Saturday, May 02, 2009

Go fuck yourself

Today, a New York Times op-ed argues that the recent SCOTUS decision regarding the FCC's no-swearin-on-TV-cuz-the-kids-r-gonna-b-harmed-help-yall-rule is bullshit. While discussing the word "fuck" (a verb meaning "to fuck") the author, Adam Freedman, cites an "expert in swearing" who claims that "fuck" can be used nonsexually. Freedman gives the following example:
The nonsexual use of the word can be seen in countless contemporary examples, as when Vice President Dick Cheney used it in 2004 to recommend that Senator Patrick Leahy do something that is, strictly speaking, anatomically impossible.

Although I agree with the substance of the article, I cannot agree that this use is nonsexual. I believe the impossibility of the act is what makes it sexual: one is forced to imagine (NSFW, disgusting) the contortions through which the object of the command would attempt to obey it. Although this would not be "sexual" in the sense that it would not involve reproduction by two members of opposite sexes, it does partake of the idea of sexuality insofar as it would replicate sexual feelings in the actor. 
All of that being said, I do believe that "fuck" can be used non-sexually, and even if it couldn't, I would want it on television because I like the dirty, funky side of life (and children growing up in clean households have all sorts of problems). It's just that I'd like to keep the Grey Lady honest as she enjoys her last years of existence.


Blogger Robot said...

We touched on this case in the history of ed class I'm TAing for, seeing as how it pertains to childhood, tv as non-institutional educational site, etc. I went ahead and forwarded this post to them with your full name attached. Hope that's alright!

4:09 PM  
Blogger The Sheriff said...

One could simply ejaculate the word "fuck!", and though it sounds doubly sexual, is not only nonsexual but strictly meaningless in context and only connotes frustration or anger.

9:53 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home