“The following article contains euphemisms for, and references to, matters scatological (albeit in the best possible taste). Reader discretion is advised.”<\/p>\n
Or to put it another way, if poo isn\u2019t your cup of tea, please move on.<\/p>\n
About a year ago, the New Zealand Herald\u2019s website carried an article<\/a> that ridiculed the way society avoids talking directly about procreation, defecation, and termination (aka death).<\/p>\n As a species, we engage in all three activities. Admittedly, many individuals<\/em> abstain\u2014or claim to abstain\u2014from one of them (I wonder if you can guess which one) but as a species<\/em> we engage in all three.<\/p>\n I thought the discussion merited prolongation, so here, dear reader, is my contribution.<\/p>\n (Propriety forbids me from explaining that sub-heading, but trust me, there is a connection. If you don’t believe me, please ask.)<\/p>\n Instead of \u201cmating\u201d or \u201chaving sex\u201d, we \u201cgo to bed with\u201d or \u201csleep with\u201d or \u201cmake love to\u201d. Okay, so \u201cmating\u201d sounds utilitarian\u2014something (other) animals do. \u201cHaving sex\u201d is at least honest although it doesn\u2019t connote a romantic coupling so much as a duty.<\/p>\n But \u201cSleep with\u201d is one that\u2019s always puzzled me. It\u2019s usually used in the context of illicit liaisons, and the \u201csleeping\u201d part is not what raises people\u2019s eyebrows (or precipitates a crime passionnel<\/em>). It also robs us of the phrase we would use to describe the act of merely <\/em>sleeping with another person without eliciting smirks, snickers, elbow nudges and the like.<\/p>\n It wasn\u2019t that long ago that \u201cmaking love\u201d meant romantic wooing, or as the OED says, \u201cPay amorous attention to\u201d. I suppose it was a less salacious synonym for \u201cflirting\u201d. We all know what it means nowadays though. And it seems to be the phrase du jour<\/em> for connoting a loving, romantic, monogamous, consensual coupling.<\/p>\n There are numerous synonyms to draw upon, the majority of them neither euphemistic nor suitable for use in polite company. Some that I can mention here (because I\u2019ve seen them in newspapers, so they must be suitable, right?) include \u201cbonk\u201d (\u201cboink\u201d in the USA) and \u201chump\u201d. I\u2019m sure everyone is aware of others.<\/p>\n As a side note, the OED cites the origin of \u201cbonk\u201d as \u201cimitative\u201d. Can anyone enlighten me?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n But since this piece is about euphemisms, let\u2019s see what other terms we can trawl up.<\/p>\n \u201cDo the dirty\u201d is one curious candidate. In some ways, it\u2019s worse than some less acceptable ones in that it draws attention to the reason many people are reluctant to refer directly to the act. And \u201cDo the deed\u201d sounds like checking an item off a to-do list.<\/p>\n \u201cHave relations with\u201d always makes me feel uncomfortable. It sounds like something that is rumoured to go on in certain states in the USA. (y\u2019know\u2026 five thousand residents\u2014three last names\u2026).<\/p>\n And finally, \u201cbe intimate with\u2026\u201d really isn\u2019t precise enough. There\u2019s \u201cintimate\u201d and \u201cintimate<\/em>\u201d. We refer to \u201cintimate acquaintances\u201d but that rarely means that we are or have been \u201cintimate<\/em>\u201d with them.<\/p>\n Americans seem to be the worst offenders here, especially with the venue. Of all the terms listed in my fifty names to give your crapper<\/a>, at least eight of the most delicate euphemisms can be blamed on the Americans. Admittedly Brits went through a phase of toilet terminology avoidance, but Americans seem to be getting worse\u2014the most recent adoption (according to my limited research) is \u201ccommode\u201d\u2014a word that in my experience was a piece of furniture with a potty under its lid.<\/p>\n The etymology of words and phrases related to defecation itself is long and tangled, and I have yet to find the original English word for the substance or the act, but suffice it to say that the phrase \u201cTwosies\u201d doesn\u2019t appear in Beowulf, any of the writings of the Venerable Bede, or even Samuel Pepys\u2019 diary<\/a> (he uses the \u201csh\u201d word in such a way as to imply that it was a socially acceptable word in his time.)<\/p>\n <\/b>We all die\u2014it\u2019s one of those inevitabilities of life. No amount of money can prevent it (yet)\u2014it can only forestall it somewhat.