A question for the teeming located in, or familiar with the UK: Why is the word “bloody” in Britain tantamount to a vulgarity in the U.S.? Once, while in London, (great city and people, no joke) I asked this question to some pub locals, and no one within the group had a factual answer ( “ya know mate, that’s a good question…”). Something extremely vague about a war and a flag with blood on it was brought up but that was pretty much the extent of it.
So, how come…?
P.S.: What would be the vulgar U.S. equivalent, if one exists…?
SD Staff Report.
Thanks Duck…
I’ve given it a lot of thought, and I reckon it’s just one of those things. How’s that for specific. Some words just take on different meanings between the two countries.
I hope you realise that the word bloody has two wildly differing uses in the UK. Bloody as a swear word is mildly vulgar. Bloody as a descriptive of something pertaining to blood is exactly the same as in the US. No one considers the use of the word bloody vulgar per se, only the use of it as a swear word. Think of it like the American uses of the word ‘cock’. No one over the age of 12 finds anything odd in the use of the word cock when referring to birds. Use the same word as a vulgarity, and it becomes vulgar. It’s usually apparent by context and intonation which usage is intended.
Bloody is just a general adjectival curse. It can be applied almost anywhere for any reason. Almost anywhere you can use ‘fucking’ as an adjective, you can also use bloody. However bloody is considered very mild as vulgarities go, so fucking isn’t a US equivalent. Friggin’ probably comes closest if you needed an Americanised susbstitute.
So Brits -
Is “bloody” now acceptable in casual and/or formal conversation?
How about writing? Does one see it in print outside the most vulgar rags?
I’ve heard it used by UK’ers in casual office chat (in the US) - sholud I have been offended?
There was a bloody thread not too long ago.
Bloody would barely cock an eyebrow from a grandmother here in NZ. I’m sure it is much the same in Britain.
Bloody is becoming less offensive by the year. It is now very mild. You would be surprised to hear the Queen use it, but I doubt anyone would blink if Tony Blair used it in the heat of the moment. I certainly wouldn’t. If he used it in a prepared speech it would be unusual. It’s generally considered more poor manners or a sign of limited vocabulary to use bloody, rather than the word being horribly offensive. If someone is using it in casual chat it’s meaningless unless it’s a constant stream of ‘bloody’s. Treat as you would someone saying damn or crap. It’s coarse, but not particularly offensive or inappropriate in most settings.
It’s very rare to see it in print, aside from written dialogue. But that is true of any vulgarity. It just doesn’t have a use in normal writing. It conveys emotion, not meaning. Think about how often you even see the word ‘damn’ in print as a curse. Outside of dialogue it’s almost non-existent.
Well here, at least, it is way less offensive then crap and possibly less so then damn.
If my child said bloody when angry. It would not be cross.
If an adult says bloody I would barely notice it.
Bloody is less offensive than crap anywhere. I was just trying to give a US equivalent of a word that is technically offensive but mild enough to slip into casual conversation almost anywhere without provoking a reaction. The 1950s US version of damn probably came close. Children were asked not to use it, often repeatedly, but it wasn’t a paddlin’ offence outside the most religious households.
Thanks to all, I’m seriously enjoying this…
Bloody is often just a descriptive term. “It’s bloody hot today” . aybe bloody just means very 
As Kiwi says, It is fast becoming an ordinary intensifier.
its definitely an ordinary intensifier with mildly vulgar connotations.
Its very much a word that is conversational rather than written, the exception being dialogue.
In saying that though, I know i’m guilty of using it quite a lot here on the boards - but thats largely because i view threads more as conversations that literary masterpieces.
How times have changed. George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion “created a sensation because the phrase ‘not bloody likely’ occurs in Act 3.” That was back in 1914.
Back in the early 80s in England, I got hauled out of class for saying “bloody”, and another time I got a detention and a letter home from the teacher for writing “oh God” in the margin of a maths book next to a sum I couldn’t do.
How times have changed, indeed.
I remember visitng my family in England as a kid, and a neighbour giving me a book to read.
It was about Father Christmas, and in it, he got angry at something, and was in a foul mood, “bloomin” this and “bloomin” that he said in the story.
It made no sense to me at that age, and having grown up in Canada, I had no idea it was a cleaned-up version of ‘bloody’, and that that was a vulgar word.
The lady who gave me the book asjed if I liked it, and I think I said yes, but she must have seen by the way I said it that I didn’t enjoy it much (reason being it just sucked and was kind below my cognitive level). She said, it’s kind of rude isn’t it?
I had no idea why.
Now, I use ‘bloody’ a lot…I mean a LOT, but nobody here seems ot care. Hell, they say “shagging” on American TV and nobody cares that’s on par with “fucking” in the UK.
That’s not quite right. They mean the same thing, but “shagging” is significantly milder.
Huh… Perhaps I got this impression from older folks who are more easily offended.
Didn’t they change the title of the Autin Powers movie though?
No, they didn’t change the title, although an ad for the film did feature in the Advertising Standards Authority’s annual report for 2000:
[