policy for WRITERS (5/30/1997)" http://web.mit.edu/mbarker/www/writers/t012448.txt "In Praise of Having Opinions" http://web.mit.edu/mbarker/www/writers/tech970810.txt "TECH: Using (and abusing) Email List Communications" http://web.mit.edu/mbarker/www/writers/fill970515.txt "FILLER: A Plea For WRITERS" and others down under http://web.mit.edu/mbarker/www/writers.html for some discussion of problem areas we've encountered in the past and will undubitably repeat our skids and swerves around on occasion in the future...) Q: Do these ways of interacting sometimes involve "obscenity" or "profanity" (even of the single word flavor, as silly as that may be)? A: Of course. For example, one use of obscenity, of crudeness and rudeness, of what is often called "locker room humor" is as a form of testing, of pushing the boundaries of our social interaction--will you let me get away with this? If so, then will you let me get away with THIS? (personal soapbox, here: this kind of pushing is a bit like the sad games played on so many dates, often with such tragic results. sorry, but contrary to American teenage mythology, there is no prize for how far you get or how fast you ruin a relationship...only for building a relationship, which may depend on NOT "getting any.") The defenses are prepared and layered, in case of objection. "Oh, it was just a joke, don't be so sensitive." "Are you some kind of a priest or something? What's wrong with you?" "Well, if that's the way you feel, you don't have to listen!" Note that the effect of these defenses is to ensure that the person who objects is isolated, shunned, turned into a social outcast. So if you accept the aggression (submit to the indignity) you are rewarded with social acceptance (in the "inner group" of the alpha molester--just where you wanted to be, right?). If you question or reject the advance, you are the one with a problem. Q: But...do "obscenities" (the loosely defined term for words or phrases which are not generally acceptable in all social contexts, although they may be acceptable or even seemingly de rigor in some) or "locker room humor" always involve harassment or other unacceptable ways of interacting? A: No. The world is not that simple. Context, framing, and a host of other variables always affect our understanding and grasp of communications. Sorry, but the world just isn't that simple. ++++++++++++++herewith, yet one more interlude+++++++++++++++++++++++ "Why do we have to scream at each other? This is what it sounds like When doves cry..." From "When Doves Cry" by Prince ++++++++++++++this endeth interlude the third+++++++++++++++++++++++ Let me quote a bit from The Last Word on the Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense by Dr. Elgin, ISBN 0-13-524083-2. (p. 142) "Suppose you make an interesting, rational, and compelling speech, and you do that while wearing a purple velvet floppy hat with rabbit ears and scarlet satin roses. Then that hat is a _twirk_ -- and it will seriously interfere with the manner in which your speech is heard and understood by your audience...." (p. 143) "A twirk is a feature of language behavior which attracts so much attention to itself that it outweighs both the content and the form of the speech it occurs with." Now, the collection of twirks which Dr. Elgin recommends we consider carefully in trying to make our speech (or writing) better reach our audience includes pronunciation twirks (e.g. pronouncing tar and tire the same), grammar and usage, boundary words and phrases, academic regalian, jargon, and other twirks. There is also a section on the twirk of obscenities, curses, and epithets. (p. 153) "Obscenities, Curses, and Epithets" "I assume that I need to say very little about this group. You are free to construct your own examples of curses and obscenities. So far as I know, these have only two functions: (a) to serve as verbal abuse; and (b) to serve as a signal that you are part of a group where the use of curses and obscenities is a characteristic of that group. A useful rule, especially in cross-cultural situations, is this one: If you're not sure whether it is a curse or obscenity or not, assume that it _is_ one. Then proceed as you would with any certified curse or obscenity." "An epithet differs from a curse or obscenity in being less formalized; you can make up epithets and be sure that they will be recognized as epithets, which is not always true of curses and obscenities. Epithets range from such basic uglies as 'you idiot' and 'you creep' to the most elaborate and fanciful uglies like 'you intemperate and indecisive hypervegetarian excuse for a philosopher!' Both kinds will serve primarily to distract your listener from whatever else you say at the time." Notice, if you will, that the problem that Dr. Elgin points to with twirks is that they interfere with communications. And that is where I take my stand, as usual. We're here to write. That means encouraging communications, not discouraging them. If you want to use any word you need because it makes the communication clearer and reaches more people, fostering strong, honest responses from them -- damn it, go for it! Write. Help people to open up, to participate. Help them to feel comfortable no matter whether they are different or not, whether they agree with you or not, whatever their background. And give each person room to be themselves. Make your writing effective, so that it sets out to show us something and does it. Make your writing constructive, so that we learn something positive. Do your posting with respect for the human values, human feelings, and the human beings that are your audience. Do your writing in a way that makes you better, that lets you grow on the path of self-improvement. And make your contribution--even if it seems small, just do it. And in time, we'll see the earth move because of all those small contributions. Just write. tink