Short answer: the wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole origin is American and 19th century. Etymonline dates the figurative "ten-foot pole" to 1839, and The Phrase Finder quotes an American example from 1843. The British version, "wouldn't touch it with a barge pole," shows up later: The Phrase Finder's earliest figurative example is from 1893 and says the British form "appears to derive from the earlier American phrase." Both mean the same thing: you want nothing to do with someone or something. Americans say ten-foot pole; Britons usually say barge pole.
Ten-foot pole vs barge pole at a glance
| Ten-foot pole | Barge pole | |
|---|---|---|
| Main region | United States | United Kingdom |
| Meaning | "I want nothing to do with it" | Same |
| Register | Casual to neutral | Casual to neutral |
| Earliest date given by the references we checked | 1839 (Etymonline); 1843 quotation (The Phrase Finder) | 1893 figurative quotation (The Phrase Finder) |
| Usual shape | "I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole" | "I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole" |
| Status | Current | Current in Britain |
The phrase is almost always negative. People say they "wouldn't" or "won't" touch something with the pole. Wiktionary labels it a "negative polarity item," which is the linguist's way of saying you rarely hear it without a "not." Nobody says "I'd happily touch that with a ten-foot pole."
What the phrase means
To say you wouldn't touch something with a ten-foot pole is to say it is so unappealing, risky or distasteful that you would keep as much distance from it as possible. The Phrase Finder's definition is something "so unappealing that one wouldn't want to go anywhere near." Dictionary.com, which carries the American Heritage idiom entries, puts it as "stay far away from, avoid completely."
It is used about three kinds of thing:
- People: "After the scandal, no campaign would touch him with a ten-foot pole."
- Deals and jobs: "That contract has so many penalty clauses, I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole."
- Food and objects: Dictionary.com's own example is someone who "wouldn't touch raw oysters with a ten-foot pole."
The image is simple and physical. A long pole lets you prod or move something without getting close to it. Saying you would not use even that tool means you would not engage at all.
The wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole origin: what the dated sources say
This is where the popular pages tend to go vague, so it is worth laying out what each reference actually gives.
Etymonline (Douglas Harper's Online Etymology Dictionary). In its entry for pole on Etymonline, which we read on September 27, 2026, a ten-foot pole "as a metaphoric measure of something one would not touch something (or someone) else with is by 1839, American English." The same entry notes that the ten-foot pole "was a common tool used to set stakes for fences," which explains why the length was a familiar one.
The Phrase Finder (Gary Martin). The Phrase Finder's earliest quotation is from The Official Magazine of the Grand Lodge of the United States in 1843, describing someone "who would not condescend to touch a poor man with a ten foot pole." That is already the modern, figurative sense: not a literal pole, but social distance.
Wiktionary. Wiktionary's entry dates two senses of the idiom, "to avoid something at all costs" and "to be unable to approach something," to 1846 and 1844. It quotes Ambrose Bierce in 1873 saying he "would not touch one of them with a ten-foot pole."
Dictionary.com (American Heritage). This is the one that does not line up with the others. It says the expression "dates from the mid-1700s, when it began to replace the earlier not to be handled with a pair of tongs." It gives no quotation for the 1700s date.
So the references agree the phrase is American and was in print by the late 1830s or early 1840s. They disagree on whether it goes back further. We treat 1839 as the earliest date we can point to from a named reference, and the mid-1700s as a claim we could not confirm with an example. Some web pages quote an American newspaper from 1832 using the phrase; we could not check that against a scan of the paper, so we do not rely on it here.
Where the barge pole comes in
A barge pole is the long pole used to push a barge along a shallow canal or river, or to fend it off a bank. It is exactly the kind of long, sturdy, slightly grubby tool the idiom needs.
The Phrase Finder's page on the barge-pole and ten-foot-pole forms, which we read on September 27, 2026, gives the British timeline:
- The word "barge-pole" appears in Edward Farmer's Scrap Book in 1846, glossed as "A large stick or thick bough."
- The first figurative use it found is in Lady Monkswell's diary for 1893: "It will be a long while before any political party touches Home Rule again with the end of a barge pole."
