Squirting and Swallowing

verb: to take drugs

It is a strange fact of life that sometimes stereotypes are in fact opposite. This post concerns the usage of drugs in the Netherlands. The Netherlands makes a distinction between "hard" and "soft" drugs. Cannabis, a "soft" drug, is generally allowed in the Netherlands, yet usage is considerably lower than many countries who still crimminalise it, as seen by this graph. And I don't think this takes into consideration the massive amounts of drug tourism that Holland also generates.

People often explain this curious statist by saying that people like doing things that aren't allowed, but this seems like a pretty weak explanation to me. My hypothesis is related to the Dutch language. "Spuiten en Slikken" is a euphamism primarily for taking drugs. In fact, there is even a popular TV show which addresses drug and(/or) sex-related activities. I once saw a young female tv host try acid and go to a disco. Now that is reporting!


Quite literally, it can be translated as "squirting and swallowing", which suddenly makes taking drugs seem a little less attractive. Or at least, it is something you would put some more thought into doing. Because, even in Dutch, judging by a google image search I just made, there is a large connotation with some aspects of sexual intercourse you hope won't be on the video that God shows you at the pearly gates.

See, when drugs are illegal and most people seem to agree that there is relatively little harm to come from them, people might be quicker to go ahead and use them in spite of the legal risk. In Holland there is a much more open dialogue, and people can make a more informed decision as to whether they want to "squirt and swallow". So I think we could introduce this eupemism into the English language, and see if this affects the drug-use statitics. It could do no harm, except I suppose, to people who like freaky sex but are staunchly anti-drug. But those people can go screw themselves, which I am sure they will.

Example Sentence:

"Every year, hundreds of thousands of drug tourists come to Amsterdam for some squirting and swallowing which their home governments would not approve of."


Bonus: Another popular host of the show Spuiten en Slikken, Nicollete, famously posed for playboy last year to "report" on the experience. This has no real relevance to this post, but is still awesome.

Doped

Verb (past tense): To have been baptised (as a baby or infant)

Being a student of George Carlin, one might say that I have a slight problem with organised religion. Mainly, a large problem is the lack of freedom of choice given to children, or as Richard Dawkins wrote, we should not label children as Muslim, Christian, Zoroastrian, Scientologists, Mormonian, or anything, at least until they are old enough to make the choice themselves. I mean, let's be honest for a moment. Children are pretty damn stupid. Okay, now I am paraphrasing Dr. Dawkins, but it's true. Kids are pretty stupid. Even your child. Even you when you were a child. For example, Peek-a-boo. Is there anything more stupid than that game? Peek-a-boo makes Hungry Hungy Hippo's look like a 3D chessboard.


Would you entrust these almost people to the secrets of the meaning of life?

But I digress. Today I am supposed to be attacking organised religion, not attacking children. Not today anyway. The point is, the ritual of baptism is just a ploy to "get em when they are young", to label and mind-control children from the most influential age, and to forever claim a soul as a member of their particular faith. And I am pretty sure it is supposed to be permanent. It is like circumcision, female circumcision, footbinding, a forehead tattoo, or hearing your parents have sex. It stays with you forever. I mean, can you even be un-baptised? I guess we could make up some kind of opposite ritual, like something that involves pouring burning oil onto a priest's forehead, or dipping your balls into some holy water. That would work.

The practice of baptism is obviously a farce anyway, such as made clear when a Catholic high school was established in the town I grew up. The students who initially enrolled were either ones who had religious fanatic parents, or kids who had been expelled from the other three schools. The only problem was, many of these naughty kids were godless, unbaptised heathens. No problem, one quick visit to the church, and they had a brand new certificate of baptism. Although, by this stage, they were probably old enough to make that decision (even though there was no other choice for them in terms of schools they could go to). But even Jesus himself was baptised when he was an adult, and he was presumably mature enough to make that decision for himself. I don't recall anywhere in the bible where Jesus was playing Peek-a-boo with the apostles, not even John (the cute one). And that is the point of it all. What Would Jesus Do? Let people make their own damn decisions. So if people want to go through the ceremony, I am happy for them. As long as we can avoid stupid stories about "emergency baptisms", apparently converting your three-year-old daughter to spite your Jewish ex-wife, and Christian babysitters "saving" unconverted children while the heathen parents are taking tango lessons.

Therefore, the point of using the Dutch word "doped" instead of "baptised" takes away the apparently good connotations of the word 'baptised' with something that sounds like "doping" and "duping". The recent scandal of the Catholic Church has made many people question their faith, and I hope this word will help them through their period of doubt and help them claim back their freedom of choice. Colonel Klink... Uncle Fester... Pope Ratzinger asked for forgiveness, but it is hard to forgive something which you were too young to remember.


Example Sentence:

If you have been doped you may well have been duped.