The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

everything with a pulse? Options
QP
Posted: Monday, October 29, 2018 7:25:23 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/28/2015
Posts: 443
Neurons: 6,956
Hi friend,

Please help to explain the below sentence in bold:-

He's never gonna have a bird because he's too busy fucking everything with a pulse. No?

Thank you
QP
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Monday, October 29, 2018 7:35:48 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 519
Neurons: 2,697
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Wow, thanks for this idiom!

I guess this is equivalent to what we say here: fucking everything that can move.
Applause

If I am correct, then usually this is said about a man who is very popular among women and has sex with many of them without submitting himself to any discipline in that respect.
Sarrriesfan
Posted: Monday, October 29, 2018 7:50:30 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/30/2016
Posts: 1,088
Neurons: 6,942
Location: Luton, England, United Kingdom
Although it may not just women that he is having sexual encounters with, "anything with a pulse" means anything that is alive it could mean men as well.

I lack the imagination for a witty signature.
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Monday, October 29, 2018 8:45:42 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 41,933
Neurons: 418,191
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
And even animals, for that matter ;-)


In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
money143
Posted: Monday, October 29, 2018 9:04:45 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 6/20/2014
Posts: 13
Neurons: 5,048
Location: Iquique, Tarapaca, Chile
Or everything that has a pulse of their own. ;)

What you give power to, has power over you.
Wilmar (USA)
Posted: Monday, October 29, 2018 10:12:22 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/4/2015
Posts: 1,312
Neurons: 492,821
Location: Vinton, Iowa, United States
Do I need to report this vulgar language, again? These questions are presented for no other reason than an excuse to use vulgarity. Do you think you're "smart" using this language? Do you really think it reflects positively on yourself?
It needs to stop -- now!
towan52
Posted: Monday, October 29, 2018 10:20:15 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/28/2012
Posts: 1,738
Neurons: 183,490
Location: Midland, Texas, United States
Concentrating on the pulse theme Whistle :
I once asked a professor at a University of Texas campus, "What does it take for a student to be accepted here?". He replied, "A pulse!".

"Today I was a hero. I rescued some beer that was trapped in a bottle"
Romany
Posted: Monday, October 29, 2018 10:59:22 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,541
Neurons: 45,412
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Wilmar - we all know that you, personally, consider some words "dirty".

This is a language site. Language includes slang, short-forms, and the kinds of words you judge "vulgar"; as well as beauty and precision. We are all interested in the English language - warts and all.

The fact that you have a private collection of words you don't want to hear, but which make up a large part of modern communication, is hardly relevent in this context: we are adults, for goodness' sake! Not a pack of wayward children over whom you have control.

Don't start threatening people with "telling on" simply because of your own private likes and dislikes. We don't particularly like it when you inject political slogans under people's posts rather than pointing out any facts they may have related incorrectly and using discussion - which is what the purpose of this forum is But no-one's going to "tell on" you.It's just ignored in the spirit of harmony and keeping the forum free of nastiness. No-one has ever instructed that it must stop.

I advise you to do the same: if you don't like how a thread is going stop reading.

But telling people they MUST think the same way you do and abide by your private censorship rules is unrealistic.

Civility includes the art of holding one's tongue at times in order to maintain the peace.
NKM
Posted: Monday, October 29, 2018 2:10:38 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/14/2015
Posts: 4,958
Neurons: 275,173
Location: Corinth, New York, United States
I'm with Romany on this one.

As an elderly, well-brought-up gentleman, I don't use that word except in very rare situations, but I'm not shocked to hear it sprinkled generously throughout the speech of my grandchildren and their friends. (They do seem to understand the concept of "polite company", but they're not always careful about its application.)

In fact I've occasionally been known to use the word, loudly and emphatically, in speaking to my grandkids. That's for shock value: It gets their attention, simply because it's so unexpected.

jacobusmaximus
Posted: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 7:35:36 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 11,599
Neurons: 443,948
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
[quote=Wilmar (USA)]Do I need to report this vulgar language, again? These questions are presented for no other reason than an excuse to use vulgarity. Do you think you're "smart" using this language? Do you really think it reflects positively on yourself?
It needs to stop -- now!
[/quot

You are quite right, Wilmar. The structure of the sentence makes it obvious that the Poster is getting a kick out of being deliberately offensive. You should report it.

