I don't mean to seem to attack anyone in this thread (because I understand that certain usage habits become ingrained), but I'm really wondering about this frequent use of "f-bomb" in a thread about the freedom to use the word "fuck".
All euphemisms are more or less repellent to me (with the possible exception of "heck" as a replacement for "hell" because it's just so damn quaint and homely), but this I think "f-bomb" is particularly bad as is "f---" and similar smirking character replacements. (The silliest of which is no doubt motherf-cker, which you've probably seen many times. How is this any more acceptable without the u?)
In what conceivable world does this kind of nonsensical elision reduce the (negligible) shock some imaginary reader might feel at seeing the real word? To me it sounds like someone trying to come up with a way of speaking code in a child's presence. Now even if you stipulate that a child's ears need to be protected from this horrible vulgarity (as if they won't learn the full language of obscenity in their first 3 days in a schoolyard), no one in this thread or in any normal conversation requires this protection, and yet everyone uses these silly euphemisms anyway. I just don't understand it, especially in a thread like this which is understood to be read by adults and is in fact discussing the word "fuck" explicitly. I speculate there is some distant and tenuous cultural relation to the Orthodox insistence on not spelling out any name or designation of God in full (G-d, etc) and yet of course that pattern of usage applied to "fuck" is obviously blasphemous.
If you "just don't understand it," you shouldn't be too quick to pronounce it nonsensical. And if you've already made your mind up that it's repellent, how can you say that you're "really wondering" about it?
In case you are actually interested in other people's viewpoints on this subject, I'll try to explain my thoughts. First of all, what makes a word count as profanity isn't its
meaning. "Shit" and "feces" have the same meaning, but only one is profanity. They differ in what philosophers of language call pragmatic force--that is, they signal different intentions and/or attitudes. Words like "shit" and "fuck" have a distinctive and sometimes quite powerful pragmatic force that actually relies on the words being regarded as often inappropriate.
For example, compare the following:
1) The bus is late again.
2) The fucking bus is late again.
In terms of meaning, the two sentences are identical. But sentence (2) expresses stronger displeasure. Why? I submit that it's precisely
because the word "fuck" is so often felt as inappropriate. The speaker is venting frustration by breaking a rule, or effectively saying "I'm angry enough to violate rules!" Maybe the rule depends on context--"fuck" might only regarded as inappropriate at certain times and places. (In that case, the speaker can superficially seem to break the rule without actually doing so.) It's even possible that the speaker doesn't think the rule is important or well-justified. But there
is a social rule of appropriateness about the word. And breaking the rule can carry consequences, as you might find out if you ever tell your boss "Fuck you!"
Imagine a scenario where the word "fuck" becomes perfectly acceptable in all contexts. It appears in medical textbooks, papal encyclicals, and so on. ("The teaching of the Catholic Church is that fucking should occur only within the indissoluble bonds of holy matrimony....") In that scenario, the word "fuck" will
no longer count as profanity. I think people would then stop saying things like sentence (2) above. If sentences like (2) did continue to be uttered, they would lose their special force.
Conversely, the stronger the rule is against the word, the more force the word will carry when it is used. In a society where saying "fuck" in public could be punished by jail time, sentence (2) would express powerful displeasure indeed.
Here in the U.S. in 2014, the rule against "fuck" has a lot of context dependence and is, all in all, of middling strength. Maybe you think the rule shouldn't exist at all, and maybe you're right--though without it, you'd lose a possibly important way of expressing yourself. Anyway, the rule cannot simply be wished away. The choice is whether to follow it or to break it. (Though it is possible to follow the rule while seeming to break it, by using the word in contexts where it actually is appropriate.)
In some contexts, it's not totally clear whether the rule applies. And I think that's the case right here on AW. So it makes sense to me that some people choose to play it safe. They type "f*ck" or what have you, because they don't care to break the rule and they feel no need to invoke the pragmatic force that comes from breaking it. That is quite different from thinking anyone requires "protection."
In other words, it's a reasonable personal policy to always follow the rule
except when you want to be especially forceful. You can consistently acknowledge that breaking the rule carries no dire consequences. (It's almost as if society has said "People sometimes like to vent their frustration by breaking rules! All right, we'll create some arbitrary rules for them to break that don't really matter. Then people can have the fun of breaking rules without doing any actual harm.")
Personally, as you can see, I choose to use the words at issue without obscuring them. But if others choose to speak of "F-bombs," I see no grounds to complain.
I also see no analogy to the word "God." There is another English word, however, that does provide an analogy.
Anyway, as I see it, this thread isn't really about the freedom to use the word "fuck." The thread is more about the advisability of using the word, which is a different matter.