So the article is about the sapphic daughter, Mary Cheney, of the former Vice President - and the content is otherwise quite beside the point.
The perversion comes from the title and its uncouth reference to the aforementioned.
Did you know what a daisy chain was?
I certainly didn't - and I've had HBO for a dozen years now. Furthermore, I've been known to, in the dutiful course of my blog research, once in while swim in the shallow end of the World Wide Web. Still, I'd most certainly have remembered this term had I come across it!
So there you go, just the fact that Ms. Maureen Dowd knows the term is incriminating enough.
And that she'd use the filthy allusion as the title of her column in the New York Times, and that they'd publish it....that's beyond the pale.
3 comments:
I chuckled.
The mostly unknown slang definition you are referring to comes directly from a very common IT and electrical engineering term.
Why do you assume she is using the slang definition?
Marriam,
First of all, it's the responsibility of a writer at an *esteemed* paper to be familiar with all connotations/definitions.
But if you insist on falling for the *accidental* ruse...
Could I gratuitously refer to Rosie O'Donnell as *gay* and, when called on it, insist I meant *happy*? Would that be credible in your opinion?
Secondly, every chance *they* get, they refer to the sexuality of Ms. Cheney. She and *her partner* are expecting a baby. How is the partner relevant in this article?
There's a long history of queer-baiting by those who fashion themselves *tolerant*. Did you know that they called Joseph McCarthy an invert, nonstop, in an effort to discredit him? How was that for a SUBSTANTIVE rebuttal?
Is Ms. Dowd an electrical engineer by trade? Or an *invectivist*?
The top slang definition in urban dictionary supports my hypothesis, rather than yours.
Post a Comment