« World AIDS Day | Main | If Only Empathy Was Java-Enabled »
December 02, 2006
On Obscene Sexual Expressions
I think I'm much more likely than most people to take obscene expressions literally. It's probably because my sheltered upbringing caused me to spend very little time around people who used dirty words in their usual expressive and metaphorical way, and their literal meanings stayed in my head for a long time. (When I was maybe 6 years old, a friend told me what 'fuck' meant -- "it's what people do to make babies". I didn't understand the role of penises and vaginas in procreation then, so for some time I innocently understood 'fucking' as a general term for human procreative processes.)
In the wake of the flap over some FireDogLake bloggers' use of "cunt" and "whore" as terms of abuse (which I heard about first from Shakes -- Zuzu has the definitive response), I've been reminded of how my literal approach to profanity basically keeps me from using words like that. For me, the literal referents of many offensive terms have exactly the opposite significance that the metaphorical meaning is supposed to suggest.
"Cunt" provides an excellent example. Literally, it refers to the vagina, and metaphorically it's used as an insulting term for women. I don't understand why I should regard vaginas with the negative attitude that the metaphorical use suggests. As the following table illustrates, every interaction that I have had with a vagina in my life has been a positive one.
| My interaction with a vagina | My attitude towards the interaction |
|---|---|
| Emerging from one (in 1980) | Very positive, at least in retrospect |
| Sexual interactions (in recent years) | Very positive |
When I think of the objects to which "cunt" refers, my attitudes are largely positive. (When Shakes calls herself "Queen Cunt of Fuck Mountain", I feel an impulse to bow.) Putting someone down by calling her a cunt doesn't make any sense to me. When I have positive attitudes towards the literal referent of the term, how can I use it negatively in a metaphorical way? That's why I don't find this word properly expressive of anything I'd want to say.
The same applies to "slut." When I think of women who have sex with lots of men, my attitudes are entirely positive. For reasons perhaps also relating to my sheltered upbringing, I find these women fascinating and exotic. My utilitarian ethical views reinforce this conclusion. In an era of condoms and the pill, promiscuous women are responsible for substantial increases in the general happiness. They ought to be lauded, not scorned, for their socially beneficial actions.
"Whore" is a more extreme case of "slut". The most significant problem with actually being a whore in our society seems to be mistreatment at the hands of men who want a woman they can be mean to. This makes my attitudes towards whores even more positive than my attitude towards other sexually promiscuous women. Anyone who has proper liberal concern for the well-being of mistreated workers should view whores sympathetically. And this is why "whore" has exactly the opposite connotations in my mind as it does to those people who use it negatively. If you call Ellen Tauscher a whore in front of me, your metaphor will only generate a more sympathetic image of her in my mind. The term "working girl", used repeatedly by Pachacutec to describe her, only reinforces the image of the prostitute as an oppressed member of the proletariat. (I do feel a jarring contrast between my sympathies for prostitutes and my lack of any particular sympathy for centrist Democrats from safe districts.)
I sometimes say that bad things "suck", simply because (as Laura notes) this term has come apart from its literal meaning. This is largely true even for a literally-minded person like myself. But it's not something I say often, because I can't wholly dissociate the term from the literal act of sucking, and my attitude towards this act is a fairly positive one. Let's take a moment to consider people who suck, and the attitudes I have towards them:
| People who suck | My attitude towards the sucking |
|---|---|
| Babies at nipples | Positive, for baby nutrition reasons |
| Children with lollipops | Positive, for cuteness / tastiness reasons |
| People drinking from straws | I don't feel strongly about this |
| People engaged in oral sex | Positive, as I want them to have fun |
As you can see, I don't have good reason to regard "suck" as a negative term, and I don't really understand why people regard it as such. Probably it's because of negative attitudes towards those who perform oral sex. (I remember when some abortion opponents responded to Biting Beaver's announcement that she was having an abortion by calling her a "cum drinking whore". As you might guess, that had exactly the opposite effect on my already considerable sympathies with Ms. Beaver than was intended.)
