The delicate matter of defecation

In this thoughtful and wide-ranging essay, Achara Deboonme employs the expression “took a dump” to designate a common excretory activity. My dear girl, if this is the type of inelegant locution they’re teaching in journalism schools nowadays, they deserve to be severely chastised. “Took a dump” is crude, although not nearly so crude as some of the alternatives proposed by my husband Horace, who is bellowing rich variety of choices into my ear even as I write, most of them employing the s-word.

We need a euphemism for this activity that avoids the extremes of prissiness and vulgarity. “Answered the call of nature” is excessively prim and imprecise; “discharged a well-known semi-solid human waste product” is laboured, and dances coyly around the subject;  “emptied one’s bowels” is perhaps excessively robust.

What’s wrong with “defecated”? Well, that sounds abrupt, although such an activity often is, especially after two plates of five-alarm som tam and copious draughts of lao khao (this information courtesy of my beloved soulmate). While I am vehemently opposed to the politically correct frills and fripperies that currently blight the language, “defecated” is stark.  It requires some embellishment.

I favour “performed an act of defecation,” or “precipitated a defecatory event”. This avoids the prissiness and vulgarity cited above, and it throws a bone to the politically correct peabrains.  Adjectives like “major”,  “prodigious”,  “humongous” or “gargantuan” may be added in cases where the significance of the achievement is praiseworthy in terms of quantity.  

Should your esteemed journal have occasion to reference this activity in the future, I devoutly hope that it will avoid the inelegance of “took a dump”. And no, Horace, the s-word just won’t do.

Constance Beasley

Bangkok