<\/p>\n Yet because we regard death as unpleasant, undesirable and upsetting, we don\u2019t use the \u201cd\u201d word, preferring to employ multi-word euphemisms.<\/p>\n Why?<\/p>\n Root canal work is unpleasant and undesirable, but we don\u2019t beat about the bush and call it \u201cintra-dental repair\u201d or \u201cfoundational infrastructure reconstruction\u201d.<\/p>\n Colonoscopies, digital prostate checks and many other medical intrusions are not what people willingly line up for, yet we call those particular spades spades<\/a>. So why beat about the bush with the final curtain? (I\u2019m so<\/em> proud of that mixed metaphor!)<\/p>\n Monty Python\u2019s Dead Parrot sketch is among the best and most comprehensive repositories of euphemisms for the last thing we do in life. However, the pet shop customer (usually John Cleese) isn\u2019t trying to skirt around the subject\u2014he uses the euphemisms as synonyms to reinforce his point and convince the pet shop assistant (Michael Palin) that the parrot has indeed checked the last item off on its to-do list.<\/p>\n All the synonyms Cleese uses are either sugar-coated euphemisms or jocular ones. \u201cPushing up the daisies\u201d is one of my favourites, up there with \u201cdirt nap\u201d (which came into being since that sketch was written.)<\/p>\n But people do go to great lengths to avoid the \u201cd\u201d word. Even goldfish \u201cpass away\u201d these days, before being flushed down the \u201ccommode\u201d.<\/p>\n Using euphemisms for sex and poop and rock-and-roll\u2014I mean death\u2014is to me as pointless as using euphemisms for what were (and in some places still are) regarded as blasphemous words.<\/p>\n Gad for God, heck for hell, cripes and crikey for Christ, Gee for Jesus: blimey, gadzooks, gee whiz, jeepers, for crying out loud, Sam Hill, darn, dash, dang, and so on\u2014we all know what is really being said, yet because a person isn\u2019t using the actual words, they somehow think that the big guy upstairs doesn\u2019t know they\u2019re blaspheming or being irreverent, albeit by proxy. Yet if the big guy\u2019s omniscient, there\u2019s no fooling him (or her or they or it).<\/p>\n So let\u2019s call a spade a spade, a shovel a shovel, a poop a poop, an act of coitus a bit of slap and tickle, and that Discworld character that talks in upper case DEATH.<\/p>\n I’m off now, to partake in one of the three activities. While I’m at it, I hope to come up with an \u00a0 \u00a0 outline for next week’s column.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" “The following article contains euphemisms for, and references to, matters scatological (albeit in the best possible taste). Reader discretion is advised.” Or to put it another way, if poo isn\u2019t your cup of tea, please move on. About a year ago, the New Zealand Herald\u2019s website carried an article that ridiculed the way society avoids talking directly about procreation, defecation,… Read more »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[489,490],"tags":[637,635,636,280,634],"class_list":["post-1416","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-scat","category-the-commentaries","tag-death","tag-defecation","tag-dying","tag-poop","tag-procreation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/reggothard.com\/kelvin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1416","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/reggothard.com\/kelvin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/reggothard.com\/kelvin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/reggothard.com\/kelvin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/reggothard.com\/kelvin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1416"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"http:\/\/reggothard.com\/kelvin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1416\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1430,"href":"http:\/\/reggothard.com\/kelvin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1416\/revisions\/1430"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/reggothard.com\/kelvin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1416"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/reggothard.com\/kelvin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1416"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/reggothard.com\/kelvin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1416"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}One<\/strong><\/h1>\n
\n
Two(sies)<\/strong><\/h1>\n
Three (Strikes and You\u2019re Out)<\/b><\/h1>\n
Summary<\/strong><\/h1>\n