At their best, metaphors provide vivid images that make communication more effective. But I'm afraid that anyone who tries to use "cunt", "whore", "slut", or similar terms in the usual expressive and metaphorical ways will fail radically in achieving this sort of communication with me. I may be in the minority here, and for all I know I'm in a minority of one. (Or two -- here's Punkass Marc saying that "If you use “cunt” as an insult, you’re plainly stating that equivocation with female genitalia is a bad thing.") Perhaps making people consider the literal meanings of these words will lead them closer to hearing the words as I do.
December 2, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
For some reason doubtless having to do with naivete, when I first tried to reason out the negative etymology of suck, I came up with something like sucking wind, or maybe some implication of toothlessness.
Of course, this can be the danger of using real words as expletives: the word has a negative meaning, and any subsequent meanings attached to the word are therefore tainted.
Posted by: Warren Terra | Dec 2, 2006 4:45:16 AM
Your first chart deserves some kind of award.
Posted by: Mike | Dec 2, 2006 4:52:00 AM
(The word "c-nt" is not getting by the spam filter, so I'm going to have to censor it...)
"If you use “c-nt” as an insult, you’re plainly stating that equivocation with female genitalia is a bad thing."
Yuperoo.
"Zuzu has the definitive response"
Yuperoo, again.
-----
And on a closely related topic, I'm always immensely put off by the sheer quantity of self-identified lefties in the blogosphere who try to pin whatever problems the Democratic Party has on some variation of "lack of balls".
At the end of the day, anyone who exalts "balls" to high heaven while deriding "c-nts" is a piss poor excuse for a lefty. The substance of their opinions should be treated accordingly.
Posted by: Petey | Dec 2, 2006 9:03:02 AM
I've often marveled at how "cocksucker" is considered by males to be a term of sharp disapprobation, although men generally consider cocksucking to be a valuable skill and technique--one they wish to receive much more often than they do. You'd think they'd cherish the providers of this desired service. But no.
Posted by: Zeno | Dec 2, 2006 9:06:02 AM
Generally agree and especially with "When I think of women who have sex with lots of men, my attitudes are entirely positive."
In terms of nuance, however, I think the "c" term implies that the woman in question has no other redeeming attributes and the "w" word suggests that she engages in sex, not for fun or even (gasp!)procreation but for remuneration of some sort (money, career or social advancement.)
You knew that of course but I agree that it's unfortunate that these very expressive terms reflect their origins in a misogynistic political order.
(Amusing: I had to edit out the very words under discussion to get this comment past your filter.)
Posted by: BroD | Dec 2, 2006 9:06:17 AM
A very effective comeback to slurrers is "you say that like it's a bad thing."
Posted by: Joel Rutstein | Dec 2, 2006 9:19:12 AM
Love the charts.
I agree with the utilitarian approach to bad language. I have a friend who goes with "I would call you an a**hole, but a**holes have their function. You are a hemorrhoid."
Posted by: Hawise | Dec 2, 2006 9:32:12 AM
Kinda genius.
Posted by: Jeff | Dec 2, 2006 9:37:39 AM
I sympathize with Neil's touching naivete - I have always had a weird mix of friends from sweet Christian women (I am at heart a very gentle soul) to loud punk rad art fags (...who happens to be on society's fringes). Thus I am almost single-handedly responsible for bringing the barroom slurs of a sailor into mixed company. :)
My friend Jim and I analyzed this stuff (the epithets) to death years ago and what we came away with then is what I still believe now - all of these slurs (remember "Fag" fits in here too) have to do with men trying to insult other men as less than fully masculine. Cocksucker, "c-nt", Fag, etc all have the goal of saying "you are like a woman," or "you behave as a woman does" therefore you are like a woman and less than a man. And I would heartily agree with Petey, because lefty men who say this stuff miss something very fundamental about treating women as equals.
(The other part of this, which no one seems to link to it, is the current vogue for calling women "skanky" and "whorish" - for instance this week's events with Britney, Paris and Lindsay - which is about separating them from other women and having them seem less than for being frankly sexual.)
All of this being the case, rather than swearing, why not just say "Bob, you big woman, here's why your idea is lame," and save a step. I mean like, fuck, enough already, man.
Posted by: weboy | Dec 2, 2006 9:41:51 AM
So, Neil, is your point that people should feel free to use these words liberally around you., as the use will only inspire positive feelings?
