As a mature Brit, I get pained by an increasing spinelessness among our younger citizens, coupled with an extreme self-opinionation which is disrespectful of the consequences of their own actions - they want to have their cake and eat it. That this should be typified as a part of our national character is a complete perversion of our historical acquis, where the stiff upper lip disdains such folly as beneath us, and yet it is real, a sign of the immaturity of the younger generation, who seem not to have heard of the kid's syndrome "sticks and stones may break my ones, but names will never hurt me".
The first thing to say, which sadly is clearly needful if really rather unnecessary, is that an adult differentiates between the person posting as themselves, even if as an avatar persona as here, and as an author of fiction portraying a totally different fictitious character: this is the content of the tale itself. If you can't tell the difference, then you really do need to get psychological help. Premeditated conflation of the two is simply malign and the Mods should sanction it, to my mind.
The second is to determine our reaction to it. If the term is used to address the reader directly as the covert third party in the scene, then the author crosses that line: on the other hand, if used as discourse between characters, then there are a number of psychological dyamics. Firstly, the physiological: the author has the choice of many words of greater or lesser delicacy, of which this is towards the more robust end, however can perfectly acceptably be used to portray an unacceptable character. They exist, so it's a matter of unacceptable Bowdlerism to force such circumlocution as "she played the trumpet in bed", one of the worst original offenders as the source was from Shakespeare: an "s" was removed, producing images of an entirely new perversion when it comes to fellatio, her and the rest of The Shillingbury Blowers, Brassed Off and The Full Monty combined! "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet", was the original author's comment on such, and it's entirely plausible that Shakespeare was using the term euphemistically to address this question as a result of the subjunctive clause. To refuse to accept that horrible characters exist is juvenile, the world is full of them. A second sub-instance is the intimate, "you have the sweetest, prettiest cunt I've ever seen". A third is affectionate, "you silly cunt", a fourth intense, "he slid into her cunt as she closed her eyes in utter rapture", a fifth, cockney rhyming slang (a Burk is a denegration of a reference to the upper-class twits who are members of the Berkshire Hunt, which rhymes with cunt, however in the affected accent where the first half of the County name is mispronounced indicating exactly how the twit - itself an affectionate diminution of twat interpolated with clit - would speak, as Cockney should ideally have a witty subtext as well as the rhyme) - I leave it to you to cite further cases, I'm not Roget writing his thesaurus here.
A third is the linguistic semantics, the beat and pace of the phrase itself. Short words have impact, if he were to replace the term with "pudendum", for example, it would affect the entire dynamic of the phrase. That is his prerogative, to be direct if he chooses. He's supposedly addressing grown-ups, the word exists, you recognise what it means, live with it. He's making a point. Indeed, so must we to discuss its use! If you're upset about such matters, what are you doing here? Engaged in a moral crusade rooted in your own values? If so, where's the immorality between honest directness recognising a sometimes indelicate truth, or a mealy-mouthed circumlocution of the same? Perhaps it's your values which need review. Just because an ancient text taken out of context says something doesn't make it true, the same game can twist the texts of most Holy Scriptures of all religions.
Poll
