There are three main categories of profanity in the English language: religious, sexual, and excretory. It seems that the former category has become the most acceptable (d–n, h–l, G-d d—ed, by G-d), being allowed, for example, in prime time American broadcast television, while the other two categories retain a more limited usage.
When expletives began to be used in mainstream American television, it was generally the two most common “four letter words.” George Carlin’s list was approved by the judiciary as legal, and has, mostly, been oibserved. But, we’ve seen the range of profanity increase, from other directions. Some obscene terms, such as “sucks” and “bite me,” have become completely normalized, to the point of being heard even in children’s programming. Otherwise we have seen an increase in sexist, or chauvenistic, profanity as well, such as b—h.
It says something about social trends, that religious profanity is considered the most acceptable.
The greatest profanity in North America right now isn’t on your list: it’s n*gger.
If you really want to shock someone, or to kick up a storm, use a racial epithet.
I think you’ve missed the most important category.
~~
I’d argue over a beer that there is a law of conservation of profanity. That english (and probably most languages) has a finite number of slots it’s willing to devote to profanity. As new (or newly stigmatised) words enter the list, others drop off.
You can easily research a long list of words which have once been obscene and now aren’t, as well as a few with decades or centuries of longevity.
~~
Taboo words betray social anxiety. Race is a massive source of angst in the US, so it’s currently at the top of the list. Language change over time is famously impossible to predict, but I think the current degree of polarization in the United States over religion will probably see many blasphemous terms heading back up the list.
Terms like ‘damnation’ and ‘hell’ are never going to be banned from broadcast not because
they are acceptable as profanity, but because they are part of the theological vocabulary.
They are regularly used by preachers, and nobody thinks that they are ‘swearing’ at their
parishoners. So, since the words cannot be barred on their face as valueless (as the
sex and defecation words are), this means that they cannot be stopped from being used
as profanity. I don’t think it has anything to do with social direction, other than as a side effect
of having banned seven vulgar words.
It would be interesting if a Christian group started lobbying for the reinstatement of permitting
the vulgar words in order to reduce the amount of profanity in screenplays… unlikely, though.
There was a recent case where a sexual expletive was ruled not to have contradicted the law because used in a different context, wasn’t there?
Nevertheless, I think the general trend predates the loosening of broadcast standards by the networks, and that the religious expletives (or at least the less specific ones, mentioned) had already become more acceptable than the other two main categories.
Terms like ‘damnation’ and ‘hell’ are never going to be banned from broadcast not because
they are acceptable as profanity, but because they are part of the theological vocabulary.
They are regularly used by preachers, and nobody thinks that they are ‘swearing’ at their
parishoners. So, since the words cannot be barred on their face as valueless (as the
sex and defecation words are), this means that they cannot be stopped from being used
as profanity.
Hmm. Back when these were taboo, they were just as theological. The power of blasphemy is in the violation of category, when the sacred is turned to profane purposes. Blasphemy, then, NEEDS that sacred purpose, or else the terms lose their power.
I’m of the same mind as you. Blasphemy and spirituality based damnation is about as disrespecful as you can get reagardless of your belief.
Then again, I’ve been known to say “Holy Cow!” - and that could be offensive to a Hindu.
There was a hilarious Lenny Bruce bust for obscenity, hilarious because the court case illustrated an interesting confusion.
Lenny Bruce, as was his want, gave a stage performance in NYC I think in which he uttered many expletives, most Yiddish terms but some in English. He was arrested and charged and, in due course, his case came before a jury. The arresting officer was asked to give evidence and the first question, not surprsingly, was ‘What did he say?’ Glancing around the courtroom he noticed several women on the jury. ‘No, I can’t say your honour, not in front of the ladies.’ ‘Well we don’t have a case unless you tell us what the defendant said; will you write it down to pass around the jury.’ ‘But there are ladies on the jury your honour. I can’t pass it around to the ladies.’ ‘Case dismissed.’
