Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so. See Wiktionary’s criteria for inclusion.
Cute, but has this used, or just a nonce? --Connel MacKenzie 22:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
32000 straight Google hits, 1890 Google Groups hits; never underestimate the power of sexual innuendo :-) Added a book quote, plus a couple USENET quotes at the article. BTW, could this be the origin of the verb form of pork, meaning to have sex with? Jeffqyzt 02:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention a scholar.google.com reference (not a cite though). I'm hesitant about having two Usenet quotes, but maybe that's good enough for RfV passed. DAVilla 16:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive.
Beyond silly. The cites from the rfv don't all pass the use/mention distinction, and for the "more ridiculous" terms such as this, the harshest criteria (print citations only) were supposed to be the rule. Should not be wikilinked in Wikisaurus (and really, shouldn't be there at all.) --Connel MacKenzie 10:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Why do you consider this silly, that is exactly what it means. How many cites do you want.?--Dmol 12:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, where did you find those? --Connel MacKenzie 19:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC) If there another source I should be auto-checking before nominations? --Connel MacKenzie 16:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed this quotation from the entry because I can no longer find it in the book, as I discovered after trying to check the spelling of "con[s]tricting":
2001 -- Terry O'Farrell, Behind Enemy Lines: An Australian SAS Soldier in Vietnam (page 66) 
I was flung into a bath to soak the contricting bandage which had to be removed before treatment could commence. Some 45 minutes later Herself reappeared, ominously armed with a large pair of forceps. The 'pork sword' was captured in one of her ham-like hands and the bandage ripped off with relish.