I remember, therefore I am.
towan52
Posted: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 9:11:44 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/28/2012
Posts: 1,738
Neurons: 183,490
Location: Midland, Texas, United States
Not to take away from Romany's opinion which is very well expressed.

Had the post been about the expletive (which it wasn't) the use of the "F" word would have been fine. It seemed to me that the poster was like the little boy at the back of the classroom talking about willies etc. for effect.

I've always thought that frequent and gratuitous use of profanities showed an inability to express oneself effectively but I'm having to revise/modify that belief. Personally, though, I find profanity depressing and offensive. I mean, a moron is a moron whether sexually active or not!

"Today I was a hero. I rescued some beer that was trapped in a bottle"
Romany
Posted: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 6:22:41 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,541
Neurons: 45,412
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Towan - I personally simply can't converse with people who throw constant and unecessary "Y'know"s and "like"s into everything they say.It both offends and disturbs me.Because of MY beliefs about language.

I am pretty sure what would happen if I reported every "like" and "y'know" to Admin and demanded they are never used on this particular language forum because my training and beliefs put me against them. Then we'd have to try to establish whether demanding the entire forum runs along the kind of lines that fit into my ideas carries as much weight as Wilmar's demands for the forum to be amended to fit his ideas? This is utter nonsense.

The entire corpus of rules on this public platform are composed to keep nastiness out. The most shocking sentence I've ever read here was "You're a complete waste of skin" said to someone who disagreed. Not a "dirty" word in sight. Just a dirty, mean, wicked way of thinking. It hurt me so much that such a despicable thought was fine to express and that the post stayed up for the whole world to read. Because the language was "clean"?

If any of you were taking a stand against those who post ad hominems, or show no humanity towards others, or who only post in order to stir things up, you'd have the respect of the entire forum for speaking up.

But to castigate a learner for asking about a very common expression that they came across in an English-language text; then to make a judgement against that poster ...and to act upon what only your private thoughts have conjured up (it's being done for shock-value) is nasty, divisive and arrogant.

This is a language forum. It's here to discuss language...I can't repeat that enough. It's not the "Comments" section under some video or article. The English language may include words which some people don't like. How does a learner, who comes across these words and phrases when they read English books, watch English films, hear English speakers speaking to each other, understand such ubiquity if they are told never to inquire about them because Wilmar and Jacob want to pretend the English language doesn't contain such words? Educators learn very early in their careers that IF someone is asking questions for their shock-value, making a fuss about it plays into their game. One treats all enquiries with the same gravitas and in one's stride.When treated like adults people rise to adult levels. When treated like a small child and ordered about in what they can and can't say, they react.

I also find it extremely "offensive" when a handful of (usually very elderly) people want to apply censorship rules of their own devising. Why should one person's "offence" override another person's "offence"? for goodness sake?

It's a language forum. We discuss language. There is no proscriptive in language study which dictates that we don't study the history, usage, grammar, meaning, shifts in meaning, and usage of any particular word. Whether it be one we like or one we don't. As I said - if a post is about a subject you don't like, or uses words you personally disapprove of simply don't read it. But expecting everyone else to fall into line with individual shibboliths and taboos, can only lead to more division, anger, arguments, ill-feeling and personal animosity. And giving other people commands is unacceptable in most cultures. Especially mine!

All we are saying, is Give Peace a Chance.
jacobusmaximus
Posted: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 6:35:03 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 11,599
Neurons: 443,948
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
Romany wrote:

Towan - I personally simply can't converse with people who throw constant and unecessary "Y'know"s and "like"s into everything they say.It both offends and disturbs me.Because of MY beliefs about language.

I am pretty sure what would happen if I reported every "like" and "y'know" to Admin and demanded they are never used on this particular language forum because my training and beliefs put me against them. Then we'd have to try to establish whether demanding the entire forum runs along the kind of lines that fit into my ideas carries as much weight as Wilmar's demands for the forum to be amended to fit his ideas? This is utter nonsense.

