I was talking to my teenge son, who is almost 17, and knows just how to push my buttons. I was telling him that I didn't want him to do something. His reply was, "I'll bloody well do it if I want to."
I told him off for swearing, and his reply was that "bloody" isn't a swear word, and that "everyone" uses it.
Well, regardless of whether eveyone uses it, I told him I didn't want to hear him using it at home.
So what I want to know is, do people in the US and Canada, consider it to be an offensive word?
For that matter, is it offensive to hear someone use it in the UK these days? When I was growing up, it was a swear word, and maybe just slightly less offensive than using the F-word. I'd have been in a lot of trouble for using either. What do people think?

As I've remarked before, the more a word or expression is used, the less prohibited it becomes. As for bloody, of course, it was derived from the exclamation "God's blood!", which was very strong. Can't speak for the UK, but in the US it's pretty tame.

To follow up on dg's query, which got me to thinking, do they still use the expression "zounds" (God's wounds) anywhere in the UK, or is that completely archaic?

"Bloody" is not only tame, but an odd word for a teenager to use. It strikes me as an older person's word; my own son used the full range of swearwords when a teenager, but never 'bloody'. Maybe it's not common in Scotland.

'Partridge reports that it was "respectable" before c.1750, and it was used by Fielding and Swift, but heavily tabooed c.1750-c.1920, perhaps from imagined association with menstruation; Johnson calls it "very vulgar," and OED first edition writes of it, "now constantly in the mouths of the lowest classes, but by respectable people considered 'a horrid word', on par with obscene or profane language." Shaw shocked theatergoers when he put it in the mouth of Eliza Doolittle in "Pygmalion" (1914), and for a time the word was known euphemistically as "the Shavian adjective."' etymonline.com

"Bloody" is not really used where I live except to describe an injury. If used otherwise, it is almost assumed that you are mimicking the British and would not be considered swearing.

When I was young, "sucks" was considered swearing. Now it is considered mild to non-offensive.

I know it's used a lot in England, NNN. I hear it when I'm there.
But I don't know if other people find it offensive. Regarding what you said about it not being a word young people would use, I wonder if he calculated that he would upset me by using it. He has never heard me use the word ( well, perhaps, under my breath ), but he is aware enough of UK culture to know that it's a word used over there.
I'm wondering if I'm being too hard on him, and am stuck in some sort of time warp, which happens sometimes to immigrants. They continue to use the language and terms that were prevalent, when they left their country of origin. Meanwhile, everyone in that actual place has moved on, and of course times have changed.

No, I never heard the word "zounds" before, jr. Maybe you are stuck in a time warp too?

Yes, maybe 'bloody' is English. It reminds of grittily realistic black-and-white movies - "Room at the Top" and the like.

"Bloody Hell" is used in Harry Potter - the movies anyway. (I could never get past the first few pages of the first book. For me, Rowling's style is all over the place - a mixture of Enid Blytonish language and modern idiom. It's annoying.)

Anyway, the word's being in Harry Potter makes it tame, but also, surely, pretty uncool for teenagers.

"Zounds" is strictly for Shakespeare and movies featuring swordplay with Errol Flynn.

I'm amazed, dg. Goodness, if my children had only said 'bloody' I'd have wondered what was wrong with them

In Cambridgeshire, you'd have to go back to the 1950s to find a time when 'bloody' was an offensive word for a youngster to use.I'm told that, as a small child back then, I'd heard workmen using it, so I thought I'd try. At the first opportunity which presented itself, I said to my mother " This soup's bloody hot" and awaited her reaction. She came over, peered at the soup, and said "Really? Where is there any blood in it? I can't see any". Bloody Irish mothers ! They don't think like normal people. Reportedly, I was so confused by this literal approach that I didn't bother with the word thereafter.

My mother herself used to say that when she was young Cambridge undergraduates used to pointedly refer to Queen Mary I as 'Sanguinary Mary' .Well, as gentlemen, they couldn't be expected to say 'Bloody Mary' could they ? Their mockery was well founded.How could an ordinary English word, with an ordinary, inoffensive, meaning, be viewed as shocking if used as an intensifier ?

Incidentally,in French 'bleu' was once a euphemism used for God,hence 'Sacre [with acute accent] bleu!' It's why we use 'blue' as an intensifier as in ' to yell blue murder'. It may be why we speak of 'blue language'.

And, dg, you'd best not come to any Chelsea home games, still less bring any young child.(There is a family area in the stands for people with young children )You'd not hear 'bloody' as often as you'd hear other current exclamations and adjectives.Perfectly respectable parents take their youngsters to these games, and in their thousands, and they hear the words.No harm is done.

If one of ours used much stronger language than 'bloody' our response would depend on the age of the child. We would never be shocked or annoyed.Let's face it, words are not shocking to us in themselves, however many letters they have. Opinions can be.If the child was very young then we'd say that the word ought not to be used, and won't be.We can't have them thinking it's appropriate in general.When they were older it was 'Do try to moderate your language,child. It's not very pleasant, is it? Let's have no more' Of course, if the youngster was cheeking or being disrespectful to one or other of us, it didn't matter what words were used ! Mere sarcasm is enough !

quote:

Originally posted by FredPuli:
And, dg, you'd best not come to any Chelsea home games

Oh, I'll spare myself the tedium of that, thanks. I can think of much more interesting ways to spend a Saturday afternoon.
So, it seems I may have overreacted with my son. Actually, the best thing I can do to make it totally uncool, is to incorperate it into my conversations, and then he won't use the word as matter of principle.

quote:

Originally posted by dg:

Actually, the best thing I can do to make it totally uncool, is to incorperate it into my conversations, and then he won't use the word as matter of principle.

Yes. And if he tries it again, tell him to "F*** off!" (Or maybe not. You might not say that so it sounds uncool )

Max Miller, a late, great, comedian here,told how he'd once come home to be met by his wife saying " Our boy has been using foul language again!". "Right", said Max," I'll teach him about using foul language. You wait!" and stormed upstairs, only to fall flat on his face on the first step. " I shouldn't bother", said the wife," I think you've just taught him enough already! "

(By the way, I can tell you've been watching Chelsea's home games. Some of us pay for a season ticket to get as bored as that )

quote:

Originally posted by FredPuli:
Yes. And if he tries it again, tell him to "F*** off!"

Oh believe me, I've been tempted. I'm saving that one for when I really feel like throttling him. It'll freak him out that I actually know the expression, and I might get a week's worth of terrified silence from him.
My best form of retaliation at the moment is to say something embarrassing. His usual reply to that is, "You're so weird, Mum. Are you on drugs or something?"
I never watch football, but always seem to have the bad luck of arriving in the UK just when there's some sort of championship on.