Please tell me whether or not you think a native speaker wrote this : "And prior to removing your tattered panties and offering others to plant a kiss on your rear end, why don't you shave it first, and get rid of all the acne? It must be quite humiliating to have embarrassed yourself in front of everyone with such an indecent and vomit-inducing flash! Poor you! Be assured that you have my pithy!"
Did a native speaker write this ?
I doubt it. It could be a native speaker with poor writing skills, though.
It is impossible to tell. However, it is the work of someone who does not know how to spellcheck and paste.
Change <pithy> to <pity> and <offering others to plant a kiss on your rear end> to <offering others your rear end to plant a kiss on>.
Change <pithy> to <pity> and <offering others to plant a kiss on your rear end> to <offering others your rear end to plant a kiss on>.
Also, it should be "flesh" instead of "flash", and there's a bit of an issue of what the antecedent of "it" is in "shave it first". It's clear that it's meant to refer to "rear end", but that's grammatically problematic. If it weren't for the number conflict, grammar would dictate that the antecedent be "panties".
I thought that whoever wrote that used "flash" to refer to someone revealing their arse.... How is "flesh" more appropriate?
Though a bit wobbly in structure, and tripping over spellcheck errors (both noted above), it could as easily be the work of a native speaker as that of a foreign learner. Most native speakers aren't experts in English grammar and composition, after all. I've seen much worse from native speakers.
"Also, it should be "flesh" instead of "flash"..."
That's not right; "flash" here refers to the revealing of a naked bottom, which is indeed a "flash".
"there's a bit of an issue of what the antecedent of "it" is in "shave it first"
I don't see any grammatical problem with "it" referring to "rear end", since "rear end" means "bottom", which is normally neutral. For example, "Here's my rear end. Kiss it!"
"Also, it should be "flesh" instead of "flash"..."
That's not right; "flash" here refers to the revealing of a naked bottom, which is indeed a "flash".
"there's a bit of an issue of what the antecedent of "it" is in "shave it first"
I don't see any grammatical problem with "it" referring to "rear end", since "rear end" means "bottom", which is normally neutral. For example, "Here's my rear end. Kiss it!"
A "flash" is the sudden and momentary revealing of nudity, not the deliberate and prolonged revelation that removal of panties and offering the rear to other to kiss implies. It's clear that the speaker is accusing someone of having an ugly rear (needs a shave an anti-acne medication), and so what is "vomit-inducing" is not the flash, but the flesh. If the speaker were saying that the flash was humiliating, then the advice would have been to not remove the panties and present the rear end in the first place, rather than to make the rear end more presentable before doing so.
As for the pronoun "it", there is a hierarchy of antecedents. Subjects come first, then direct objects, then indirect objects. "rear end" is an indirect object within a dependent clause, and thus is at the very bottom of the hierarchy. The main noun of the sentence is "panties", so that the antecedent that pronouns should have.
As for the pronoun "it", there is a hierarchy of antecedents. Subjects come first, then direct objects, then indirect objects. "rear end" is an indirect object within a dependent clause, and thus is at the very bottom of the hierarchy. The main noun of the sentence is "panties", so that the antecedent that pronouns should have.