The entire corpus of rules on this public platform are composed to keep nastiness out. The most shocking sentence I've ever read here was "You're a complete waste of skin" said to someone who disagreed. Not a "dirty" word in sight. Just a dirty, mean, wicked way of thinking. It hurt me so much that such a despicable thought was fine to express and that the post stayed up for the whole world to read. Because the language was "clean"?

If any of you were taking a stand against those who post ad hominems, or show no humanity towards others, or who only post in order to stir things up, you'd have the respect of the entire forum for speaking up.

But to castigate a learner for asking about a very common expression that they came across in an English-language text; then to make a judgement against that poster ...and to act upon what only your private thoughts have conjured up (it's being done for shock-value) is nasty, divisive and arrogant.

This is a language forum. It's here to discuss language...I can't repeat that enough. It's not the "Comments" section under some video or article. The English language may include words which some people don't like. How does a learner, who comes across these words and phrases when they read English books, watch English films, hear English speakers speaking to each other, understand such ubiquity if they are told never to inquire about them because Wilmar and Jacob want to pretend the English language doesn't contain such words? Educators learn very early in their careers that IF someone is asking questions for their shock-value, making a fuss about it plays into their game. One treats all enquiries with the same gravitas and in one's stride.When treated like adults people rise to adult levels. When treated like a small child and ordered about in what they can and can't say, they react.

I also find it extremely "offensive" when a handful of (usually very elderly) people want to apply censorship rules of their own devising. Why should one person's "offence" override another person's "offence"? for goodness sake?

It's a language forum. We discuss language. There is no proscriptive in language study which dictates that we don't study the history, usage, grammar, meaning, shifts in meaning, and usage of any particular word. Whether it be one we like or one we don't. As I said - if a post is about a subject you don't like, or uses words you personally disapprove of simply don't read it. But expecting everyone else to fall into line with individual shibboliths and taboos, can only lead to more division, anger, arguments, ill-feeling and personal animosity. And giving other people commands is unacceptable in most cultures. Especially mine!

All we are saying, is Give Peace a Chance.


I can't speak for Wilmar but I am offended,Romany, that you think I want to pretend that offensive words don't exist in the English language. (Well of course I'm not offended because I know you - and I know what you mean) . But my point is that Wilmar is entitled to his/her opinion and should feel free to express it without ill-considered judgements being levelled. What's good for the goose...

I remember, therefore I am.
Romany
Posted: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 10:51:14 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,541
Neurons: 45,412
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Hey Jacob -

Hang on there just a minute, mate. Speak to the hand Where have I even mentioned Wilmar's right to express himself? Wilmar does, indeed, often express his views on this issue in the middle of threads. Exactly because he has every right to do so. And those posts of his are usually ignored - because it is our right not to respond. Everyone goes on merrily: Wilmar says his piece, most people ignore it and the thread continues.

What my bone of contention is this time is that polite silence has been taken as acquiesance (or subjugation?). It most definitely is not. Merely a wish not to waste time on thread interuptions; or to engage in pointless - but often very heated - argument.

My main point is that neither Wilmar, nor anyone else, has the right to demand that other people fall in line with their ideas.

Wilmar needs to be more careful about his own language; the arrogance of "Do I need to report this vulgar language, again?" is breathtaking. ( And,seriously, when have you ever heard anyone use that phrasing on any person who was over school-age?Dancing ) C'mon, Jacob - you're a Scot, I think? If so you, every bit as much as Brits. or Aussies. or South Africans, or Chinese or most people in the world, surely find it impolite and unacceptable to be spoken to as if the stranger speaking had some sort of higher authority over you?

You and I couldn't hold more different ideas - on most subjects. Yet have either of us ever stepped over the boundaries and demanded the other and everyone else on the entire forum abide by our particular private codes?

We're both on the same page when it comes to good manners, treating others with dignity, and *treating others as you'd like them to treat you.This transcends religious affiliation, lack of relion, gender, and politics.

Those are my points.

