"Sux"

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Sat Oct 11, 2003 8:19 pm

I know that I am an old dog who has been at this game a long time. So perhaps it needs to be explained to me when the use of "sucks" became acceptable in a daily newspaper.Yeah, I will admit that if George Bush said "Adam Clymer sucks," it would be worthy of reporting. But in Sunday's paper we have a front-page story by two excellent sportswriters who quote Red Sox and Yankees fans as saying the other team "sucks."Six times. Sucks. In a front-page story. Of course,. as the slot I challenged it, and I was told it was "OK'd by higher powers." Well, I guess that higher powers not only are able to keep people who should not be drinking from giving their elbows a workout...they're also able to "allow" what used to be an offensive expression to be used gratuitously, and repeatedly, in a front-page story. Or should I say a front-fucking-page story, since apparently offensive language no longer is a concern.And some people wonder why older readers feel betrayed by their newspapers. It just plain sucks. It really does.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sun Oct 12, 2003 12:50 am

I am not particularly put off by "sucks," or any other word, in the newspaper. However, I can't see how it could be considered noteworthy that a Yankees fan said the Red Sox "suck."
I am more put off by, say, "poop," because it is baby talk.

johnsfulmer · **Posted:** Sun Oct 12, 2003 7:26 am

A thousand pardons, but using "sucks" is wrong. From what I've read on this site, you hold up tradition, and if you were a consistent traditionalist, you would agree with the initial post. Sucks is slang for a sexual act. You can say its meaning has been corrupted by popular use--or whatever you say--but it still has an original meaning.So, if you say that it doesn't matter, it's still wrong, no how many people say "massive" when they really mean "large,"
you'd have to agree that sucks means what it means, and not, "It's a real bummer, man."And it's slang, too. Which we usually try to avoid.

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Sun Oct 12, 2003 9:27 am

Well, the word obviously has had a shift in meaning that has occurred in my 50-year lifetime. I'd imagine people who are under 30 are completely mystified as to why I would find it offensive.The problem, as I see it, is that a certain (and not really that small) percentage of readers will see the word in relation to the sexual context and will be put off, disgusted, shocked or whatever.I just can't see a compelling reason to use a word that a lot of people just don't want to see over their morning grits. I would never go to my elderly parents' house and mention that something sucks. I would never sit in a business meeting of some sort and say that something sucks. I would never, while testifying in court, mention that something sucked.Doesn't the fact that taste factors put a limitation on a word's usage disqualify it from use in print? (Regarding "poop": A few years back, one of our "lifestyle" executive editors (we have about 30 of them) announced in a budget meeting that the lead features display piece was on animal scat and that the huge "art hed" was "The Poop on Poop"...the page was killed and the editor had her ass kicked publicly and was eventually sent to the gulag.)Of course, I'm probably being an old fart here, like Don Zimmer, for which some person half my age no doubt will grab me by the head and throw me to the ground. That would really suck.

jmcg · **Posted:** Sun Oct 12, 2003 12:02 pm

I'd say, and without hestitation, in a news meeting or whatever that the people responsible for putting that story, which says next to nothing newsworthy or noteworthy, out on page one have news judgment that, yes, sucks.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sun Oct 12, 2003 2:59 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by nyet:

So, if you say that it doesn't matter, it's still wrong, no how many people say "massive" when they really mean "large,"
you'd have to agree that sucks means what it means, and not, "It's a real bummer, man."And it's slang, too. Which we usually try to avoid.<hr></blockquote>I have been called many things, but never a consistent traditionalist. Of course it "matters." I said the example Bumfk offered didn't pass the "worth using" test. "Sucks" means pretty much what you say it does not. The sexual connotation is buried in etymology, much like "gay" no longer means anything to us but "homosexual." The "slang" argument is irrelevant to this discussion because the word was in a quotation. I do not want to see reporters using "suck," mostly because whenever they try to use "slang" in their stories, it comes out badly.

nstockdale · **Posted:** Sun Oct 12, 2003 6:06 pm

I'm 25, and when I started working at a daily about four years ago, I was flummoxed that "sucks" was considered vulgar. It had honestly never even crossed my mind. Kids use the word without any thought to -- or knowledge of -- its origin. And we're talking young kids, grade-schoolers. Smart, respectful kids. So who are we protecting by not using that word in quotes? It's not children. And exactly what would we be protecting older readers from?The "sucks" revelation prompted me to think about, for the first time, whom newspapers are targeting as an audience. If we're really serious about having younger readers, what are we doing to attract them? What do we write that caters to them? How are we establishing credibility with their generations?I'd never say that we should alienate older readers just to attract younger ones. But few people seem concerned that we do the opposite all the time. (And, of course, I'm talking about this in a bigger scope than "sucks.")

