santorum

[Laurence Horn]

>>On Feb 7, 2004, at 14:50, Michael Newman wrote:
>>
>>>However, the problem is that it is hard to imagine any
>>>"in-the-wild" uses of the term outside a few intimate incidents in
>>>the bedroom and people recounting such incidents to others. The
>>>specificity and yuck factors that make it attractive to the campaign
>>>make people (in my experience) avoid talking about it.
>>
>>For what it's worth, I searched all available online erotica and
>>pornographic fiction and fan fiction I could find for free, including
>>newsgroups (such as alt.sex.stories.*), to no avail. There's not a lot
>>of restraint in that kind of writing, and there's millions of words of
>>it. This particular "santorum" does not seem to be there.
>>
>>Grant
>
>That's not surprising. While there are fecaphiles??

I believe "coprophiles" would be the standard moniker, but I'm no
prescriptivist.

>, there aren't
>many. The vast majority of erotica writers would leave santorum out
>of their stories, even kinky ones. Kinda ruin the mood, don't you
>think? Still, I'm sure that at some point it'll appear, presumably in
>some particularly graphic dom-sub scene.
>--
>Michael Newman
>Associate Professor of Linguistics
>Dept. of Linguistics and Communication Disorders
>Queens College/CUNY
>Flushing, NY 11367
>tel: 718-997-2871
>fax: 718-997-2873