On Evil Euphemisms

[Dorothea]

Hahahaha, it COULD mean that but it's not the primary meaning since it's an umbrella term here. It's the romantic partner of whoever you're talking to - whether boyfriend, girlfriend, fiance, husband, wife....or yes, same-sex partner. It's a useful word especially for me since at my age I have friends whose 'significant others' fall into every one of those categories.

Rus has issues with its necessity but really in the world we live in, there isn't the nice old-fashioned process of boy meets girl/has known her all his life/they get engaged/they get married all in the space of 6 months. I know plenty of people who have been in long term relationships for whatever reason against their own wishes, myself included. Money is a big one - you need a lot more money to get started in this world than we did 100 years ago, and you want at least one degree or a trade certificate between you if you want a good job that gives enough money to live within reasonable means. I don't like that aspect of modern culture but is true. If you meet when you're both in your late 20s or older that's fine but not if you're in your early 20s...Andrew is 28 and I'm 22, and after a year and a half of 'dating' (I think maybe we've been out on 'dates' once a month average for that time, we act more or less in the same way as an engaged couple in Greek culture) we're finally in a position where finances and practical issues (like me not being so sick I can't get out of bed 3/7 days in a week) make it possible to get engaged and married. So I disagree that umbrella terms are necessarily 'evil' - they're very useful in certain circumstances. I'd use the actual appropriate term if I was addressing one of my friends on their own though.

I see what you're saying. I guess I'd never really thought that much about the subject of what words to use and such.

 

[rusmeister]

Hey Rus - where did you get that definition of pluralism from?

I'm teaching a world religion class this year, and always like to include secular-humanism as one of the religions we study. I'd love to put that definition on the board and seminar on whether or not we agree with it (i.e. "is it true / valid?") - but if there's a source or name behind it I'd love to put that up there too.

Hey Macarius!
I came up with it myself (it refers to religious/philosophical pluralism, the only kind that really matters). But it accurately hits the heart of the public ideology, most especially that of public education. It was the constant hammering of that ideology in the teacher cred/cert program and in the school system itself, overt, insistent and outrageous, that drove me to Orthodoxy.

I credit CS Lewis and GK Chesterton with most of what I've learned over the past seven years - especially GKC. Certainly you've heard me refer to them often enough. Because of Lewis, I was enabled to accept Orthodoxy. Because of Chesterton, I've learned how the world insinuates its ideas into the modern mind - and my thesis includes the fact that we come to the Church having absorbed much of that modern mind/spirit, and can only gradually be cured, and in those things of the mind (as the sinner with sin) we must first discover that there IS a problem before we will consent to try to have any problems fixed.

How we express ourselves is one of those things that I have come to discover. Yes,, we "understand" what is meant by these new terms and no, we are not attempting to deceive anyone. Nevertheless, the particular words we use, many of which have appeared only in the last 30 years - or even 100 (nothing on the Orthodox timescale), are words that do work to confuse us and everybody else on the nature of the truth.

 

[Julina]

i don't think the term "sex worker" is trying to make it acceptable. at least, every time i've heard the term it's always been in a negative context.

 

[rusmeister]

Hi Rus,

No, I understood your point, it's just that in this case, I think that the term "Sex Worker" in no way, to the Christian mind anyway, can possibly be taken in any way, as legitimate. The term "escort", "call girl", or "street walker", on the other hand, do clearly fit in the list of "evil euphemisms". But Sex Worker? That's like calling an "abortion doctor" a "Death Worker". Pretty darn appropriate, in my opinion, anyway.

But I've already had my say, so if you still think this term serves to justify the action, then I'll remain silent, as perhaps I'm not thinking this one through fully.

I still think there is misunderstanding and the point of misunderstanding seems to be that I am NOT saying that this term makes Christians approve of it. I AM saying that for the general populace, who have not found, and maybe aren't even seeking the Way, the Truth and the Life, such words DO serve to legitimize the actions. They cast an abnormal and shameful profession as a legitimate one, one that one could be involved in and hold their head up high, be it prostitute or inappropriate contentographic actor.
40 years ago, no one could imagine that we would be where we are today on "gay marriage". But seeing how it has advanced, it's not difficult to project similar "advancements" for other sins, until black becomes white and everything that we know to be sin is perceived by the general populace to be not-sin - a true endarkenment.

The terms for sex, and what the word "sex" meant 100 years ago (or 150, or beyond) have changed dramatically, so we now speak of "having sex" as the act of the marriage bed, rather than the state of being a man or a woman. We no longer know Latin or Greek, and so do not recognize the root of "sectus" (division) from (seco) "to cut/divide", which would tell us that, despite the clue in the word "sect".(The Russian, btw, is "sech'" and maintains some of the 'k' suffixes - "sekut"/"peresekat" ("to cut across" for example).

