"Wee, po, belly, bum, drawers"!

Ma's out, Pa's out,
Lets talk rude,
Pee, po, belly, bum, drawers.
Let's run through the garden in the nude,
Pee, po, belly, bum, drawers.
Let's write rude words all down our street,
Stick out our tongues at the people we meet,
Let's have an intellectual treat,
Pee, po, belly, bum, drawers.

Some of you may remember Flanders & Swann's amusing ditty on the efforts of little children to use naughty words.  It seemed an appropriate introduction to my topic today which is swearing.  This all-too-human activity has been in the news recently with one of our football team managers delivering a one minute tirade aimed at the media which contained 52 swear words.  It reminded me of an occasion in Singapore back in the '60s when I spent an evening drinking with some Aussie soldiers whose ability to interject a four-letter expletive at the rate of one every third word made their spoken sentences so long and so convoluted that all syntax was lost.  Anyway, it induced me to ponder on the nature of swearing, and it goes without saying that if four-letter words upset you then read no further.

I am no etymologist, as will become embarrassingly clear in this post, but I assume that the main sources of swear words are bodily functions and religion, but this raises the question as to why such topics are considered improper.  Of course, religion, in the Britain of the past and most of the rest of the world today, was a delicate if not downright dangerous activity.  Any use, or mis-use, of it's sacred words and phrases could bring down severe retribution, and thus, such usage was confined to moments of extreme passion such as fear or anger, or, the words were disguised, like "bloody" so that they filled that no man's land between outright sacrilege and the language of polite society.  Swear words based on bodily functions are obviously useful to those who wish to shock a polite society in which references to such things as sexual organs and excreta are avoided.  The interesting question is why they are avoided in the first place?  What is it about these two human activities that make most of us flinch if they are brought up in conversation using uncompromising language?  Indeed, most of us would seek to change the subject even if it was spoken of in the most technically and medically correct language.  My e-pal, Ion, has a series of posts on the subject of what she calls her "fanny" which, as far as I am concerned, very definitely come under the heading of "Information Overload"!  The intracies of women's 'bits' have always remained a mystey to me and the longer it stays that way the better, not only because I find the medical details mildly disgusting but also because I become intensely embarrassed.

Alas (for the sake of this rambling essay), all of that simply begs yet another question: Why do the details of bodily functions provoke such embarrassment?  It seems to me that it stems from a human nature imperative that, when reduced to basics, simply acknowledges the fact of morality, that is, a sense that some things are right and others are wrong.  This facet of human nature, of course, ties the sillier sort of 'Darwinistas' (eg; Richard Dawkins) into knots as they seek to explain away a characteristic which has no usefulness in the attainment of longlife and the maximisation of the chances to reproduce, and yet which applies to all humans everywhere, and of all times, but which is not shared by any other living thing.  Mind you, this sort of innate decency is currently under attack in our Western world.  Another of my e-pals, Sister Wolf, delights in the constant use of the word "cunt" but in doing so she fails miserably to project the image of a modern, intelligent, liberated woman and instead comes across as the sort of pathetically naughty little girl who would, when "Ma and Pa" are safely out, shout loudly, "Wee, po, belly, bum, drawers".  The dimmer sort of 'PoMo' rationalists would have you believe that swearing, or 'telling it the way it is', as they would put it, is the triumph of honesty over hypocrisy.  Such a belief is so inherently moronic that I cannot even be bothered to expose it. 

Of course, expletives have their uses as a means of releasing passion comparitively harmlessly in moments of dire distress, such as hitting your nail with a hammer!  Also, in honesty, I must admit that very occasionally I have seen expletives used with almost poetic effect.  I cannot be bothered to trudge back through the very smelly mire that constitutes 'Snotty McShot's' Blog but he did once produce a foul-mouthed diatribe of epic, one might even say, heroic, proportions; but then he's Irish and, presumably in relief at escaping the appalling spelling of the Gaelic language, they're always better at English, even English swearing, than we are!  Mention of 'Paddy' McShot reminds me that these days there is a new, post-modern 'swearing' that has taken over from the old-fashioned sort.  Thus, you may call the owner of your corner shop a cunt but never, on any account, a 'Paki', even if, and in fact, especially if,  he is one!

