63

I know for heaven's sake, for Pete's sake, for God's sake and for Christ's sake. All of those, however are religious references. The only non-religious equivalent phrases I know are for fuck's sake and its variations.

Are there any non-vulgar, non-religious alternatives? I am very used to the general construct of for X's sake and am looking for something along the same lines that I could use in cases like

C'mon, it's just a scratch for X's sake!

That's not even true for X's sake!

It does not need to also be applicable as a general exclamation of frustration (Oh, for chrissake!) but that would be nice. Basically, I'm looking for a synonym for the "Oh come on!" sense of for fuck's sake rather than the Oh shit! one.

EDIT: Since this has gotten quite a bit of attention, I would like to urge those who answer to read the entire question, not just the title. I am not just looking for polite swearwords but for something that can be used in the example phrases above.

Community
  • 1
terdon
  • 21,559
  • 4
    I think it pretty much stands to reason any variant on for X's sake must at least allude to the "blasphemous" original(s). I sometimes exclaim "Gordon Bennett!", but until finding that link I personally had no idea it derived from "Gor blimey" (which I also sometimes say, and do know the allusion). And I think there's much to be said for "Land sakes and lawks amussy!" - transparent though it is, to most folk today it would be so odd they wouldn't even think about the "etymology". They'd just be surprised, like the speaker. – FumbleFingers Mar 05 '14 at 04:31
  • @FumbleFingers sorry, no way I could say lawks anything with a straight face and Gordon Bennett is a bit too Brit for me despite my few years there. It's also not the sense I'm looking for, I'm after the "Oh, come on!" sense rather than the "Oh shit!" one. I might get away with Lands sake though, I did not know that one and yes, the etymology is not self-evident. (And do you really say Gor blimey? Heh, I don't think I've ever heard it used.) – terdon Mar 05 '14 at 04:37
  • 22
    For crying out loud! Everyone else just says "For fucks/Pete's/Christ's sake!" Why can't you just follow the herd and use one of those? Or maybe just append "You nit!" or some equally jocular-cum-serious put-down. Me, I use a lot of variations as a matter of principle - if you do it consistently enough, you stop being too self-conscious about it. "Hells bells and buckets of blood!" – FumbleFingers Mar 05 '14 at 05:09
  • 6
    @FumbleFingers the day I start saying for crying out loud is the day I know I have become my father. That is not necessarily a bad thing but I'm not quite ready for it yet. I do actually use for fuck's sake but that is not appropriate in all contexts. Anyway, I've already gotten 2 perfectly good answers, though admittedly they just highlight that I didn't think on this long enough since I'm familiar with both. – terdon Mar 05 '14 at 05:17
  • 2
    @FumbleFingers 'Bloody Hilda' is alright as long as there are no Hildas in earshot. – WS2 Mar 05 '14 at 09:17
  • 2
    @WS2: I pride myself on being able to swear with the best of 'em. Seriously - Ryebread's stereotypical Bostonian (with some kind of fucked-up Broca's area meaning they think an utterance isn't grammatical unless almost every word is "fuck") is just that - a stereotype. Swearing validly (and appropriately!) is even more tricky than speech in general. But I'm sure I've never said "Bloody Hilda!" in my life. I might have heard that one a few times, but for me personally it's always been "Bloody Nora!". – FumbleFingers Mar 05 '14 at 12:34
  • ...I just checked Google Books. By the looks of things, I'm well in the majority siding with Nora against Hilda. But so far as I know, "bloody" anything ultimately derives from "By God's blood!". There's just no getting away from religion. – FumbleFingers Mar 05 '14 at 12:37
  • @FumbleFingers re 'Bloody Nora'- the OED does not apparently have anything on this particular use of 'bloody', but the following speculation in the Guardian is interesting: http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-24596,00.html As regards which female name applies, I think, for some unknown reason between 1978 and 1990 there was a significant increase in the instances of 'Bloody Margaret'. – WS2 Mar 05 '14 at 13:18
  • possible duplicate of How can I express strong emotions without using Biblical or profane language? – Mitch Mar 05 '14 at 13:39
  • @Mitch close, but that one is i) closed and ii) about surprise rather than exasperation or frustration which is what I'm after. Admittedly there are some good suggestions in the answers though. – terdon Mar 05 '14 at 13:51
  • @WS2: I'd say 99% of all instances of 'Bloody Margaret' in Google Books are probably irrelevant "accidental collocations" along the lines of "That bloody Margaret Thatcher gets on my tits!". I think the "Nora" version is essentially Yorkshire-based (it may have been popularised by Compo in Last of The Summer Wine starting in the 70s). I wouldn't expect OED to list every oddball exclamation at that level. – FumbleFingers Mar 05 '14 at 13:52
  • 1
    ...one more little-known gem... 'Chuffin' Ada!', which I would bet my boots is originally from Yorkshire. – FumbleFingers Mar 05 '14 at 14:01
  • @FumbleFingers huh, never heard that one and I spent 4 years living in York. I even understood the language by the end. – terdon Mar 05 '14 at 14:03
  • @terdon: OK, bu then can you edit your question to make it explicitly about exasperation or frustration or whatever emotion it is. You repeat 'Fr heaven's sake' many times, as though it is obvious what is meant, but it's not to me. Also, I got the impression from the title wording that what you're looking for had to be both secular and non-vulgar. Is that the case? – Mitch Mar 05 '14 at 14:03
  • @Mitch fair enough, is that clearer? And yes, basically, I tend to use for fuck's sake a lot and it is not something that works in all contexts. – terdon Mar 05 '14 at 14:07