bcubbison · **Posted:** Sun Oct 12, 2003 6:27 pm

We try to confine that kind of language to the comics pages. Actually,
it's getting heavier mainstream use these days, but it has made scattered appearances in family newspapers since at least 1990 (Washington Post's Tom Shales, quoting Ted Turner about CNBC) and it was said on primetime television the same year (CBS, "Uncle Buck"). Bart Simpson, Beavis and Butthead, and "South Park" sped it along. Now Foxtrot and Doonesbury. Soon, no one but a few aging copy editors will remember its origins. It seems to be in a morphing race with "begs the question."

rumymommy · **Joined:** Tue Aug 06, 2002 12:01 am **Posts:** 138

Better watch your features pages, folks. I'll bet reporters are using the word "jazz" without any thought to what it meant in the '30s, although I'm sure many of our older readers blush at the sight."However, most scholars appear to favor an erotic origin for jazz, as 'jazzingâ€™ typically meant fornication, although no one has been able to really prove whether this meaning pre-dated the musical reference to jazz or vice versa. There is one story that proposes perfume as a possible source for the word, taken from Garvin Bushell, who as a young man worked in circus bands in Louisiana around the turn of the century:â€œThey said that the French had brought the perfume industry with them to New Orleans, and the oil of jasmine was a popular ingredient locally. To add it to a perfume was called â€œjassing it up.â€ The strong scent was popular in the red light district, where a working girl might approach a prospective customer and say, â€œIs jass on your mind tonight, young fellow?â€ The term had become synonymous with erotic activity, and came to be applied to the music as well.â€

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Sun Oct 12, 2003 11:27 pm

Yeah, but I would argue that, obviously, jazz as a music form preceded the short-lived sexual usage.In the case of sucks, it has been used since time began to refer to a sex act. The "this is awful" usage is what...20 years old at best?

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Mon Oct 13, 2003 2:38 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by 4Jfan:
Better watch your features pages, folks. I'll bet reporters are using the word "jazz" without any thought to what it meant in the '30s, although I'm sure many of our older readers blush at the sight."However, most scholars appear to favor an erotic origin for jazz, as 'jazzingâ€™ typically meant fornication, although no one has been able to really prove whether this meaning pre-dated the musical reference to jazz or vice versa. "
. . .
<hr></blockquote>"Rock and roll" also meant "sex" decades before Elvis (or the real pioneers, like Ike Turner) cut a record or a rug.But do as many people know that as know that "sucks" has a specific carnal meaning? Does anyone not know of that carnal meaning? Does anyone say it without thinking of that? Is any general-purpose newspaper made better by using such trendy, trite profanity? I wouldn't prohibit the word, but I'd think before letting it in.

majorbabs · **Posted:** Mon Oct 13, 2003 8:55 am

Okay, I'm old-fashioned. But I think newspapers should have standards that support (whether they want to or not) the best principles of writing, reading, spelling and general communication. Words such as "sucks" lead the competent editor's standards -- and,in return, the reader's standards -- down a slippery slope. What's at the bottom isn't worth reading.

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Mon Oct 13, 2003 10:30 am

I'm with the Major here on this slippery slope thing.And, getting back to what I said in my original post, and to what Phil said, this particular case just does not pass the sniff test.I'm not a sports fan, but even I know there is nothing whatsoever newsworthy about fans of opposing teams saying the other guys "suck."I think we are supposed to be upholding standards of language, not actively tearing them down.

Powderhorn · **Posted:** Tue Oct 14, 2003 12:58 am

So if "sucks" is out, do you cut the quote, or do you bracket "stinks" or some such in?Being 24, I am, of course, aware of the sexual meaning, but two things come to mind.First, I have never said "suck(s)" with any intention of having it carry a vulgar undertone. Second, in the realm of the carnal meaning, I can't see how an act that would, by most measures, be considered pleasurable be thought of when the speaker (or writer) clearly means the opposite.Would I let a reporter use it outside of a quote? Absolutely not. But when it comes down to something like people talking about sports teams, there is a genuine emotion (for reasons I fail to understand) behind the utterance that can't be substituted.It's real life being recorded by a reporter, not some intentional first step down a slippery slope -- at least, that's how I view it.My grandmother says "fuck" and she's 72. Who are we offending with "sucks"?

majorbabs · **Posted:** Tue Oct 14, 2003 9:53 am

Bad dialogue is not a substitute for good journalism.