* Which, however, I ascribe to Ashurbanipal and the Babylonian Codes, and you to the BibleDancing (Sorry, just couldn't resist!Drool )
RuthP
Posted: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 6:41:45 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,148
Neurons: 57,079
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
QP wrote:
Hi friend,

Please help to explain the below sentence in bold:-

He's never gonna have a bird because he's too busy fucking everything with a pulse. No?

Thank you
QP

Before responding, I think it would be appropriate for you to state what you think the sentence, by which I mean the entire sentence, means. The bold part is not a sentence. It is a phrase within the sentence and without understanding the context, you cannot understand the phrase.

I will say I believe Kiril's interpretation is inaccurate. The sentence and the bold phrase within it do not imply the man is desirable to women. Nor, as others have suggested, does it imply he is having sex with things other than female or other than human. It, in fact, suggests he is not achieving what he wishes in the realm of sex and relations with women. And, my reason for saying so is based on the first part of the sentence.

It would be possible to use the "fucking anything with a pulse" to mean sex with non-humans, but the context belies that in this case.
Romany
Posted: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 7:49:24 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,541
Neurons: 45,412
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
I agree with Ruth: Kiril's reading of a highly promiscuous man being popular with women - or even men over about 20 - is certainly not suggested by this sentence. Nor is it borne out in real life. Preconception or not reading the full sentence?

(Ruth: Regarding the sex with animals thing - my first impulse when I saw it suggested was to think "Ah, must be a New Zealander."Whistle )
Sarrriesfan
Posted: Thursday, November 1, 2018 12:25:43 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/30/2016
Posts: 1,088
Neurons: 6,942
Location: Luton, England, United Kingdom
I would agree that it's unlikely to be sex with a non-human, the use of the term 'bird' suggests it's a phrase from a work set in Britain and given our laws and morals it's highly unlikely.

It is probably more likely that the person involved is having sex with women rather than men, but without Qp telling us which work this comes from it's impossible to rule out the person being bisexual.



I lack the imagination for a witty signature.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Thursday, November 1, 2018 4:28:22 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 30,401
Neurons: 179,177
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
It seems to be from a slightly 'old' work - I'd guess a novel or film from the 1960s or 1970s.
Designed to be "shocking" or "unconventional", the phrase really just means "morally immature" - like a teenager who has just discovered sex.

I think that bestiality and homosexuality are rather 'beside the point'. The phrase is totally unspecific - as are his moral/sexual limits.

Hi Romany!
Funny you mentioned NZ - that must be the Aussie bias.
If I search "sheep" and "wellies" in Google UK, your top-of-the-list item is "Welsh Gift Shop".


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Thursday, November 1, 2018 5:06:51 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 519
Neurons: 2,697
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Then I misunderstood or made wrong parallels. Thank you all.
Sarrriesfan
Posted: Thursday, November 1, 2018 5:20:11 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/30/2016
Posts: 1,088
Neurons: 6,942
Location: Luton, England, United Kingdom
QP wrote:

He's never gonna have a bird because he's too busy fucking everything with a pulse. No?

QP


Kirill I don't automatically think so.

The original sentence could be taken two ways.
He's never going to have a bird, meaning he is not successful with women and is never going to have success with women.

He's never going to have a bird, could also mean that he's never going to have a particular woman that he's in a steady relationship with as he having too much fun playing the field.


Without more of a context it's up to of those of us reading the sentence to make up our own theories as to what it means.

I lack the imagination for a witty signature.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Thursday, November 1, 2018 5:29:13 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 519
Neurons: 2,697
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Romany
Posted: Thursday, November 1, 2018 10:24:04 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,541
Neurons: 45,412
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Drago -

now there's new to me! Hadn't know about the Welsh thing.It's one of the first things Aussies say when they meet a New Zealander. Some brave New Zealanders try to turn it round onto the Aussies...it hasn't changed the original which reserves that occupation for everyone in NZ still.

I put "sheep shagger" into Google and loved one of the results: -

"11 Jan 2011 - To all Australians: You need to build an Ark. On it place 2 Koalas, 2 Kangaroos, & 3 sheep (in case 1 dies from sexual exhaustion) ~ God."
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.