  • @terdon: Perhaps you just mixed with the "right" kind of people (as opposed to the "wrong 'uns", who doubtless swear more). I've never even spent the night anywhere in Yorkshire, so far as I recall. But people travel around quite a bit, so I've spoken to lots of Yorkies over the years. – FumbleFingers Mar 05 '14 at 14:20
  • @FumbleFingers I really really doubt that :). I tend to swear a lot and profanity was very popular in uni, just never heard of anyone chuffing poor Ada before. – terdon Mar 05 '14 at 14:22
  • @terdon: Looks good. I'm having trouble (as it seems for many here) coming up with a non-vulgar example. – Mitch Mar 05 '14 at 14:25
  • @Mitch so am I, hence the question :). To be fair, for goodness' sake and for pity's sake are pretty good. They just don't sound as cool but I doubt I'll get anything better. – terdon Mar 05 '14 at 14:28
  • @terdon - those are both minced versions of the more literal, well not blasphemous, but at least more religious versions, which always sound uncool. 'Cheese and rice', 'fudge', uncool. There are the acronyms WTF and WTH, which also hide vulgar or non-secularities. Or how about just 'Man!' or 'Get out of here' or 'That just takes the cake' (the last one pretty lame). There are Texasisms, "well tie me to a hog and roll me in the mud'. – Mitch Mar 05 '14 at 14:43
  • @SteveJessop Well, I believe that to be a quality answer. Let me post it in a bit when I have the time to do it properly! – David M Mar 05 '14 at 15:05
  • @FumbleFingers actually, I recently found out that bloody does not come from the blood of a deity after all: " Theories that derive it from such oaths as "By our Lady" or "God's blood" seem farfetched, however. More likely, the taboo stemmed from the fear that many people have of blood and, in the minds of some, from an association with menstrual bleeding. Whatever, the term was debarred from polite society during the whole of the nineteenth century." – terdon Mar 05 '14 at 16:00
  • @terdon: On an issue like the etymology of "bloody" I don't think you can meaningfully say "I recently found it was X" - at best, you recently came across yet another convincing theory. But I personally set great store by these facts from the Wikipedia page: the abbreviated form By'r Lady* is common in Shakespeare's plays. And even more tellingly, Jonathan Swift about 100 years later writes both "it grows by'r Lady cold" and "it was bloody hot walking to-day", suggesting that a transition from one to the other could have been under way.* That pretty much clinches it for me. – FumbleFingers Mar 05 '14 at 16:52
  • @FumbleFingers dunno, the blood of Christ was the only explanation I knew but that was just what people around me assumed. The OED seems to agree with etymonline though as does this salon.com article. I don't have access to the OED, can you confirm Barrie's quote? – terdon Mar 05 '14 at 16:57
  • @terdon: Well, as implied, I don't think any amount of "this site agrees with my pet theory" can be definitive with this particular one. You're welcome to believe whichever you like, but I'm going with my own inclination to read much into those Shakespeare/Swift antecedents. What's "Barrie's quote"? – FumbleFingers Mar 05 '14 at 17:05
  • @FumbleFingers both links I gave quote the OED directly, that's a pretty definitive source. I just don't have easy access to it at the moment. I have a great respect for your breadth of knowledge but would still believe the OED over your musings, valid though they may be. – terdon Mar 05 '14 at 17:07
  • 1
    If it's this from OED: Similar difficulties [i.e. - a functional shift from interjection to intensifier would be highly unusual] are encountered by the suggestion that bloody* shows either a reduced form of, or a euphemistic alteration of, byrlady* then I think quite clearly the Swift citation above gives the lie to that point. The main point is OED doesn't claim anything is "correct". They just point out the flaws in all the main contending theories. – FumbleFingers Mar 05 '14 at 17:12
  • "For land's sakes" might do, although many would view it as quite old-fashioned, something your great-grandmother might have said. – Phil Perry Mar 05 '14 at 21:25
  • 1
    @PhilPerry yes, that one is good, it was mentioned by FF in the very first of the preceding sea of comments. – terdon Mar 05 '14 at 21:28
  • I posted because FF's version was a longer one, adding "and lawks amussy" (presumably a corruption of "and Lord's mercy"). That suggest that "land's sake" might come from "Lord's sake". – Phil Perry Mar 05 '14 at 21:32
  • 1
    What's wrong with "for terdon's sake" :) I mean can't we just come up with our own for for terdon's sake... – Dean Kuga Mar 06 '14 at 20:43
  • 1
    Years ago I singed my finger with an acetylene torch in the presence of several children, and with no premeditation that could remember, exclaimed "son of a tax collector!" – Beta Mar 07 '14 at 04:19
  • What about "in the name of good fortune"? From "How, in the name of good fortune did you know that, Mr Holmes?" – Kartik Mar 08 '14 at 12:38
  • "by Klono's gadolinium guts" (E. E. Doc Smith) was briefly popular: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22by+Klono%27s+gadolinium+guts%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb – Wayfaring Stranger Mar 08 '14 at 14:03
  • @terdon: Usage of those terms in the question is profane (not religious). I understand you are trying to avoid doing so, but the speech you are trying to avoid is not religious in nature. – Ben Voigt Mar 09 '14 at 18:33
  • I happily throw in frell or frek as nice substitutes for fuck. (I, personally, prefer frell.) And for further reference the Wikipedia article on profanity in science fiction. – Dubu Mar 11 '14 at 09:38
  • Given the apparent ability of some people to take offense at anything, I suggest "Oh, for Bowdler's sake!" - although I have no doubt that such individuals will manage to take offense at such a use of the name of the saintedly dirty-minded Dr. Bowdler as well... – Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні Mar 11 '14 at 11:29

