Asshole is used only for non-anatomical purposes in America, but bullocks is used exclusively to refer to a type of cattle.
Funnily enough, I think I disagree with nworB. I'd almost always use 'arsehole' to mean the type of person, and 'arse' to mean the orifice. Except when I also use 'arse' to mean a type of person.
But the majority of the arse isn't the hole. At least not here.
2 Wait, is "arse" the hole or the fleshy hemispheres around the hole?
I thought the British vulgarity was bollocks, with an 'o'.
On the question in the original post, there are an awful lot more occasions to refer to someone as a jerk in day to day life than there are to refer to the body part, and if the body part came up in a medical context, I'd probably use the medical term (that is, "rectum"). But if I had reason to be talking about a rectum for non-medical reasons, sure, why wouldn't you say 'asshole'? I can't think of another word in the same register for it.
(Also, I expect to be able to participate in this thread for no more than about ten comments, before the netnanny notices it.)
And I would also understand "arse" to mean buttocks, rather than anus (which is what I meant in the prior comment. I think -- rectum is the final length of intestine, anus is the sphincter?)
I can't think of another word in the same register for it.
"Butthole" is the non-medical term for rectum.
5.1: I use that only to mean testicles.
Also, I posted this and then took a shower, and had a lengthy mental discussion on the grossness of the term "anal-retentive".
I think the term "anal-retentive" was really intended to put a positive spin on people who pay too much attention to details. Because "anal-expulsive" is the really gross one.
If I said, 'He pulled that out of his arse.',* I'd mean the hole, not the fleshy hemispheres. But yes, both, I suppose.
* i.e. something was 'ex recto'
Expulsive or explosive?
Regardless, the medicine for when the cat was constipated was called expulsid, which I thought was really funny.
Why would you fix a constipated cat? It's just less work for both of you.
Speaking of my misunderstanding corrected in 5.1, somebody should write a modern version of Cold Comfort Farm and call it Never mind the Bullocks.
What about the question raised by the OP article? Are the bogrolls, in fact, too thin?
England has "quilting," but not in a way we can understand.
I've occasionally heard "asshole" used in American English for someone who's not a jerk, strictly speaking, but rather someone incompetent or otherwise maladroit to a degree that it arouses contempt.
You're not helping the cause of linguistic clarity.
"Butthole" is the non-medical term for rectum.
No, anus is the hole. Rectum is the last part of the intestine, the compartment behind the anus where the excrement is stored.
I've occasionally heard "asshole" used in American English for someone who's not a jerk, strictly speaking, but rather someone incompetent or otherwise maladroit to a degree that it arouses contempt.
Someone who isn't an asshole, but is incompetent or maladroit to a degree that it arouses contempt, was also called a "jerk" until recently. For example, the movie The Jerk.
Ah, found a good example of the "maladroit" sense of the word.
It seems relevant here that Denis Healey agreed with the man who called him "a bastard, but not a shit".
no one ever means the actual poopchute
"I will tear you a new asshole" is a fairly common anatomical (if still figurative) reference. Also, porn.
Counterpoint: US TV still routinely bleeps the naughty bits of "asshole" and "bullshit", whereas the UK equivalents are deemed mild enough to air in contexts where just the naughty bit wouldn't (though to be honest I can't imagine many contexts in which "arse" would be actively censored as opposed to avoided).
If you work in a medical school, people say, "I will incise you a new asshole."
Ofcom survey:
Arsehole
Very severe 22
Fairly severe 34
Mild 36
Not swearing
Arse
Very severe 10
Fairly severe 21
Mild 47
Not swearing 21
"Jerk", of course, has an explicit biological connotation as well that is even less rarely considered than that of ass/hole.
It is surprising how thoroughly vulgarities get semantically bleached. I'm vaguely concerned about how much my kids swear (that is, they learned it from me, so they swear lots, but I worry that their judgment on the fine points of who not to swear in front of, and how much is too much, is off), so I've been paying attention, and, e.g., "suck" or "sucks" hardly comes off as swearing at all. (And when I say hardly, I mean it really doesn't.)
Philologists from the super-intelligent parrot species that shall replace mankind will appreciate posts like this.
"How many goddam words did they have for cloaca?"
It is surprising how thoroughly vulgarities get semantically bleached.
That's the nice thing about "mother fucker."