So yes, you know what you mean when you say "sex worker". And your Christian acquaintances know that you do not thereby approve. But for everybody else, it sounds like a normal job, and the next generation will be shocked at an attitude that it is not normal and will find us "intolerant".

 

[rusmeister]

i don't think the term "sex worker" is trying to make it acceptable. at least, every time i've heard the term it's always been in a negative context.

Addressed to everybody as a response to the general reaction that people do not see anything wrong with these new terms. (Not aimed at you personally, Julina.)

Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. Maybe it's just me "having issues". Then will someone PLEASE ask him or herself WHY in the name of heaven everyone is now using a new word not recorded until hardly 20 years ago to replace a word that has a history even older than the English language??? One that has been artificially disseminated by the media?? This the point of the thread!!

Excuse me, mild frustration breaking through there. To me it's as plain as the nose on my face. I only ask that people think about the oddity of all of this new language that impacts on how morality is perceived, not only by Christians being instructed by the Church, but by the general population, and how RECENT it all is, and how that is actually odd and inexplicable if you reject my explanations.

 

[Julina]

if anything, i think the word "adult" is an evil euphemism, as in the adult industry, adult movies, etc.

a few years ago my parents tried to put a filter on the home computer. the local library's website was blocked because it had the word "adult on the front page (and no it wasn't the meaning i was just talking about).

what kind of world do we live in where such a common everyday word can get such a twisted meaning?

 

[Chesterton]

if anything, i think the word "adult" is an evil euphemism, as in the adult industry, adult movies, etc.

I agree with that. Plus, if you see something with the disclaimer "intended for mature audiences", you're likely about to see something intended for immature audiences.

 

[NyssaTheHobbit]

Yeah, when I hear such things as cussing and inappropriate content called "adult," I can't help but note the irony.

 

[Protoevangel]

Addressed to everybody as a response to the general reaction that people do not see anything wrong with these new terms. (Not aimed at you personally, Julina.)

Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. Maybe it's just me "having issues". Then will someone PLEASE ask him or herself WHY in the name of heaven everyone is now using a new word not recorded until hardly 20 years ago to replace a word that has a history even older than the English language??? One that has been artificially disseminated by the media?? This the point of the thread!!

Excuse me, mild frustration breaking through there. To me it's as plain as the nose on my face. I only ask that people think about the oddity of all of this new language that impacts on how morality is perceived, not only by Christians being instructed by the Church, but by the general population, and how RECENT it all is, and how that is actually odd and inexplicable if you reject my explanations.

I had planned to let this go, but your latest posts actually make me think that it's been a while since you have read the Chesterton piece you linked to. You might want to refresh your memory.

In it he speaks of "everything is to be called what it is not", "a synonym which is really a pseudonym", "The names are always flattery; the names are also nonsense.", "it is a refusal of people to say what they mean", "polite fiction".

What you are talking about in this case is nowhere close to this. You are off in your own universe with this one. Nowhere did Chesterton suggest to reject a term just because it's recent, his point was to reject the language that hides the reality. And I WHOLLY agree with him (and until recently, you, on this point). Be as frustrated as you want. Write in as big of a font as you want. The phrase is perfectly descriptive and appropriately accurate.

WHY in the name of Heaven would you get so worked up over a term that means EXACTLY what it says?

... and how that is actually odd and inexplicable if you reject my explanations.

Odd and inexplicable to reject YOUR explanations? Wow, I didn't expect that from you.

 

[Etsi]

Blind post, as I've only read the first:

Fornication and Polygamy are two entirely different things. Polygamy was practiced in many cultures including, but not limited to, the cultures in the OT. Bigamy is also a valid term that is separate from Polygamy. I intentionally point this out because I know one person that was a child of one and another that was a child of the other and they are very different than just fornication (and more complicated). I'm not at all condoning either of these things, but the victims of these situations (specifically the wives and children) are not guilty of fornication nor illegitimate. Fornication is "outside of marriage". Polygamy is marriage to more than one woman. Bigamy is marriage to more than one woman without the the knowledge of the wives and in attempt to break the law against polygamy. To say otherwise is to accuse the women of a crime they did not commit and to bastardize their children.

This has actually been an issue in various countries, specifically on the continent of Africa, when Christian missionaries have come in and declared what God did not declare, though agreed that He neither approved it nor showed it as ideal. Men were forced to put away all but one wife and her children. Either he would choose the first wife, or more likely he would chose the wife that was either the youngest, the most attractive, or that he felt more affection for. The others and their children were left without support and reduced to a status of social and religious rejection. The proper thing to do, and has been encouraged by certain missionaries is to keep the families intact as they are, but encourage change in the next generation.

 

[rusmeister]

Good one on the use of "adult", Julina.