25 Answers25

94

I'm surprised "For crying out loud!" isn't in here yet.

J A Terroba
  • 1,177
83

I believe that there is a famous Christmas song that implores us to be good for goodness' sake. Though this is still a euphemism, it is certainly more secular than God, Christ, or Pete(r).

Apis Utilis
  • 881
77

Wasn't going to answer this but the phrase invoked childhood memories with the cousins and my great-grandma who was a mild mannered god-loving woman. I don't think I can remember her ever raising her voice and when she said, "For pity's sake" she looked a little guilty, using that kind of strong language around the great-grandkids.

RyeɃreḁd
  • 16,833
58

Not an established phrase, but how about: "In the name of all that is secular and non-vulgar"?

geotheory
  • 911
  • 8
    Heh, you sir, are cheating! :) – terdon Mar 05 '14 at 16:02
  • 3
    I'm all for excessively long exclamatory phrases. ;) – codedude Mar 06 '14 at 03:34
  • 10
    Reminds me of the Richard Dawkins episodes of South Park - "Oh my science!" –  Mar 06 '14 at 04:55
  • ha gotta see see that episode – geotheory Mar 06 '14 at 10:21
  • 4
    (Being a Christian myself), this sounds to me more offending than goodness or pity, because it seems to have a strong I-say-this-only-because-I-do-not-say-Christ-while-I-actually-want-to tone. But maybe it's just me... – yo' Mar 06 '14 at 11:05
  • 2
    I don't believe the SO was asking about offensiveness per se. :) – geotheory Mar 06 '14 at 12:21
  • 2
    +1, but I would prefer: In the name of all that is good and bacony! – Tim Seguine Mar 06 '14 at 21:03
  • 1
    Thank you for the new expression! I expect that once Phil Plait reads this, the whole internet will make a meme out of it. – dotancohen Mar 07 '14 at 08:37
  • From something a friend is fond of saying: "Why use a long [phrase] when a diminutive one will do?" ;-) – mHurley Mar 10 '14 at 19:59
  • I laughed out loud. Then I realized that you were swearing in a vulgar tongue, so your swearing is close to an oxymoron. And then I realized you were swearing by powers that might not be able to absolve you of your oath, which some religions consider to be a very dangerous thing to do. (The Oath of Fëanor is an example of such a dangerous oath, from J.R.R. Tolkien's writing.) – Jasper Oct 29 '15 at 22:38
  • @Jasper Late.. but are you calling me a moron? – geotheory Aug 14 '19 at 16:07
  • @geotheory -- No. As others have pointed out, this proposed oath can be interpreted humorously. The contradiction between swearing by "non-vulgar" things in a vulgar tongue is one aspect of the humor. Also, oaths are supposed to be dangerous; they invite retribution if the oath-taker fails to keep the oath. As the example of Fëanor shows, even people with great intelligence and wisdom can do dangerously foolish things. – Jasper Aug 14 '19 at 16:43
  • @Jasper I totally agree. Was just kidding dude :) – geotheory Aug 15 '19 at 09:04
57