Clearly there’s confusion here, but what is the confusion exactly? To a philosopher, it looks like the police officer is confused: he can’t tell the difference between using a word and merely referring to it. (How can you ban the use of certain words unless you explicitly list them somewhere?)
On second thoughts, maybe it is the very word itself that is offensive when torn from it’s appropriate context. This seems to be what is going on. Yet this can’t be right can it? Surely placing a word on a list can’t be inappropriate if it truly belongs on the list. If ‘damn’ has a place in sermons then why not on lists of words that shouldn’t be used without religious underpinning?
I was amused to see that Walden’s first post spells out some words fully while only hinting at others. I’m pretty sure Walden isn’t at all confused about the difference between using a word and merely mentioning it.
Yes it’s interesting that the popular media does not interpret religious profanity as profanity yet they avoid scatological references. However gender related slurs are tolerated.
Racial slurs are tolerated and even considered funny if those slurs are directed at caucasions. They are not considered funny and are veritably banned if directed at non-caucasions unless it is a non-caucasion directing the slur at it’s own race.
Now from my viewpoint I cut my teeth on some of the finest cussin’ in Southwest Michigan. Why, my dear old Pappy could invent cuss words on the fly. On the other hand, my Grandma never swore but could make the most innocuous words sound bad if she were angry. Happily I aquired that trait as well. Put them together and add six years in the Navy and I ended up with a full, rich vocabulary for all occasions.
I’ve always been of the opinion that true obscenity is found in the ears that hear (actually, in the brain that understands), moreso than in the mouth that speaks.
Here’s a case in point: if I say “God!”, the exact same word with only subtle differences in nuance and intent can mean anything from profound admiration to profound respect to profound awe to profound disgust. The word as written doesn’t change–the way you pronounce it doesn’t change–so what does change?
The way you understand it to be meant.
Intent.
The true obscenity is in the intention of the speaker.
I miss good powerful swear words that you could pull out when ever you were really mad. When I was younger you could offend some one with one word. Now you have to think of something sinister, and really mean it, to get under someone’s skin. I blame the rappers. F-- this F-- that… … it is just numbing. Like calling everything special. When I was a kid, that was a compliment. Now it just rolls off as something polite to say.
Our language has gravitated towards extremes and now we have no words to describe those things that are extreme. “Would you like a large, huge, or superfantastic fun sized coffee.” I do not think that society has become more excepting, but that most swear words have lost most of their meaning. Which would you think about more is someone said this to you.
“You smell like shit!” Common.
“You smell like feces!” Descriptive.
That sounds sooo defecatory! When we were kids, and attracted to a little swearing, my cousins and I never liked the simple swear words because they lacked sophistication. They sounded so rude and thoughtless. For example, we’d never say f**k you, or damn you. Instead we’d ask, “do ye wish to be classed with the fornicators?” Or, “mister, are ye seeking eternal damnation?” It was more effective and less offensive to frame it in old English and as a question.
Only one time did I ever hear my cousin say “f**k ye!” I knew he must be really disgusted. At least he was able to control his tongue to some extent and I think it has stuck with me all these years because he thoughtfully combined the new and the old.
There was an old hippy in town that wanted to call his music store Hot Shit Music, but the city council wouldn’t hear of it. So, all these years, Walla Wallans have had to suffer from the words [u]Hot Poop Music[/u] whenever they went shopping for records. What a waste.
profanity is a state of mind. the actual act of speaking is not obscene. obscene is lack of truth and integrity in words. that which fails to honor truth becomes obscene by default. wonderfully sounding speakers can be obscene if their words deceive. no?
people can speak freely. i have to moderate myself. and speak truthfully. judging others manner of speech as obscene gets you no where but further into hypocracy. all judgments of speech must be applied only to self in order to free oneself from the bondage of profanity. what a load of bs eh?
I wish there were more profanity and obscene words on American television and less violence. Teach the kids that it matters much more what one does than what one says.
Wombat, btw, I think is onto something: There is this medieval streak in American society that regards certain words and phrases as magical, incantations, that have sinister power all by themselves (meaning that there is no difference between saying and using those words and phrases).