USA Today on "sucks "

[RonButters at AOL.COM]

> Douglas G. Wilson wrote:
>
> >I have heard "eats" used in more-or-less this way, with no explicit object,
> >as early as 1967 or 1968, e.g., "This really eats" (= "... sucks" = "...
> >blows" = "... bites"). I don't think "John eats" works because it sounds
> >habitual and everybody would admit to habitually eating (not everyone would
> >admit to habitually blowing or sucking, maybe).
>
Also, the parallel slang expressions are ambiguous: "eat shit," "eat pussy,"
"eat ass," well as "eat dick" (the latter being, curiously, somewhat archaic
to my ears). Moreover, there are fewer nonobscene pejorative expressions
containing EAT than there are SUCK, so there is less etymological opportunity for
thinking of using EAT as a mere intransitive. Also, EAT is much more
unambiguously positive than SUCK, BLOW, BITE, etc. Finally, EAT is often used normally
with an animate subject without an explicit direct object: THE BABY IS EATING
NOW; WE EAT AT FIVE TODAY. But not THE BABY IS SUCKING NOW; WE BITE AT FIVE
TODAY.