How about good grief

See here:

used as an exclamation of dismay, surprise, or relief: Good grief, it's started to rain again!"

For lovers of Charlie Brown out there:

Charlie Brown saying "Oh, good grief!"

200_success
  • 6,958
Danield
  • 1,687
  • 4
    This is also an option for lovers of Charlie Brown everywhere. :-) – vogomatix Mar 06 '14 at 12:00
  • 3
    I added an image just for you – Danield Mar 06 '14 at 12:07
  • 1
    My father studied in the US in the '70s so he was accustomed to using "good grief". My current US friends however dismiss it as "old fashioned", "nobody uses it" etc. They even prefer to turn to more vulgar versions... – George Mar 08 '14 at 11:28
  • 2
    "Good grief" doesn't really fit here. Try it in either of the OP's examples: "C'mon, it's just a scratch for X's sake!" -- Where does "good grief" fit here? – user7626 Mar 09 '14 at 20:14
  • @user7626 Maybe: "C'mon, it's just a scratch! Good grief!" Although I agree, it's not quite the same type of phrase. – augurar Mar 09 '14 at 23:26
  • @augurar Yep. Just because you can use two phrases in the same place in a sentence doesn't mean they have the same meaning. Besides, you had to create an entirely new sentence there, so it really is not synonymous at all. – user7626 Mar 10 '14 at 02:33
17

"For Pete's sake" is not necessarily a religious idiom; it's used as a pure placeholder noise by many folks who don't associate it with Saint Peter. Certainly "pity" doesn't necessarily signify pity from On High.

There are probably a near-infinitude of circumlocutions, and a true infinitude of exclamations of annoyance/disbelief. If these bother you, then rather than trying to do a one-word substitution I'd suggest trying another approach entirely. "Darn" is another expurgation which has roughly the same meaning. If you want to avoid any connection to "bad language, "Oh, come on!" in an annoyed tone of voice is often used with the same meaning. I sometimes use "By all the gods and demons!" as a deliberately over-the-top phrase with the same intent (and with equal respect/annoyance paid to everyone's favorite pantheon).

There's got to be a thesaurus-equivalent somewhere for English idioms...

keshlam
  • 4,653
  • 1
    Certainly not everyone who uses "for Pete's sake" associates it with St. Peter. But that doesn't change the origin of the phrase. The same goes with "pity": it's a minced oath. Many phrases with religious origins enter the vernacular and lose the original context. – ghoppe Mar 05 '14 at 15:05
  • 4
    In practical terms, I'm not convinced that origin matters. The question seemed (to this reader) to be about finding inoffensive alternatives; I'm pointing out that the "minced oaths" are, for 99.95% of the population, entirely acceptable -- there are very few who are either militantly religious or militantly atheistic enough to be put off by them. – keshlam Mar 05 '14 at 16:01
  • On that point, I agree. – ghoppe Mar 05 '14 at 16:02
  • @ghoppe what do you mean about for pity's sake being a minced oath? – terdon Mar 05 '14 at 16:03
  • 1
    @terdon "Pity" is a substitute for "Peter". Apparently for the truly righteous, even invoking the name of Peter was seen as too blasphemous. :) – ghoppe Mar 05 '14 at 16:06
  • @ghoppe is it? I can't find any reference for that. I found an article suggesting that for pity's sake morphed into for Pete's sake but no evidence for the other way around. Is this your assumption or do you have a reference for it? Also see FF's comment above and the discussion in the link he provided. – terdon Mar 05 '14 at 16:13
  • @terdon I suppose I made the assumption since all the references I found listed the Peter/pity variants together. – ghoppe Mar 05 '14 at 16:32
  • why not "For (insert random name here)'s sake" - Bob, Jim, Betty, (just as long as you don't take "Jim" as a shorter version of "James"... – Mateo Mar 06 '14 at 17:32
  • @Mateo those would all be minced oaths because you are simply intentionally substituting another name to disguise that you are really just trying to say "for Pete's sake". – Marcel Besixdouze Aug 23 '14 at 08:47
12