Heh heh huh huh heh heh huh huh heh heh huh huh heh heh huh huh heh heh huh huh heh heh huh huh heh heh huh huh heh heh huh huh heh heh huh huh heh heh huh huh heh heh huh huh heh heh huh huh heh heh huh huh heh heh huh huh heh heh huh huh.
They said "ass."
32 reminds me of the cartoon of far-future archaeologists excavating a Marine FOB in Afghanistan and concluding "based on these murals, this seems to have been the site of a prehistoric culture that worshipped cocks."
I've been paying attention, and, e.g., "suck" or "sucks" hardly comes off as swearing at all. (And when I say hardly, I mean it really doesn't.)
I don't think it counts as swearing at all in the UK. Informal, sure, but I don't think it has any connotations of vulgarity unless you explicitly add "donkey balls" or something to it.
9 New mouseover. 14 too.
30 It is surprising how thoroughly vulgarities get semantically bleached.
I want to say I see what you did there but I'll take your or Buck's word for it.
5 . Also, I expect to be able to participate in this thread for no more than about ten comments, before the netnanny notices it.
You could always say "nether orifice."
35. "worshipped cocks"
If you go to the webcomic Terminal Lance, which is about the Marines from the pov of a grunt, you will find extensive proof of this hypothesis.
Of course the primary meaning of "cock" in Brit English remains the male of Gallus gallus. The leading vulgarism for "penis" is probably "prick", also a mild term of abuse.
It's a more innocent place where you can sell cock-a-leekie soup without giggling.
"Arsehole" in UK English still pretty much means the orifice rather than the man.
It's important to respect the orifice even if you don't respect the man.
That's pretty much what archaeologists end up saying when excavating Roman ruins, right?
Hopefully that was "edifice" when they said it.
"Rip a new asshole" does still carry the semantic meaning, agreed, of not in a very literal sense.
Cf also
But this old fogey is a yogi
And had been known to pass whole
Years in pursuit of the absolute
While gazing up his arse hole
Whose author was technically American, though educated at Winchester
I would like to subscribe to your gun-school newsletter.
||
California is getting a legal end-of-life option on the Oregon model!
|>
Does that mean assisted-suicide or is this a Portlandia joke I'm not getting?
46- I'm way too emotionally invested in the issue to be able to have much of a calm discussion about it, but I don't find that to be exciting news at all. I find the whole "right to die" and "death with dignity" movements to be terrifying and upsetting indications that our society still really hates disabled people.
Is there a big problem with people who don't want to die committing suicide, in places where assisted suicide is allowed?
||
"I did sacrifice a goat. I know that's probably a quibble in the mind of most Americans," he told the Associated Press news agency.
"I sacrificed an animal to the god of the wilderness ... Yes, I drank the goat's blood."
The article also notes that he is unlikely to win the election.
|>
I think the link in 49 covers that.
50: Right, I think the idea is that it's hard to tell. If an elderly person who requires a lot of cumbersome and difficult care from family members gets a prescription for drugs sufficient for suicide, and then dies with no witnesses to the voluntariness of the suicide other than the caregivers, it's hard to tell whether coercion may have occurred.
It's hard to see how much different that is from how things are without the bill, though. Slightly different method, maybe?
There's absolutely a problem with doctors being ignorant (to the point of providing false information) about support services, and also a problem with health care professionals thinking that disabled people would be better off dead. Those things, along with the trauma and depression inherent in being diagnosed with a permanent or terminal illness/disability make it a meaningless question.
The point is, I don't want your doctor treating you differently if you tell her you're suicidal than mine would if I did. I don't want laws saying that you get intensive treatment and therapy and drugs that make you feel better, while I get a helping hand with the killing process. I don't think my life is worth less than yours and I don't want people trying less hard to save it.
(where "you" and 'yours" mean, uh, I don't know, whatever, I have to go finish making dinner for Heebie's thousands of children. Not Cryptic Ned in particular though)
People who depend on cumbersome and difficult care from nonprofessionals are also at high risk of death from complications from something maybe not having been done right by someone exhausted and miserable, who can then spend the rest of her life wondering if it was an honest mistake. There are a lot of missing fences around this problem.
As probable etymology, no. As disingenuous conversation with a prude, entertaining. Best if I can get them to allude to fellatio so I can murmur puzzledly that I thought it meant something nobody liked.
I think the Simpsons and Ross Perot were the key to normalizing it.
Anyway, I can remember being shocked that Bart could say it on TV.
