After articulating your point more, I'll definitely agree with that. Shakespeare was all about the double entendre, but cleverly writing double meaning into a turn of phrase is definitely different from forcing it into anything that would apply. Still haven't looked into the history of the naming of 'finger', but it's 100% possible that it wasn't intended to be sexual.

In a way, it cheapens the phrase 'double entendre', as AFAIK the phrase used to imply a clever, sometimes obscure, double meaning that was intentional vs. anything that could be taken out of context.

Or, as Archer would say, PHRASING!