It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In an article titled "The Legacy of Evans Carlson," by Robert J. Dalton (LtCol USMC Ret.) in the August 1987 Marine Corps Gazette, the author states, "...Ironically, the term 'gung ho' has come to mean almost the opposite of how it was originally used. Today, the term has an aggressive, Prussianistic connotation. It has little of the 'ethical'meaning for which it was originally used...."
Carlson wrote, "The superb fighters of the Chinese Eighth Route Army had studied the Japanese methods, tactics, and psychology for years. They knew intimately the strengths and weaknesses of the Japanese troops.
Surprise was the Eighth's heaviest weapon against the invaders. With surprise, they made life a hell for the men from Nippon. But there was another and even more important element which made the success of the Eighth Route Army.
I sought this element assiduously. Then the answer came to me one day when I had completed a march of 58 miles without sleep, along with a column of 600 Chinese. Not a man left the column on this march. I thought: What could be the stimulus which would induce 600 men to complete such an arduous task without even one failing. It could be nothing but the Desire and Will of each individual to complete the task. Here was the secret weapon of the Eighth Route Army.
"In war, as in the pursuits for peace, the human element is of prime importance. Human nature is much the same the world over, and human beings everywhere respond to certain fundamental stimuli. So, if men have confidence in their leaders, if they are convinced that the things for which they endure and fight are worthwhile, if they believe the effort they are making contributes definitely to the realization of their objectives, then their efforts will be voluntary, spontaneous, and persistent.
The men of the Eighth Route Army had a term for this spirit of cooperation. They called it 'gung ho.'"
The term intercourse has not actually changed in meaning. In the example you use, the term is actually "sexual intercourse," which has been shortened to "intercourse" and its popular usage as such has completely overshadowed the fact intercourse is a perfectly acceptable term for nonsexual interaction.
I wouldn't discourage any discussion that boots your submission, which I voted for, to the top of the list.