If everybody is bored, somebody could tell me if I should wear a suit to jury duty. I'm thinking that if I look too fancy they won't impanel me. Also, I have not worn a suit in years.
Also, if I look like a lawyer, they might pay me more than $10.
Messily, do you have similar qualms about advanced directives and DNR orders?
Not really. My qualms are about defining a class of people who are allowed to commit suicide, while everyone else isn't. As long as everyone gets the same treatment, whatever.
(I mean, I have some philosophical qualms about DNRs/ADs, as far as how doctors make mistakes all the time and the line between conscious and not isn't very clear, plus there are some simliar underlying prejudices at play. I would never get one. But I don't care too much if other people want to sign them.)
'S funny, I was just musing a couple of hours ago about how amused I was when a friend was sitting with a couple of Englischer grad students, and did this great act where he tried to convince them that there was a dish in their homeland called "wankers and mash."
Until there's truly effective and available palliative care for everyone who needs it, I can't see a moral argument for keeping everyone alive until the very last possible second. This is America. Life is cheap here.
64: Wear a suit. Carry a large hardcover book. Try (try!) to resemble a sober, thoughtful, responsible citizen.
The letter said about the sober part.
70. Tell them you know something about the subject at hand, but the sure "dismissed" is to say you are an engineer.
I'm not sure how physician assisted suicide would create new different classes of anything. I mean, if it's anything like the Oregon version it's more restricted for disabled people than non-disabled people*, I mean, except to the extent that pretty much anyone with a terminal illness is disabled to some extent or other.
I mean, physicians are going to act like assholes no matter what because, as far as I can tell, they're generally worse people than the norm. And adding a slight amount of power to them isn't reassuring. But in this case it does seem like the sort of thing that would end up better rather than worse. I do honestly think that there's something kind of scary about the idea of being trapped in life while dying slowly (and certainly) and horribly, without any ability to escape.
*In Oregon, at least a while ago from what I can remember, someone had to certify that the person who wanted to commit suicide didn't want to do that because they were depressed or otherwise mentally ill. (I've never been clear how this assessment was made, but I'm guessing it usually works out to some kind of adjusted-life-years calculation.)
64: "I am well versed in both the history and legal status of jury nullification."
But in this case it does seem like the sort of thing that would end up better rather than worse.
How nice for you.
Also, I'm extremely dubious of the concept of "quality adjusted life years" when applied to individual cases.
Because I deal with issues of generalization better than ethics.
My phone can't spell generalizability.
Anyway, I once studied advance directives for psychiatric care. But I moved to Pittsburgh before we learned the answer.
Ironically, the answer was: "Don't move to Pittsburgh."
"Quality adjusted life years" is the sort of term that tends to come along with terms like "end stage cancer".
But I think Natilo is right in 69, just that I think in a lot of cases 'palliative care' and 'assisted suicide' aren't really much different.
Fine then, let's legalize it for everyone. People who show up at the shrink's office reporting suicidal ideation, let's just give them a big vial of morphine and be done with it. WAY cheaper than all the roads and schools and prisons and whatnot they and their germy offspring would have required.
Yes because that's obviously what physician assisted suicide activists are promoting. Are you kidding me? Fuck off.
No, you fuck off. And no, I'm not kidding.
Yeah, when someone gets to the point of claiming that the idea here is that we should replace medical treatments with revolvers it's pretty clear that even attempting to interact with reality has gone right out the window.
But really, go on and keep insisting that people should be forcibly made to suffer against their will. I'm sure you'll find the moral high ground around there somewhere.
The law seems to me to contemplate both direct and subtle coercion in the matter and take a lot of measures against them - many procedural hoops to jump through, making it a crime to exert undue influence, insurance companies forbidden from discussing the matter except on request, etc. But I can see the facts of the world still conceivably pushing through all that.
Now I'm curious who exactly makes up the various groups advocating for assisted suicide.
88, are you saying that the list of "death with dignity" supporters is not exclusively comprised of doctors who are tired of dealing with patients they find depressing, and relatives who are tired of seeing their inheritances go up in smoke?
I sort of tried to write a response to that but it kept accidentally turning out to just be FUCK YOU over and over again in all caps, so I guess that means it's time to remove myself from the discussion.
Good night!
I'm in too much debt to die right now, unfortunately.
You owe your soul to the company store?
Yeah, pretty much. It was foolish to take on so many obligations.
90: Well, sure, I mean mostly yeah, but theoretically there have got to be people who are sincere right?