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Tue Oct 14, 2003 10:28 am

Pete, having been a young man in the distant past I must say I find it remarkable that you have lived 24 years and have never used "sucks" with a sexual connotation. If you were president I would call for your impeachment.My mother says f---. However, since she spent a good deal of her life in the hierarchy of New Jersey Democratic politics, this is not surprising.It is indeed real life when someone says "sucks" in connection with a sporting event. However, there are plenty of other scatological, offensive or disgusting aspects of our "real lives" that really have no place in a newspaper. I can guarantee you that, come Saturday night, a couple whose house neighbors mine will be drunk and yelling "Kiss my fat ass" at each other. Would I report that? Nah.

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Tue Oct 14, 2003 10:43 am

Oh, also: Pete writes: "Second, in the realm of the carnal meaning, I can't see how an act that would, by most measures, be considered pleasurable be thought of when the speaker (or writer) clearly means the opposite."====
Not to turn this forum into a debate over word origins, but I suspect the use of "sucks" to connote something undesirable originally came about as a degrading comment about the person performing the act.

carola · **Posted:** Tue Oct 14, 2003 1:46 pm

It shouldnt be in a hed obviously, but theres nothing wrong with it being in the story. That's how people talk. I'm tired of living in a country where 'bad' language is always bleeped out in prime time. Treat us like grown ups, would you? The BBC and Channel 4 in Britain allow cursing from 9p.m. on so why can't the U.S.?

SusanV · **Posted:** Tue Oct 14, 2003 2:47 pm

Are you guys completely certain that sucks comes from the sexual act? I have always been under the impression that the original term was "sucks egg" (or eggs, I forget which) and that it eventually was truncated. I found this on a Web site via ask jeeves:
"According to the Dictionary of Slang, it originated in the 1960s to mean 'worthless, objectionable, pointless or disappointing.' "I can't find anything supporting a sexual connotation in any of my dictionaries. Where are you getting this from?

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Tue Oct 14, 2003 3:11 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by carola:
It shouldnt be in a hed obviously, but theres nothing wrong with it being in the story. That's how people talk. I'm tired of living in a country where 'bad' language is always bleeped out in prime time. Treat us like grown ups, would you? The BBC and Channel 4 in Britain allow cursing from 9p.m. on so why can't the U.S.?<hr></blockquote>We're talking about newspapers here, not television. Readers have different expectations for each, largely based on the idea that a newspaper sits on a coffee table where words can be pondered, while profanity on TV is fleeting. To me, that's stupid, but that's what many readers believe.

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Tue Oct 14, 2003 3:35 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by SusanV:
Are you guys completely certain that sucks comes from the sexual act? I have always been under the impression that the original term was "sucks egg" (or eggs, I forget which) and that it eventually was truncated. I found this on a Web site via ask jeeves:
"According to the Dictionary of Slang, it originated in the 1960s to mean 'worthless, objectionable, pointless or disappointing.' "I can't find anything supporting a sexual connotation in any of my dictionaries. Where are you getting this from?<hr></blockquote>Whenever I said it about something or someone, as a child of the 1960s and 1970s, I was thinking of the sexual connotation. We didn't have any lexicographers in my neighborhood, where it referred to fellatio performed by a man -- something you wouldn't want to be caught doing. I seldom use the term now, though, mindful of homophobia and how gratuitously offensive it is to so many people.Sure, "suck" is used in a different way today, as a non-literal putdown, much as "gay" is. And that's fine -- given the right audience. In this thread we've read mention of mothers and grandmothers who use "fuck," and been told that the word doesn't offend anymore. Well, fine, I hope our elders who speak that way live for many years in good health. But I have grandparents I can imagine would have chosen death over using that word; I wouldn't want to test my parents that way, but I'm confident that they'd cancel their subscription to any of the newspapers they buy if they saw that word on a page, and they'd campaign for others to do so. And they wouldn't think much more highly of "suck."It's impossible to print a newspaper that won't offend someone somehow; we shouldn't tie ourselves in knots censoring worthwhile ideas. But, keeping in mind alternatives for intelligent expression, we need not go out of our way to offend for the sake of being cool. Profanity seldom is a sign of intellect; often it's a cover for barren reasoning. Save it for when it's needed. Sure, occasionally it's the best way. But how often, and at what price to our credibility and readership?[ October 14, 2003: Message edited by: Wayne Countryman ]

KfitzR · **Posted:** Wed Oct 15, 2003 10:07 am

I must jump in here to report and possibly alarm. Many years ago - at least 20, possibly 30 - a well-respected Canadian magazine (I'm thinking Saturday Night, but I might be wrong on that) tried to soften an obscenity in a headline and came up with - really - m*****fucker.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Oct 15, 2003 9:28 pm

Thank you all for playing.

Testy Copy Editors

"Sux"

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links