"For the love of all that is good and decent" has that cathartic feeling of a nice long string of obscenities, without any actual obscenity.

Marcel Besixdouze
  • 621
8

Flip is used as a bowdlerisation of fuck, at least in the UK. It is quite usual to hear the phrase "For flip's sake!" in situations where fuck is deemed not appropriate.

Matt E. Эллен
  • 29,137
  • Also, 'effing'. – Mitch Mar 05 '14 at 19:47
  • And the Irish Feck, my personal favorite. –  Mar 06 '14 at 03:07
  • At least in my experience, some find minced oaths to be more vulgar than vulgarity itself. "Zounds" and "sblood" were edited from the Folio edition of Othello as blasphemous. Even as late as the '80's, columnist James J. Kilpatrick recounts receiving complaints after using the word "zounds" in a headline from a reader who deemed it blasphemous due to its origins in the phrase "God's wounds" (Kilpatrick, James J. (1984). The Writer's Art. Fairway, Kansas: Andrews McNeel Publishing. p. 83.).

    And if "gosh" is considered to still be religious, by the same token "flip" is still vulgar.

     – Marcel Besixdouze Mar 06 '14 at 04:38
  • @MarcelTuring I have never met a single person who finds "fucking hell" less offensive than "flipping heck". Nobody considers flip or flipping to be vulgar. – Matt E. Эллен Mar 06 '14 at 09:06
  • 3
    Your assertion that "nobody considers flip or flipping to be vulgar" is simply false. Many people do. The communities I was raised in would bend you over a knee if you used "flipping" as a generic intensifying adjective: they would consider it a duplicitous and sneaky attempt to get away with saying the f-word, all the more offensive for its dishonesty as vulgarity.

    On a slightly different tone, I would recommend the segment from Louis C.K.'s stand-up special "All Chewed Up", where he discusses the euphemism "the n-word" and describes how he finds it more offensive than the n-word itself.

     – Marcel Besixdouze Mar 06 '14 at 09:19
  • 4
    When I had kid's I started replacing my use of f*ck with Fahrvergnügen. – Mr.Mindor Mar 06 '14 at 15:40
  • 1
    @MattЭллен you haven't watched shows that replace the word straight out with alternatives - everyone knows what they really mean to say - and if it sounds closer than a bleep or silence... – Mateo Mar 06 '14 at 17:36
7

There's already plenty of good answers, but thought I would add my bit.

Euphemism has been used as long as we can tell to allow someone to say something that is otherwise offensive. When Christianity was more popular and taken more seriously, any uttering of God, Jesus, etc outside of the context of prayer or other religious ritual, was offensive. There was even a time when referring to God's wounds or God's body was also offensive.

But there is an innate desire to "curse" under certain circumstances, such as when you stub your toe, or drop your dinner, or hear your wife nag you for the tenth time "Get off that damn SE and take out the trash," to which you readily reply "Oh, for Christ's sake, I'm getting to it!" Why this innate desire exists remains unknown, but it surely does, and there is a wealth of studies on its affect on the psyche.

The innate desire to curse and the religious bindings on certain phrases or words make for prime choices for when a cursing situation does arise. That's why there is an urge to yell out "Christ" when you drop something rather than "Mahatma Ghandi!" Born from that, we get "For Christ's sake", et al. In decades past, your could only say such a thing in private company (somewhat today too), so less offensive terms were coined, such as "For Pete's/goodness/pity's sake," et al. Even more obscure ones, like "For crying out loud" came from the original religious curse. (To hint back on obscure, ancient curses, "God's wounds" became "Zounds" or "Gad zooks" and "God's body" became "Odds bodikins.")

So if you want something this is not religious, even indirectly, you will have to stick to the good old dirties: Shit, Fuck, Bitch, Bastard, and a whole host of body part slurs. And if those are not bad enough in your circle, you can really shock them with an out of context n-word (which even I won't say in mixed company*), such as "ni--a please."

