Reason #1,925 why the New York Times might as well just shut down and save us all the hassle of trying to squeeze some semblance of relevance from a dying medium: this article.
Reporting on the use of sexual innuendo without saying a single thing about sexual innuendo.
For example: “the headlines for the ads are a carnival of carnal puns, featuring slang terms for body parts and the sex act.”
Oh, I’m sorry, do you mean FUCKING? I’m sure your massive readership has never heard the word FUCKING before. It would be a shame for a venerated American institution like the New York Times to use the word FUCKING in print.
I’m sure your target market of 95-year-old moderate Republicans somewhere on Long Island are all still virgins and wouldn’t appreciate such a piece of Olde English vernacular, when we have so many more proper Latinate words like copulation, reproduction, and the sexual act.
God forbid we should admit publicly, only 50 years into the sexual revolution, that people enjoy fucking, and that colloquial English is appropriate for use in the public sphere. It’s not like our language has a thousand-year history or anything to back it up…
Clearly we should continue using euphemisms for the carnal act, and should teach our children to be ashamed of their basic human desires.
Otherwise, we might end up living in some sort of dystopian universe in which we can justify owning assault rifles, but not use any word of less than 3 syllables to describe the most basic of human urges.
Because, of course, guns don’t kill innocent children. It’s colloquial English that kills innocent children.
Priorities, people. Priorities.
P.S. If you liked this article, you’ll definitely like my other ones about The Zen of Blogging.