I learned my first bad word at home as a very young child. I didn’t know what it meant, but I knew it was bad, and I heard it a lot.

I even tried it out a few times myself before I learned what it meant. With absolute disgust, I’d use it: “Ugh, Don’t be such a bureaucrat!” I knew no worse insult.

I’ve learned a few more bad words since then, but mostly I’m a damn/hell type. I figure those words show up in scripture and even hymns often enough that they can’t be too bad. I still use bureaucrat when absolutely necessary.

When I’m really mad, I deploy them to get my kids’ attention. I know these particular words aren’t that bad, but the little kids think they’re terrible, so my tantrum is effective — they suddenly stop and listen, and I can even make them cry sometimes. The big kids have figured it out and they just roll their eyes and tell me I’m a bad example.

But I think I’m the best bad example around. I go to church every week and hear people saying way worse things — often over the pulpit. I’ve double checked, and I have found no scriptures wherein any prophet, no matter how fed up, laments that things “suck” or that anyone is “screwed.”

Certainly the dark deeds of Genesis are not referenced with such casual vulgarity. But somehow we ignore the highly sexualized meanings of these words and use them everywhere without a blush.

I understand that language is a negotiated system. Words only have meaning insofar as we agree to it. When Adam and Eve or Glug and Roxy or whoever it was got together and agreed on which grunt would mean which thing, the grunt became the signifier for that thing. We give new grunts new meanings all the time.

Similarly, words are offensive only insofar as we agree that they are offensive. For example, no one minds when I say luck, duck, or truck. But when one of my sons was 5 years old and randomly rhyming these words, he stumbled upon another word which got my attention.

He was delighted at his discovery and the reaction it provoked, and as soon as he rinsed the soap out of his mouth, he taught it to all the kids in the neighborhood. The phone calls that rolled in from other moms confirmed that our culture does indeed find that word offensive.

Recently my angry pre-schooler called his brother a “dingus,” and when I told him to be nice, he explained that “dingus” is not mean because it doesn’t mean anything.

Thus, my 4-year-old, who cannot spell his middle name, asserted a linguistic theory: basically he was claiming that he had composed syllables outside of the cultural lexicon, and he could assert authority over their denotative and connotative values. Therefore, he shouldn’t get in trouble for using his own word. Quite sophisticated, really.

But any mom who has heard the word “dingus” or any of its newly minted synonyms applied to a sibling is perfectly clear that it’s an insult regardless of its origins. An individual cannot simply control language in cultural isolation.

And like my rhyming son confirmed, culturally, we agree that some things are inappropriate. To address these things without offending, we employ euphemisms, which are nice words for bad things.

For example, there’s stuff we must talk about because the baby just did it in a room full of people, and his parents must now negotiate who is going to clean it up. I like euphemisms for these situations.

On the other hand, there’s stuff we don’t usually need to talk about in polite society — I hate euphemisms for making it socially acceptable to casually bring these things into the room.

It doesn’t take much creativity to trace most of our bad words back to God or bodies. And our euphemisms follow the same lineage — they are mostly about religion, sex or bodily waste. Yet somehow even very conservative people ignore this lineage.

I’ve heard folks who fancy themselves quite pious decrying the evil of a grown adult watching a movie that some arbitrary formula has rated for 13- or even 17-year-olds. Very righteous indeed. But these same people are regularly saying things “suck” or someone’s a “wuss” or they “got screwed/shafted/ripped a new one,” or you should “cover your butt.”

I’m pretty sure the newspaper won’t print candid talk about what these words actually mean. But everyone seems to take the position of my 4-year-old: The words have no meaning.

I recently heard a parent’s account of a young women’s leader losing her temper in front of the girls. The young women she was taking on a bike ride were cut off by an idiot driver and nearly crashed. Apparently, the leader confronted the driver and let fly a series of anatomically specific recommendations that not even the most acrobatic drag queen could accomplish.

I find such a rant offensive on several points: 1. I hate vulgar words generally and 2. I find most vulgarities to be particularly offensive to women. Our worst insults often simply degrade femininity and female sexual roles. Many of them are versions of rape.

But, if I had to pick between the frequent use of the euphemisms that mean the same thing and someone actually admitting to having a filthy mouth, I’d prefer the latter.

I’m not prudish. In fact, I have lectured with gynecological precision on the gender implications of a literary text. I don’t mind talking about sex; I simply want us to admit when we’re talking about it and perhaps even limit ourselves to respectful discourse and, of course, clever innuendo.

And what I’d really like to see is some creativity in our insults.

My bishop recommends a biblical allusion; when church ball gets ugly, the bishop reputedly accuses an opponent of being a branch with no fruit. Slander indeed. But not too catchy.

For the worst offenses, I’m sticking with bureaucrat.