PE: On the sense of euphemism:
OK - we disagree strongly. I say it IS a polite fiction. You say that it accurately describes what they do. I say it doesn't. The fact that it is a recent invention strongly encouraged and widely used in the media does not suggest this to you. It does to me.

Where you are right, in popular understanding, is that the term does indeed mean that they "have sex", and that for them it is a way of making money in the manner that honest work does.

My allusion to the word "sex" having changed its meaning in the last century is one of the lead-ups. "Having sex" is a term coined by that great champion of Christian values*, D.H. Lawrence in 1929, something understood before that date as being something one WAS, not something one "had". Thus, the use of the word "sex" as an action is wrong from the very beginning.

But more important is the fact that the previous terms, which DID condemn, or stigmatize (translated as "wound") the action, and did so for thousands of years. The new term does not. It sounds interchangeable with "meat worker" or "steel worker". In one short generation, we are eliminating that stigma that has always properly belonged to that "industry". It uses words that do NOT have the stigma - sense of social condemnation - that "prostitute" or "pimp" have. This makes it indisputably euphemism.

And I apologize for expressing frustration. I realize that some things that seem obvious to me are not actually obvious to everybody, and I should be more patient.


*please note: sarcasm intended in a non-offensive way

 

[Josiah14]

On a somewhat different not, I spent a month at monastery and noticed some language differences that put certain unacceptable expressions into their proper context.

I used to wonder why it was that it was considered wrong to use denoted 'swear words', but then one could use "shoot", "darn", "crap", etc. in place of them and it is suddenly acceptable. So I wondered, what, then, is wrong with swearing itself, if it is only a cultural phenomenon in the language.

Well, I got my answer. At the monastery, I did not hear any words substituded for swearing. Instead of swearing, I heard prayer!

For example, someone drops a plate accidentally provokes a heartfelt "Lord, have mercy" instead of ****. Someone get's frustrated at a situation, instead of **** ** I hear "Lord, have mercy."

Interesting, how cursing has replaced an opportunity for prayer in our culture. I know from experience that practically nobody in any parish I've been to substitutes cursing with prayer, but I think this needs done.

 

[Monica child of God 1]

On a somewhat different not, I spent a month at monastery and noticed some language differences that put certain unacceptable expressions into their proper context.

I used to wonder why it was that it was considered wrong to use denoted 'swear words', but then one could use "shoot", "darn", "crap", etc. in place of them and it is suddenly acceptable. So I wondered, what, then, is wrong with swearing itself, if it is only a cultural phenomenon in the language.

Well, I got my answer. At the monastery, I did not hear any words substituded for swearing. Instead of swearing, I heard prayer!

For example, someone drops a plate accidentally provokes a heartfelt "Lord, have mercy" instead of ****. Someone get's frustrated at a situation, instead of **** ** I hear "Lord, have mercy."

Interesting, how cursing has replaced an opportunity for prayer in our culture. I know from experience that practically nobody in any parish I've been to substitutes cursing with prayer, but I think this needs done.

My priest gave a great sermon on replacing curses with blessings a few weeks ago. He reflected on what the world would be like if everyone did so. It was inspiring.

M.

 

[ScottsWife]

What frustrates me is when people (mainly women) gossip in the form of prayer requests. (I have not seen this at my new church that I'm attending, and I hope i never see it).

 

[Josiah14]

What frustrates me is when people (mainly women) gossip in the form of prayer requests. (I have not seen this at my new church that I'm attending, and I hope i never see it).

That's why I dont tell many people much of anything when it comes to the personal matters of myself or anyone eles. I'm more free with myself, as I don't care so much if I'm a subject of gossip, for that can be a blessing to me if I handle it right.

 

[ScottsWife]

That's why I dont tell many people much of anything when it comes to the personal matters of myself or anyone eles. I'm more free with myself, as I don't care so much if I'm a subject of gossip, for that can be a blessing to me if I handle it right.

Yeah, I've learned the hard way that just because someone is in church, does not make them trustworthy.

 

[NyssaTheHobbit]

The other problem is if you share too many details and get judged.

 

[Chesterton]

I came across this twice today: how people "experiment" with drugs and sex. They're not giving in to their passions, they're engaged in scientific inquiry!

 

[rusmeister]

Wanna bump this thread, too. These are things that I have learned that I consider most illuminating, and it seems like there is little else I have to offer here at TAW. Maybe people will have heard of other terms that replace the traditional, plain and course language of our fathers (OK, great-grandfathers). The more one becomes aware of this, the more one realizes the need to clean up our language and conform our words to the truth.

 

[Macarius]

How about "I'm an A student" vs. "I generally earn A's."

Or, in its most common form, "But my kid's an A student..." with the implication that if I give them less than an A it is because I'm a bad teacher - my grading (my evaluation of their work) is no longer that, now it is a comment on their ontological being (my ability to recognize their inherent "A-ish-ness")...

Blech.