I'm so scared of being called a racist that I won't even say that word in an academic setting. Huh. Seems racism is the new control factor. Move over Jesus; Politically Correct Sally's got this.

  • Thanks for your thoughts but none of this, with the possible exception of the last paragraph, seems to be actually attempting to answer my question. – terdon Mar 06 '14 at 01:12
  • 4
    @terdon A simple word/phrase search is no fun without a little explanation. It all leads up to the last paragraph. The problem is that you are asking for something that is not offensive that is by nature supposed to be offensive. –  Mar 06 '14 at 01:13
  • The last paragraph is telling me that I have to use one of the profane ones if I am to avoid using religious terms. Yet, you provide no reference for what is a rather weeping claim, not to mention one that is disproved by sever posts on this page. Sorry, but nigger (assuming that's the word you mean) is both way too offensive to be useful (to me at least) and completely irrelevant to this question. I am not looking for an insult but an exclamation akin to for fuck's sake!. – terdon Mar 06 '14 at 01:18
  • 1
    @terdon I thought the implication I made here is that you are going to end up using a religious one, whether you want to or not, if you want to avoid offense to today's audience, and the euphemisms for those will make you sound dated and ridiculous. If you are concerned with blasphemy, which I assume is the root of this question, the Bible urges you to hold your tongue and say nothing. If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. –  Mar 06 '14 at 01:27
  • Thanks again, but no, I'm not concerned about blasphemy. Quite the contrary, I like to avoid using religious terminology because I am not religious so I feel I should avoid it both because I don't like it, and because I might offend people who are religious. In this particular case, the question arose because I wanted to write something along the lines of it's just a book for fuck's sake as an SE comment and did not want to be vulgar (or use judeo-christian imagery). – terdon Mar 06 '14 at 01:34
  • 1
    @terdon Oh, I somehow got the impression that you are religious from your activity on the Christianity site. I may have confused you with someone else. My observations, pretty much all of the euphemistic forms of "for Christ's sake" are not offensive. But if you personally want to avoid those because they annoy you, I'm not sure what to suggest. Though, earlier, I thought up "Come on!" With your example, "Oh, come on; it's just a book" should get the point across just fine. Kind of like "give me a break." –  Mar 06 '14 at 02:53
5

The phrase "Oh for fuck's sake" is sadly all too commonly heard around my office. I'm trying to teach myself comedic alternatives such as "Oh sausages!", but that just makes me feel hungry. Non offensive alternatives to "For heaven's sake" include For goodness sake, for pity's sake and for Pete's sake - although I don't know who Pete is?

Nick
  • 51
4

I probably had a "for goodness sake, Mark!" yelled at me at least once a day during my childhood. Although it sounds like a corruption of "for the sake of God" (which I've always thought it was) and would therefore be disqualified as a non-secular phrase, this site http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/for-goodness-sake suggests that it isn't. Make of that what you will!

Mark Raishbrook
  • 309
4

I'm not sure I believe the rather interesting theory that it's a sanitised version of "Christ on a cross" (cf the overtly blasphemous "Jesus Christ on a bike!"), but I've always been partial to...

"Stone the crows!"

Apparently the general consensus is it's primarily/originally an Australian term, but I quite liked a Scottish rock band of that name in my early teens, so it's always seemed perfectly "British" to me.

The more common (and more definitely, British) "Stone me!" doesn't strike me as blasphemous.

Community
  • 1
FumbleFingers
  • 140,184
  • 45
  • 294
  • 517
  • Nice ones, but they can't be used in It's not that hard for X's sake. – terdon Mar 07 '14 at 17:47
  • @terdon: Well yes, but I already dismissed all variants of "for X's sake!" in my initial comment, on the grounds that they are all transparently derived from / allude to the blasphemous originals. But I'd certainly accept that these stone expressions don't work quite so well *appended* to a preceding exasperated statement. That's the same for most expressions though, including the ubiquitous "Fuck me!", or my personal favourite variant "Fuck my old boots!". – FumbleFingers Mar 07 '14 at 18:11
  • Why don't you add your Land's sake or sakes as well? – terdon Mar 07 '14 at 18:15
  • @terdon: Because although I said people won't necessarily be put in mind of the blasphemous allusions (which you don't want), that's only because they'd be so surprised to hear you come out with such a quaint expression. I'd have thought the reference would be obvious to most people once they stopped to think about it. – FumbleFingers Mar 07 '14 at 18:18
  • I'm pretty sure you'll find people who think it's a contraction of England :) – terdon Mar 07 '14 at 18:41
  • 2
    @terdon: I rather doubt that, since it's not an English/British expression at all. It's just a stereotypical exclamation assumed to have been used by "Big Momma" negroes (negresses?) on plantations in the American "Deep South" during those shameful days of slavery. And they were always assumed to be devout Christians, since that was the only comfort they would find in their benighted lives. – FumbleFingers Mar 07 '14 at 18:45
  • 1
    Ideally it should be "stone the flamin' crows" said in a brooooad Aussie accent. I like to say that to my Australian in-laws, to my great amusement if not theirs. – Bennett McElwee Mar 10 '14 at 09:16
3

