Thread: woven sjambok?
View Single Post
Old 15th September 2020, 09:54 AM   #6
Mickey the Finn
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 90
Default

The bull's penis, stretched and dried for use as a whip, is properly called a "pizzle", according to the only definition of the word "pizzle" in my biggest English dictionary. [That's my recollection of the gist of how the dictionary read, the last time I consulted it for this particular word, which was very many years ago]. Apparently, the same part of the animal is called the same thing when it's intended for a dog to chew on, based on some, but not all, of the Google search results for "pizzle". Incidentally, nowadays, the bull's penis (when intended as a dog's "chew toy", is also known as a "bully stick". The parallels in meaning between this and my dictionary's definition are remarkable.
And according to Wikipedia: "Pizzle is an old English word for penis, derived from Low German pesel or Flemish Dutch pezel, diminutive of pees, meaning 'sinew'. The word is used today to signify the penis of an animal, chiefly in Australia and New Zealand".
Just in case anyone wanted to know how to properly refer to the thing.
I think the spelling is distinctively uncommon enough to enable the word to evade detection by flesh-and-blood P.C. censors outside Australia and New Zealand, and perhaps keyword finder software programs. Because, at least where I live, the Criminal Code has a section entitled "Crime Comic". Among certain other things, this section makes depictions of sex accompanied by violence a criminal offence. The Criminal Code of the country in which I live includes "Definitions" sections, which specify the meaning a word shall have, in the context of the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code definition of a word takes precedence and/or overrides any dictionary definition of that same word. It's not the word "pizzle" I'm concerned about here. I'm concerned about if and/or how the Criminal Code currently defines "depiction", "sex" and "violence". Because if it isn't defined, a Crown attorney might make a judgement call according to a personal/variable/situationally dependent yardstick. And I'm completely deadpan, stone-faced serious about this.
Mickey the Finn is offline   Reply With Quote