In context, the node is making a vulgar reference to subject matter that, at least in most of the US, is widely considered inappropriate for children. In a movie, such references would result in a rating that would prevent minors from viewing the film in a theatre or renting it from a video store without a parent present. It isn't so much the word; indeed, it would be (a little) less objectionable if it were used as a general vulgar remark of dismay.

Personally, there isn't a single word in the entire english language that I find offensive.

This thread isn't about what you personally find offensive, and it is very egotistical and narrow-minded of you to try to make it about that.

The thread is about what perlmonks policy is, or isn't. If we aren't going to reap nodes for gratuitous vulgar references to sexual intercourse, then the quoted policy needs to be updated to reflect that better. If this is how it's going to be, I suggest the following wording:

Invalid reasons to consider a node include:

  • To reap a highly offensive posting. PerlMonks is not meant to be family friendly, and we don't intend to try to keep PerlMonks off of corporate blacklists that we disagree with. Although this might prevent otherwise worthy monks from participating while at work, we think it is more important to take a moral stand against being easily offended by obscenity and vulgarity, which in our view are not only harmless but important for their own sake.
  • update: inserted paragraph break

    In reply to Re: Consideration for obscenity by jonadab
    in thread Consideration for obscenity by ptum

    Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
    and:  <code> code here </code>
    to format your post; it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":