Perhaps the use of a made-up word would fit the bill in this case.

I know I started using them when I had kids, in order to avoid teaching them to swear before they learned to walk.

We generally use "gnarf", as it is nicely onomatopaeic in my opinion. "For gnarf's sake!" works well in my family. And since I'm the one who coined it, I can vouch for there being no religious connotations at all.

We also use "for the love of Dog", referring to an actual dog, now deceased. I can see why it would count as a minced oath, though.

Carmi
  • 467
3

"Cripes!"

(StackExchange apparently requires answers to be greater than 30 characters. Cramping my style, they are.)

Ari Lacenski
  • 238
  • 1
  • 4
3

Over the weekend I remembered from the film, "It's a Wonderful Life", when the character "Bert" the policeman, tells George Bailey, "What in the Sam Hill you yellin for, George." The saying seems to have originated from Prescott, Arizona and to a mercantile store owner by the name of Sam Hill. He had a vast array of products where people shopping would remark, "What in the Sam Hill is that?" or something similar. At one time it became a popular euphemism but in my life I remember it only from a movie. WHAT IN THE SAM HILL? is non-vulgar and without reference to religion. Kind of a funny saying worthy of being used again in our conversations.

Duane T. Bentz
  • 358
2

I can totally relate to this question. I dislike using religious references because I dislike religion, and I sometimes want to avoid using vulgarity because it might offend people and is not good in a professional setting. I use "good grief" a lot. A favorite one that gets quite a lot of use is "Are You Kidding Me?????" My pool guy was outside fixing our pump the other day, and that's what he yelled out every time he encountered something that made him want to swear :)
'Course sometimes it devolves into "are you fucking kidding me????"

It really bugs me that when I am very surprised by something (like when my son sneaks up behind me and scare me half to death, the first words out of my mouth are inevitably "jesus fucking christ." There has got to be a way to change that habit.

BringData
  • 21
  • 1
    Come to think of it, my German grandfather had an expression that he used rather than cuss: "DONNERVETTER!!!!" - "thunder weather" in German. When he shouted it I can tell you it was impressive - but once it was translated for me it sounded kind of silly. :-) – Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні Mar 10 '14 at 02:24
2

By the beard of zeus! .

JamesRyan
  • 403
  • 3
  • 8
2

"For goodness' sake," as suggested by Santa Claus(!) is strictly speaking the best answer to your question, but if you expand its scope a little then there are lots of great alternatives.
My Child-safe swear words page lists some appropriate ones, such as

  • Oh, Bother (said Pooh)
  • Dear oh dear [oh dear [oh dear [oh dear]]]

And many more, including my favourite:

  • My Giddy Aunt!
Community
  • 1
Bennett McElwee
  • 139
  • Thanks, but I'm not after swear words (or their replacements), I'm basically looking for an alternative to for fuck's sake. – terdon Mar 07 '14 at 02:56
  • 1
    You're not looking for a replacement for a swear word, but you are looking for an alternative to "for fuck's sake"? Hmmm. I still swear :) by "dear oh dear" (and "dear oh dear oh dear", etc.) as being a totally inoffensive expression of frustration. – Bennett McElwee Mar 07 '14 at 06:57
  • Well, I've always like "Oh, jefuss chucking zrist!". Everybody thinks they know exactly what you've said, but it's really all in their nasty little minds, now isn't it..? My only problem with this is that in the heat of the moment I have a hard time slowing down enough to say it right. :-) – Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні Mar 09 '14 at 00:10
  • @Bob, unless you're very pedantic I think that fails on both secularity and inoffensiveness. ;) – Bennett McElwee Mar 09 '14 at 09:13
  • 1
    @BennettMcElwee - say it long and say it loud, I'm pedantic and I'm prone to go off on what some might describe as rants on topics which others either do not care (sufficiently, IMO) about or are shockingly uninformed about, fools that these mortals be. But bother me? Oh, perish the thought, idea, concept, or speculation! :-) – Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні Mar 10 '14 at 02:03
2

