Arrg kxrrt!

*

Star quality

In which we ask what the point of obscurity is


What makes a word a rude word?

I’m asking because of something I noticed yesterday. Scanning through the telly listings, I noticed that our local paper* won’t print the name of BBC3 show Tittybangbang. Instead, it was rendered “T***ybangbang”.

Now, I know this isn’t as hypocritical as The Sun, which similarly refuses to print the word “tits” despite featuring photos of topless models in almost every issue. It still strikes me as rather silly and pointless, though. It’s hardly likely to offend anyone, particularly as the paper’s digital telly listings are in tiny, almost unreadable print. It’s lip service to an old-fashioned “morality” in which respectable appearances are more important than anything underneath. Even for ruder rude words, it’s not as if asterisks really do hide anything – you all know what this f***ing sentence says.**

* the fearless Grimsby Telegraph

** it was “this flowing sentence”, of course. No, really. Honest. Would I lie to you?

Keyword noise: , , , , , , , ,

*

2 comments on “Star quality”

  1. Archel says:

    Maybe they should have put Sh***ybangbang instead, as from the trail I saw the other day it looks terrible.

    Of course, as the lovely Suzie Dent has pointed out, putting in asterisks actually draws the eye to the offending word MORE than the normal version would do.

  2. Somewhat says:

    I saw a reference in The Sun a while back to “bl*w j*b”, which made me laugh for a very long time.

    And Archel was right about Tittybangbang; it was absolute crap.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

*

Search this site

*

Contact

E: feedback [at] symbolicforest [dot] com

IM: Ask me if you'd like to know

*

Post Categories

Artistic (118)
Dear Diary (349)
Feeling Meh (48)
Geekery (109)
In With The Old (34)
Linkery (37)
Media Addict (164)
Meta (79)
Photobloggery (94)
Political (113)
Polling (7)
Sub category (19)
The Family (31)
The Office (70)
Unbelievable (53)