In the latest xkcd cartoon you can see a graph on which the frequency of intensificatory adverbs (fucking ____ in red, and ____ as shit in blue) accompanying a selection of adjectives, from annoying and pissed down through broadly decreasing frequencies to fungible and peristeronic. (The latter really does exist, and really does mean "of or pertaining to pigeons".)
Looks like the result of a Breakfast Experiment™ — with the small exception that Mark Liberman actually runs R scripts on billion-word corpora to get his Breakfast Experiment™ results, where I suspect our beloved cartoonist might (am I being ungracious to think this?*) have made the results up for our reading pleasure and amused speculation.
Of course, it would be possible to check. I'd bet my laptop and my salami sandwich lunch that fucking pissed consistently outranks fucking fungible on frequency, naturally, and I thought that even before I checked the raw Google hits (77,000 hits versus 8 hits seems solid). But I haven't checked them all with careful counts on real corpora of text, because I have to go and teach phonetics now. See you later.
*[OK, I'm back from class to read a slew of comments pointing out that I was being ungracious, and in fact I was being totally dumb. It even says on the cartoon that it's based on Google hit counts. In fact the counts seem to have been normalized to allow for the fact that pissed is much more frequent than fungible from the get-go, and so on for the other adjectives. See all the comments below rightly reprimanding me for my careless hasty reading. The research on these collocations actually touches on some interesting facts about style and register: in the kinds of texts where you use learned adjectives you're usually not swearing, and in the kind where you use commonplace crude words like pissed you are vastly more likely to be swearing. There's actual linguistics here, as many of you have noted.]