While the phrase has its innocent overtones -- in the 1969 Zombies hit "Time of the Season," the singer investigates a potential love interest by inquiring, "What's your name, who's your daddy?"

Really? I never thought that was even slightly innocent.

Um, no... and mostly I'm subtext-impaired.

I always thought "who's your daddy" in that song was him asking "Is your father important in this town or can I do waht I want to you without getting in trouble?"

I think the next line of the song is, "Is he rich like me?" so I figured the singer was trying to figure out if the object of his attention would be impressed by him or not. (Me = not, by the way)

I figured that the daddy was the same sort of daddy in the phrase "sugar daddy" -- not quite a blood relation, though other fluids may be shared.

So. Which of the following are too salacious for casual use: "sucks", "bites", "who's your daddy?"

FWIW, I have been chronicling the Boston Globe's censors by how they quote their baseball players. (The writers are not adroit enough to avoid direct quotations that include unprintables, so they put in [bracketed euphemisms].)

"Bites" has not been an issue, but "I don't give a shit" became "I don't give a [care]" -- that latter construction being unique to the Northeast, to my knowledge.

Someone said in September that, "Contrary to popular opinion, the Yankees don't suck", which became "...the Yankees don't [inhale excessively]". That one made me laugh and laugh, because I couldn't for the life of me figure out what was meant by the euphemism.

Whereas, both the original Pedro Martinez "daddy" quote, and the annoying chanting, perforce got full quotation in the newspapers (having gone out over national airwaves, maybe there was no point in censorship by then).

The best part is when swear words are integral to understanding what is going on (like, who said what, when, in an argument that leads to ejections/suspensions), and the poor columnists/commentators are not allowed to describe exactly what is what. Peter Gammons once explained a fight between a batter and an umpire by referring to "a twelve-letter expletive" that I am sure caused his readers to dive for the American Dictionary of Slang. (The word in question was motherfucker.)

I associate "who's your daddy?" as a sexual boast, said during the moment -- "am I giving you a great time, or what?"

I have no idea if drag kings say "who's your daddy?".

Peter Gammons once explained a fight between a batter and an umpire by referring to "a twelve-letter expletive" that I am sure caused his readers to dive for the American Dictionary of Slang. (The word in question was motherfucker.)

Crash must have called him a "cocksucker".

So. Which of the following are too salacious for casual use: "sucks", "bites", "who's your daddy?"

The author of the article thinks 1 and 3 are okay, but 2 is too much.

Interesting. I, personally, have no problem with "sucks" OR "bites," but I would have thought that those who DO find such things salacious would have objected to "sucks" before they would have objected to "bites."

My reasoning: all I can think of for "sucks" is blow job, and not in the good way; more in the "suck it, bitch!" way. For "bites," I think of (and mean it as, when *I* say it) "This is a bite in the ass!"

"I don't give a [care]" -- that latter construction being unique to the Northeast, to my knowledge.

FWIW, I've also heard this phrase in the Midwest.

"Contrary to popular opinion, the Yankees don't suck", which became "...the Yankees don't [inhale excessively]". That one made me laugh and laugh, because I couldn't for the life of me figure out what was meant by the euphemism.

Comes across as a drug reference to me.