I would argue that “eat a bag of dicks” is way grosser and less homophobic than “suck a dick.” The idea of a bag of anonymous loose dicks, flaccid, and probably REALLY chewy is pretty revolting. I could suck live dick (I guess), but dead meat no, not at all.
Before insisting that detached penises can’t be funny, you need to watch this:
I had that same thought! Still haven’t caught up with season 5. That show is awesome.
I think the phrase is relatively unobjectionable because it’s two steps away from “suck a dick”. Replacing “suck” with eat and adding “a bag of” just makes it an absurdist statement.
“If this whole beach was completely covered in dicks, and somebody said I had to eat every dick until the beach was clean for liberty, I would say no problemo!”
–Christopher “Peacemaker” Smith
I’m not saying that images of fictional detached penises can’t be funny. I’m saying that a bag of actual, real-life, detached penises would instead be horrifying.
Sure, I agree with this. If the phrase still contains the actual literal meaning, then the situation is a bit more complicated. So, “sucks dick” is problematic, while “that sucks” is separated enough to be not. I’d argue that “eat a bag of dicks” is the same. The metaphor is just too stretched. Nobody actually eats bags of dicks. It’s just an amusing visual.
This brings to mind:
Give Up Seventy Percent Of The Way Through The Hyperstitious Slur Cascade
In the particular case of “gypped”, it could have remained in innocence–and the longer it persisted, the more innocent it would have become over time, in the way that “idiot” is perfectly innocent today.
But things happen, and that includes people that go on linguistic crusades, and so “gypped” regained its slur status. And now only people that are intentionally being bigoted, or haven’t heard the news yet, still use the word. And you can distinguish the two types of people by informing them of this fact and seeing if they continue the usage or not. It’s an easy and convenient bigotry test.
The test doesn’t work because “gypped” is inherently problematic–there’s no such thing as an inherently problematic word. It works because slurs are created by usage, not just in intent but by the kinds of people that use them. And so an innocent word can be turned into a slur if a sufficient number of people start using it as one. The author above argues that the threshold should be 70% (at 50%, the progress to a slur can be turned around, but at 70% it’s probably inevitable that it progresses on to 99.9%).
In a slightly different universe, “gypped” never regained this slur status. People forgot what the reference even was–after all, it comes from gypsy, which Roma reject as a term, since it comes from “Egyptian”, which they never were. So the reference was never meaningful, no one ever made the association, and a convenient word was retained. That’s not how things unfolded, but it could have gone that way, the way it has for numerous other words.
Talk about different universes.
Start with abusive, corrosive slurs to avoid in all cases, effective yesterday.
- “Retarded,” “moron,” “idiot”
Accessible summary
The study looked at the use of the words Idiot, Moron and Imbecile in 29 academic papers and 134 Newspaper articles. The terms were used by a many different people involved in education and in the news media. These three words are used to belittle others and people do not wish to have them used about themselves. Idiot, imbecile and moron are recognised as disapproving words, but they also act as slurs and so perhaps they ought to be forbidden.
Let’s say 99% innocent, then.
I posit that people like the author you link to are allying themselves with bigots. They are actively causing harm to people.
Because, again, words aren’t intrinsically slurs or not. If a word isn’t used as a slur, and isn’t predominantly used by bigots, then it isn’t one. It’s only a slur if it’s mostly used as one, and if everyone believes it’s a slur.
But people like the author are trying to turn a non-slur into a slur, just as bigots do. That they ostensibly have good intentions is irrelevant. They’re creating harm where once there was none. If they succeed, then idiot will turn back into the slur it once was, and will give bigots yet another tool, and non-bigots who aren’t quite up to speed will cause harm unintentionally.
All for… what gain? That a handful of people, who likely aren’t the targets anyway, but who think a lot about the history of words, can somehow feel like they’re making a difference?
Don’t do it. Don’t walk astride bigots in intentionally creating slurs.
But if society has decided–if a word really has transitioned to slur status, because a significant majority of use is as a slur–then move on. There’s a point where it’s not worth fighting.
Or, upon watching Gloryhole Swallow. Com
Maybe you eat a bag of miscellaneous dicks before lunchbreak. A really happy woman said she had her “protein” for the day.
Because the ancient (e.g., Roman) “tradition” is that being the passive/submissive/feminine partner is unmanly. In the Viking age, the recipient of such insults was basically expected to challenge the accuser to a duel to the death.
Probably because I never hear anyone using “eat a dick” as a euphemism for oral sex in any other context (always suck/blow*) my mind takes the phrase humorously but literally. It’s not a suggestion to perform a sex act, it’s a suggestion to literally consume a penis which most people would consider distasteful as food, same as “Eat shit”. Dick gets uses because dicks are kinda funny.
Tell that to the Romans
Summary
and the Mediaeval Europeans
Hell, I have a replica mediaeval pilgrim badge that is literally a bag of dicks - a bit like this one, but as a locket:
ETA - I saw your clarification, but still wanted to post those links…
And i thank you for that. Those are funny, especially the middle link.
I buy dehydrated bull penises sold as dog treats. I cut them into thirds with a hacksaw and each dog gets one. I always say, “who wants to eat a dick?”, and the dogs get all worked up.
Come to think of it, my local meat packer sells fresh bull puzzles in a bucket, so you could get a bucket of dicks, if you want. Buckets of testicles available, too! But most likely you’re buying by the bag, so a bag of dicks is an actual purchase there.
I only buy something for my dog that I would eat so i really oughtta change my choices.
While I agree that those aren’t horrifying (and they definitely come under my clarification), it doesn’t seem that they were expected to be funny at the time when they were made; they seem to have been considered serious protective charms.
There’s certainly evidence of ancients finding penises funny; I just don’t think the cites given are evidence of that, aside from a bit of wording in the first cite, though that one’s also talking primarily about protective charms.
I was going to mention those. My sister used to buy “bully sticks” for her dogs. Her current dog apparently doesn’t care for them, and last time I visited she was eating something that looked very similar, but had been formed out of rawhide.
You may want to review this page: