The Garden

I’ve never really understood what it is that makes a swear word a swear word.  I know what they are of course, and, even though I use them regularly, I know that they’re supposed to be censored in certain places, like this newspaper for instance.  I also know that many people consider the use of these words offensive, or at least feel offended by their use.  Nevertheless, I have yet to hear a compelling reason as to why these words should be considered taboo.

In this article I will only consider three common swear words.  I’m sure you know them and probably have used them on several occasions yourself, like the last time you stubbed your toe, cut yourself shaving, or got cut off in traffic.  However, since I am writing in a publication that abides by certain rules and regulations, I cannot state those words explicitly here.  Instead, you’ll have to use your powers of inference to figure out which words I’m talking about through the various clues spread throughout the following paragraphs.  The first clue, and probably the only one you’ll need, is that the three words rhyme with ‘suck’, ‘sit’ and ‘pass-bowl’.

Now, there are two primary ways I can think of that might qualify a word for profanity status: its definition and its aesthetics (ugliness).  I hope to show you that neither of those ways provides any insight into why these words should be censored at all.  I don’t know what I want you to actually do with that information if you agree with it, but I’ll go through the trouble of telling you anyway.  Let’s start with the definitions.

If you look at the strict definition of each of these words, you might find that some of them deal with topics that are somewhat unpleasant or uncomfortable to people, but the words are not without their non-profane synonyms.  For example, ‘sex’, ‘crap’ and ‘anus’ are not swear words but they have basically the same meaning as their swear word counterparts; and there are plenty more synonyms out there in addition to these.  So if what makes a word profane is its definition, then why wouldn’t all of these other synonyms be considered profane as well?

Perhaps it is not simply the strict definition that is worrisome, but the way that the word is used in certain contexts that makes the language offensive.  Here it makes sense to think of how swear words can be wielded as insults against others.  We’re all familiar with the various ways in which the three swear words I’m referring to can be used as insults.  Of course, being the victim of profane insults is unpleasant; but is it any more unpleasant than being the victim of non-profane insults?  If I call you a piece of crap, is that somehow more polite than the alternative?  I don’t think so, but even if it is, so what?  Aren’t insults supposed to be, well, insulting?  If I call you a ‘jerk’ or a ‘moron’, I’m still trying to hurt your feelings despite the lack of profane language.  So, even by considering context, there still doesn’t seem to be any good reason to censor these words from our vocabulary.

So how about the aesthetic quality of the words?  If the definition doesn’t matter, then maybe it has something to do with the way each word sounds when spoken—maybe the words just sound ‘ugly’ or something.  Well, if that were true, then wouldn’t we find similar sounding words just as offensive?  For example, is there something about the way the words ‘ship’, ‘shift’, ‘shrift’, ‘puck’, ‘pluck’, ‘muck’, ‘bass-pole’ ‘mass-glow’ and ‘grass-hole’ sound that make them offensive?  If there is, I sure as puck don’t see it.

Since we’re talking about aesthetics here, we should not only consider how swear words sound, but also how they look.  Think about how print media tend to display swear words in their publications.  You usually see something like “f**k”, “s**t” or “a**hole” written to “disguise” the word so that you still know what it is, but don’t have to look at it in all its disgusting glory. It’s kind of like how we censor parts of the human body in public.  Just like it’s okay for a male to reveal his nipple in public but not a female (even though they look very similar), it is likewise okay for us to see the letters ‘s’, ‘h’, ‘i’, etc, used in other words but not in swear words.  Who is this supposed to fool?  It’s not as though we don’t know what’s behind those asterisks (just like it’s not as though we don’t know what’s behind a swimsuit top for that matter) so it’s not really “concealing” anything.  So what’s the point?  Just like before, if there is something offensive about the way the word looks, then why not fuss over the way the word “hits” looks?  It has all the same letters as the s**t one does, so does that mean that ‘hits’ is therefore also offensive?  Sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

I guess what you might be able to take away from this is that you shouldn’t feel guilty if you happen to swear in the “wrong” place or in front of the “wrong” person sometimes.  If someone has a problem with your language, just ask him or her to explain why your words are problematic.  I can almost guarantee you that they will have no other excuse other than the “I don’t like it” or “it’s just wrong” sort of response.  Such a response fails to answer the “Why?” question first of all, and it also places an unwarranted burden on you to somehow be omniscient enough to know what does and does not bother a person.  Wouldn’t it be much easier to just eliminate the taboo of swear words altogether and save ourselves the f***ing headache?

This entry was posted on Sunday, March 9th, 2008 at 18:50 and is filed under Ranger News Editorials. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.