Well, as you suspected when you began reading , this essay of mine has gone nowhere and reached no brilliant conclusion - fuck it!

Comments

[Sister Wolf]

Hahaha! Fuck it, indeed!

I enjoy using the C-word, and have enjoyed it since the late 60s, when I lived in London and found the word to be virtually a synonym for 'bloke.'

I am also a huge fan of Derek & Clive (the drunken XXX-rated comedy riffs of Peter Cook and Dudley Moore.) If you're not familiar with it, I will send you a link, Mr. Duff.

I'm sorry that you see me as a pathetically naughty little girl, but I make no claims to being modern or liberated!

Yesterday, I was honored to be a guest on live public radio in Australia, to talk about my blog and my bete noir, Sarah Palin. I think I was invited to speak because the host enjoys reading my blog and finds me 'intelligent,' EVEN THOUGH I LIKE THE C-WORD!

What really concerns me, though, is your militant lack of interest in the "female bits." Are you not married, sir? I was under that impression. If you are indeed in a heterosexual relationship, I can promise that your partner would welcome your enthusiastic interest in her female bits!

If you're gay, of course, then never mind, carry on!

[David Duff]

'Sister Wolf', you have let me down! I was expecting a magnificently sustained riff of obscenities(*) from you and instead I read your restrained and witty response. Much more of this and I may consider moving my affections from the delicious Mrs. Palin to yourself - truly, a fate worse than death, leaving you with no alternative but to lie back and think of America!

By the way, whatever gave you the impression that married men have any interest in ladies' 'bits', er, beyond their availability as and when required, that is. From the occasionally overheard remarks of the 'Memsahib's' girl friends, my ignorance is shared by most of my male friends.

Finally, Madam, I am sure it was Lady Bracknell who said (and if she didn't, she should) that that Australians are not to be spoken of in polite society, and to be liked and admired by an *Australian* is a matter that any true lady would prefer to keep secret. I urge you , Madam, to take heed - consider your reputation!

(*) Not that I'm asking for one, honestly I'm not, he said, trembling!

[Sister Wolf]

Heed taken, sir.

In semi-related news, our mutual acquaintance of the Russian persuasion has actually deleted you from her elite blogroll, in consequence of our friendly banter.

Try to be flattered by such heated jealousy!

Could it have been Lady Windermere?

[David Duff]

No, 'Sister Wolf', I had not noticed receiving the 'unkindest cut of all' but I am not surprised. The lady is fierce, passionate and rather 'Old Testament', in the sense of assuming that 'the friend of mine enemy is also my enemy'. (I know another lady rather like that - no wonder the pair of you squabbled!) I simply cannot take very seriously any of the punch-ups that take place in Blogdom and God knows I've been involved in enough of them, but some people take it all very much to heart. Over here, with the exception of the kiddies in the Trot-lot creche and the mouth-breathers of the extreme Right, most people swap a few punches and then move on, so I put it down to cultural differences. However, in her particular case I'm not sure whether it was her Russian, American or Jewish heritage that makes her such an absolutist. Perhaps, as you qualify under two of those headings, you can tell me. Anyway, I am sorry to have lost her friendship because I rather like her.

[Sister Wolf]

I am an American of Russian Jewish heritage.

Perhaps if you Renounce me quite forcefully, she will forgive you?

I have never fought another blogger except this once, in self-defense. Like you, I welcome any argument about anything, so long as it isn't intended to hurt someone's feelings.

I rely on my genuine kindness and sense of humor to demonstrate that I'm a person of general good will and a friend worth having. Although of course, there is the Potty-Mouth thing!

[David Duff]

"I am an American of Russian Jewish heritage"

Oh God, not another one! Honestly, that has to be the most explosive mixture in the world particularly with female chromosones added. What has a poor, old, blameless Englishman like me done to deserve that?

Anyway, 'Sister Wolf', you must forgive any typos because I am tapping this out whilst fully dressed in my nuclear/bio warfare suit with my bomb-dismantling protective suit on top - just in case! As Lady Bracknell might have put it, to have one prickly, spiky, short-fused, Russo-American Jewess in my life may be regarded as a misfortune, to have two looks like carelessness!