A bit restricted in audience perhaps, but Nancy's classic

Jib-booms and bobstays!

expresses the sentiment perfectly. My boat has a bobstay. I aspire to a jib-boom.

http://arthur-ransome.wikia.com/wiki/Swearwords_and_insults

Julian
  • 220
1

My mother, when her temper was too much tried, would sometimes shout in a voice of rising hysteria 'Good-Gorton-TANK!!' Nobody knew what it meant, but it cowed us.

Thanks to google however I now know 'Gorton Tank' was once a factory which made locomotives in the Gorton area of Manchester, England. Why it became an expletive I'm not sure. I think, though, if you're in America you could try shouting out 'Good Gorton Tank!' in moments of intense emotion. No-one will understand it there either, which adds to the effect.

slam
  • 621
  • Thanks but please read the question again. I am looking for an alternative for the `come on!_ meaning of the term, not the godammit! one. – terdon Mar 05 '14 at 20:35
  • 'For the love of Mike'? Though there are sites which claim it's a reference to the Archangel Michael. – slam Mar 05 '14 at 21:24
  • I would think that is about Michael as well, yes. – terdon Mar 05 '14 at 21:26
1

First: Language is a tool that is used to convey thoughts with words. For heaven's sake conveys a certain euphemism, but it does not declare the speaker as a Christian (or member of any religion that recognizes Heaven). It simply is what it is. Like saying Bless you when somebody sneezes. The phrase's origins are non-secular (the blessing is to ward out the Devil, who was said to be able to enter the body during a sneeze) but today it is just accepted as a common courtesy. And I don't think most people associate For Pete's sake as a reference to Saint Peter, but rather as a secular alternative to For Heaven's sake.

But since you ruled out For Pete's sake, I think the best answer is, For crying out loud, but that was already given. Also, you said you want sake at the end. So simply be specific. For the scratch, you might say, for sanity's sake and for the lie, either for honesty's sake or for honor's sake (for honour's sake if you're not American). These may be grammatically correct, but don't roll off the tongue as smoothly. Plus, they make the listener stop and think a minute about what you are trying to say. They are not as effective of tools as For Pete's/Heaven's sake, so far as language is a tool and you (ostensibly) want to be a more efficient user of language.

Nathan J
  • 11
1

Why not "For All's sake"! All in this context is ambiguous an may refer to anyone, any group, or any member of any group which gives it the possibility of being blasphemous. Due to this ambiguity it fits the context of not having any religious nor vulgar association with the phrase but is capable of conveying frustration.

LordVysh
  • 19
1

You could also consider trying to express the same sentiment in a different form; sticking to the "for ____['s sake]" template kind of limits your options. Allowing some flexibility lets you avoid nonsecular/vulgar while maintaining your usual style (i.e. you won't become your dad).

For example:

C'mon, it's just a scratch for X's sake!

  • You've got to be kidding... it's just a scratch!
  • C'mon, it's just a scratch, you big baby!
  • Seriously, it's just a scratch! Get over it!
  • Stop crying and pull yourself together!

That's not even true for X's sake!

  • What's wrong with you? That's not even true!
  • That's a joke, right?
  • That's not true and you know it!
  • You can't honestly believe that!

As for the original form, I also vote for "for goodness' sake" or "for crying out loud".

Jason C
  • 2,100
  • 5
  • 25
  • 37
  • 2
    One of the other dads at the gym where my daughter trains is a doctor (emergency room physician - great guy to have around when your daughters spend half their lives upside down :-). The other day his daughter's foot got caught under an opening door and got cut - nothing serious, but lots of blood. His response: "You're fine. If it's still bleeding when we get home I'll stitch you up. Let's go". – Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні Mar 10 '14 at 02:18
1

Here's another one: Goodness gracious!

Exclamation of surprise, dismay, or alarm

As in:

Goodness gracious! You've forgotten your ticket.

(dicionary.com)

Danield
  • 1,687
-2

How about: "For the life of me!" See the Urban Dictionary here.

David M
  • 22,515
Bevan
  • 1
  • Thanks, but no, I'm looking for Oh come on, for X's sake and for the life of me means something very different. – terdon Mar 05 '14 at 19:21