Gary Martin's reading is that the British form "appears to derive from the earlier American phrase" and that "ten-foot poles were, in all likelihood, barge-poles by another name." In other words, the British did not invent a separate idiom. They took the American one and swapped in a pole they had a word for.
That order matters because a few popular pages claim the opposite, saying the barge pole came first and "morphed" into the ten-foot pole. The dated examples above do not support that. The American ten-foot pole is in print by 1839 to 1843; the British figurative barge pole is not found until 1893.
Did the barge pole version die out?
Here the references pull in different directions, and it depends which side of the Atlantic you are standing on.
Dictionary.com says that "in the 1800s barge-pole was sometimes substituted for ten-foot pole, but that variant has died out." From an American point of view, that is fair: you will rarely hear an American say "barge pole."
Wiktionary, on the other hand, lists "not touch something with a barge pole" as the British alternative form, and British speakers use it today. So the accurate summary is: the barge pole version faded in American English and is alive in British English.
Theories that do not fit the dates
Because the image is so concrete, people have tried to tie it to a specific trade. Two stories come up often:
- Utility workers. Some pages link the phrase to the insulated poles used on power lines. The phrase is in print by 1839, well before electrical utilities existed, so this cannot be the origin.
- New Orleans tombs. Another story connects it to burial practice in New Orleans. We found no named reference that supports this as the source of the idiom.
Neither needs a special explanation anyway. Long poles were everyday tools on farms, boats and building sites. The idiom works because everyone knew what one was. This pattern, a vivid trade story attached after the fact to a plain image, is common. Our page on how a phrase origin is traced explains how researchers tell a dated source from a good story, and kick the bucket, where the bucket was a beam and not a pail, shows how the everyday object behind an idiom can be misread.
Other long-distance versions
English has had several ways of saying "I would keep this at a distance":
- "Not to be touched (or handled) with a pair of tongs." Dictionary.com names this as the earlier expression the ten-foot pole replaced. Tongs let you pick up something dirty or hot without your hands, so the logic is the same.
- Other lengths. Speakers sometimes change the number for effect ("a twenty-foot pole," "a hundred-foot pole"). These are jokes on the standard form, not separate idioms.
The ten-foot version won in America and the barge pole in Britain. Neither is more correct.
Which should you use?
Choose the form your reader expects.
- Writing for American readers: "wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole." "Barge pole" will likely be understood but will sound British.
- Writing for British readers: "wouldn't touch it with a barge pole" is the natural form. "Ten-foot pole" is recognized from American media.
- International audiences and ESL readers: "ten-foot pole" is the more transparent image, since it says how long the pole is, while a reader who does not know what a barge pole is may miss the point. That is our judgment, not a measured figure.
- Formal writing: leave it out. Both forms are casual and a little blunt. In a report, "we recommend against this option" or "we will not proceed" does the job.
- Talking about a person: be careful. "I wouldn't touch him with a ten-foot pole" is a strong personal insult. It is fine in a joke among friends and risky in any workplace message.
Neither form is dated. Both are common and easy to understand. If you want more phrases where the everyday wording trips people up, our guide to commonly misused idioms covers the usual suspects.
Frequently asked questions
What is the origin of "wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole"?
It is American. Etymonline dates the figurative ten-foot pole to 1839, and The Phrase Finder quotes an American example from 1843. Dictionary.com says the phrase goes back to the mid-1700s but gives no example, so that earlier date is unconfirmed.
Is it "ten-foot pole" or "barge pole"?
Both are correct. "Ten-foot pole" is the American form, and "barge pole" is the British form. They mean the same thing.
Which came first, the ten-foot pole or the barge pole?
The ten-foot pole. The Phrase Finder finds the American phrase by 1843 and the first figurative British barge pole in 1893, and says the British form appears to come from the American one.
What is a barge pole?
A long pole used to push a barge through shallow water or keep it off a bank. In the idiom, it stands for the longest tool you could use to avoid touching something.
Is "wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole" rude?
It is casual and blunt. About a plan or a food it is harmless. About a person it is an insult, so avoid it in professional messages.