In my experience the groups supporting it actually tend to be relatively focused on it. I mean, you see a lot of right-to-lifers actively opposed to it for whatever nasty reasons they pick issues, but outside of that I don't know how well it lines up to other things. Usually you see a lot of people who have had to learn the hard way (for themselves or others) that medical science has a lot of points where we pretty much do know that someone is going to die, and that they're going to die really, really horribly, and that it's going to take months or longer, but that that's all we've got. And so the argument is that people should be allowed to let themselves out of that in ways that don't require stopping medical supports and hoping it doesn't take too long for that to work*.
Like with most of American politics, everyone is to the left of the people they vote for, though. So it's hard to pick out an easy group if it isn't directly linked to one party or the other. And there's some slant, still, but from the polling at least it looks like there's majorities across the board. (So we should see some sort of nationwide version of this shortly after we get comprehensive gun control.)
*From what I've seen you see a lot of brain cancer type patients where the nasty stuff shows up well before the needs-life-support-to-live stuff does.
I do honestly think that there's something kind of scary about the idea of being trapped in life while dying slowly (and certainly) and horribly, without any ability to escape.
So, like, what's happening to all of us, to one degree or another, all the time?
Well, yeah - but moreso because you'd be old and it's gross to be old (I assume).
More seriously again, though, the polling on that link in 95 is interesting because in my experience teaching ethics courses with undergraduates the division tends to be, for the most part, between people who support the possibility and people who have some underlying optimism/denial relating to terminal illnesses. (You get a lot of "but you never know - maybe they would recover!", mainly.) So increasing support from younger people is surprising to me because I would have assumed that experiences with older relatives dying would have a pretty significant effect on peoples' opinions on the issue - similar to the way it did with the Schiavo case. But we see an increasing social-progressive thing among the 18-34 group there just like a lot of other things.
98 -> 96
I suppose it could be to 97 too, but I assume as a baseline that all commenters are brilliant, unbelievably hot super model types like you see on TV. No one ever correct me on this, because it makes me feel glamorous.
99: in your own case isn't it knowledge rather than assumption?
There are an unusual number of black hat Jews around tonight. Last day of Sukkot¿
Unless they've amended it after I left, the Oregon assisted suicide law requires that you have a terminal illness with a prognosis of less than six months to live, and IIRC it had to be verified by multiple doctors. Also full psych evaluation to make sure you aren't clinically depressed. Unless a disabled person is also terminally ill, they're not going to be granted an assisted suicide. If newspaper human interest stories are at all representative, most people choosing it are end stage cancer patients.
My phone does funny things to question marks.
In honor of MH, I'm going to share a foolproof method, which has been described to me by actual sitting judges, for getting out of jury duty (n.b. -- I have never done this myself).
First, what not to do -- don't go on about how important your job is. It's not. Don't claim that you "can't be fair," would let all people free no matter how guilty, can't be fair to black people, can't be fair to white people, are super into jury nullification, whatever -- the court knows you're lying, and doesn't care. Judges can force you into more service or otherwise make your life unpleasant. While you might get challenged off by one side or the other, you don't know ahead of time that there will be a sufficient voir dire for the lawyers to actually be aware of your lies, and, even if they are, they might well decide they want you anyway, because you seem respectable, or something. Also, you have to pretend to be crazy or racist. That's unpleasant.
No -- the way to get out of jury duty is to be extraordinarily, over-the-top enthusiastic about being a juror. You are ABSOLUTELY COMMITTED to making sure that the system works and that justice is served. You are SO HAPPY to hold the prosecution (or plaintiff) to its job to prove up the case and YOU CAN'T WAIT TO TAKE ON YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE SYSTEM. You are incredibly excited about ensuring that justice is done in the manner prescribed by law!
With this technique, you are 99.995% certain to be challenged off of the jury, and the Court can't say or do anything about it. Either one side or the other will not be at all happy that there is a superfan of the jury system on the scene who is really really into making lawyers work hard and put on evidence, and they will bounce you, for sure.
Of course, you should serve on a jury, because at least 80% of you aren't morons. Also, don't wear a suit.
The advice in 105 sounds very familiar. I'm pretty sure we've had this conversation before.
We have, more than once. 7 ago I was in favor of perjury + jury nullification, and I suppose I still am. Go and serve, MH! Your wit will be appreciated by the rest of the jury, I'm sure.
There are an unusual number of black hat Jews around tonight.
They're the ones who hack into other people's synagogues?
Madame Messily, can you get in touch? Private address linked in the comment here. I am writing a book proposal on the subject.
The Oregon law has an analogue here, which was defeated by a wholly unexpected and very clear majority in the House of Commons last month. I have sane and balanced friends who are very much in favour of it, as am I insome circumstances. But the grown-up argument is that the procedure is so bureaucratic and roundabout that only nice middle class people do it, and they can be trusted to behave responsibly.
If California does pass the law, there will be a wholly unexpected and unintended consequence, which is that the system will become extremely expensive. The drugs used are the same as those used in lethal injections, which means that lots of places (the whole EU, I believe) won't export them at all to the USA. So the supply is limited, and when the demand is increased from the population of Orgeon to that of California, the price is going to go stratospheric.
I did not believe that the safeguards in the English verison of the Oregon bill could possibly survive in a system of socialised medicine. Your GP allows about 10 minutes for an appointment these days. And in that time he is meant to make an informed decision about whether some patient is acting of their own free and settled will? Similarly, the English bill added a laywer of judicial oversisght, for which the courts have no capacity at all.
In the end, the question comes down to autonomy, and the phoniness of the concept thereof. Either we pretend that people are individual benefit-maximising rational creatures, in which case anyone who turns up and says "I want to die" should have their decision respected (for this future, see Fred Pohl's short stories of the Fifties, and Economist's leader this July) or we decide that doctor knows best. They have, after all, been quietly bumping off patients for a very long time.
They have, after all, been quietly bumping off patients for a very long time.
For example, the King.
Accidentally in the case of Charles II, deliberately with George V. Any others?
108: If the charge is murder, technically, but this state hasn't executed anybody in years.
I won't take the advice in 105 because morals and, mostly, because I'm really horrible about expressing enthusiasm. If I tried, it would probably be taken as mild disinterest. I'm certainly not going to claim hardship. For one thing, they probably know my employer will consider it paid leave.
You are incredibly excited about ensuring that justice is done in the manner prescribed by law!
Stop hitting yourself, notional nerd juror! Stop hitting yourself!
111 is helpful. However, I thought the medicines used were oral pills, not injections. Are they the same substance?
They are all star stuff.
The drugs used are the same as those used in lethal injections, which means that lots of places (the whole EU, I believe) won't export them at all to the USA.
Explain to me again why they can't just use heroine?
If I ever have to go, I want Wonder Woman to do it.
Or any woman with a rope and wearing a bustier.
111/117: I'm not sure what the specific method used is, but there are a lot of effectively painless ways that doctors can use to kill someone so I'm not sure if there are significant worries about the drugs involved. Sometimes the lethal injection style drug combos are used, but once you're talking about a medical expert with proper equipment/resources on hand it's pretty easy to manage. (Doing it for yourself is harder, more complicated, and usually a lot messier, which is one of the reasons people push for the possibility of physician assisted suicide.)
An overdose of morphine is a classic "oopsy the patient passed away" version that I have absolutely heard doctors talking about when it comes to people who they think are really suffering unnecessarily.* A respirator fitted to a gas tank, with maybe some sedatives involved is also a common sort of idea - it's effectively killing someone by depriving them of oxygen, but because they keep breathing naturally through the entire process the normal triggers for distress/danger (usually CO2 buildup in the blood) don't kick in, so they just lose consciousness quickly and after, I dunno, ten more minutes are dead. Helium is probably the easiest choice of gasses for it, but a lot of things will work.
*All the ones I heard talking about this were talking in a more or less rumor based way, and what they were talking about was only even possible if the person was in a very late stage very, very horrible situation - that is, one where the patients were literally being given so much morphine that pushing the plunger down on the needle just a little faster than normal would mean death, because that was the method involved. So don't panic or anything the next time you go in for a checkup unless, I guess, you're suffering so badly that even something like morphine can't really help you anymore and there's no real chance of that ever stopping.
Explain to me again why they can't just use heroine?
From accounts I've read by people who've tried this and failed, dying by ODing on scag is both unpleasant and a bit hit or miss.
There is an account in "Tokyo Vice" of a method involving self-electrocution which stemmed from a Japanese manual of suicide methods, subsequently withdrawn. I suppose I could rummage through my mother's papers for whatever it was that Exit (an early pro-euthanasia org) recommended when she joined in the Seventies. But there is a lot less of that kind of advice published these days.