It seems to me that use of such words--some of which I'm fine with, some not--is about reminding the other person of the unfair advantages over them that you can deploy and your willingness to do so. Which wouldn't be a problem, but that it shows your friends the same thing. Which might reasonably make them nervous.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Dec 2, 2006 9:45:32 AM
"When I was maybe 6 years old, a friend told me what 'f*ck' meant -- "it's what people do to make babies". ..."
Heh. When I was maybe 8, some kids I was talking to spelled out 'f-u-c-k'. Never having heard this word before, I said: 'f*ck? what's that?' The reply: 'it's what people do when they get married.'
I spent a while thinking about people walking down aisles, saying 'I do', etc., trying to figure out what exactly accounted for the hushed tones and general air of naughtiness, to no avail.
Posted by: hilzoy | Dec 2, 2006 9:59:55 AM
With respect to Petey's abhorrence of "ballsy" and its ilk, a few years ago some friends and I made every effort to call brave or brazen acts "eggsy" whenever remotely relevant.
People enjoyed it, but after a week or so we sort of gave up. It's not like any of us use "ballsy" that often, anyhow.
Posted by: Warren Terra | Dec 2, 2006 10:36:03 AM
This is an awesome post which leaves me feeling very good!
And speaking of the using the word "balls" to make the point that someone is courageous, I remember hearing a woman refer to a very tough (admirably so) woman as having "ovaries of steel!" I am not sure I like the idea of steel ovaries, but I was impressed with her attempt to not say that a woman has balls...
Posted by: Sunrunner | Dec 2, 2006 10:45:23 AM
If you look at the way these words are commonly used, it really makes it clear why they function as insults.
"C*nt" tends to be used in American English in a very specific way. It's used to say, roughly, "You may think that you're valuable for your brains/morals/social standing, but to me you're just a sperm dumpster." I saw a number of people point out the more general usage in England, as if that mattered. They wouldn't whip that argument out to say that "negro" should have the exact same meaning in Spanish and English, so why try it between different dialects? FDL---all American bloggers writing for an American audience. The only applicable usages are the American ones.
However, if you do invoke the English term, the frequency of the use doesn't really say much for it being considered less despicable there. If I was going to translate it to American English, I'd say it most resembles the use of the words "fag" and "gay", when used in a derogatory way by straight men to degrade each other. Weboy is exactly right---it means, "You're such a GIRL." And yes, the usage depends on believing in and reinforcing women's inferior status. Additionally, the vagina is traditionally considered the most disgusting of organs, believe it or not. It rates on a disgust level higher than the anus, from what I understand, at least from Laura Kipnis' new book. (That may be mediated some by homophobic obsession with the anus in America, but I don't know.) There's been a lot of studies done on disgust reactions and it's been found that generally people are queasier when thinking about c*nts than assholes. A simple proof of this: What are most people going to be more embarrassed buying at a grocery store---tampons or toilet paper?
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | Dec 2, 2006 11:30:56 AM
Vulgarity itself is illogical : most words used are evocative of sensations of physical release. Use of it is derided as unimaginative and repetitive. There is nothing you habitually use that indicates such a lack of imagination.
That said : it's nothing special. I'm a Canuck and expect I pay as much attention to it as "eh", which I didn't even realize I used until twitted about it by a pair of U.S. students hitch-hiking eons ago.
Posted by: opit | Dec 2, 2006 11:54:25 AM
What does calling someone a prick connotate then, or telling someone to stop being a dick? Always found that one as strange especially when men call each other that.
Posted by: kdub | Dec 2, 2006 12:05:03 PM
"So, Neil, is your point that..."
Well, SCMT, given your repeated use of accusations of male on male cocksucking as your ultimate blogospheric insult, I'm reasonably certain the point here is going to remain somewhat elusive to you...
Posted by: Petey | Dec 2, 2006 12:06:11 PM
"a few years ago some friends and I made every effort to call brave or brazen acts "eggsy" whenever remotely relevant. People enjoyed it, but after a week or so we sort of gave up."
You gave up too soon. Never overestimate the difficulty of spreading a good meme.
Posted by: Petey | Dec 2, 2006 12:14:22 PM
I appreciate all the positive comments, from new commenters and from people for whom I have a long-standing regard.
Tim, the point is that these words really shouldn't have the metaphorical meanings they do, since the metaphorical meanings are so far out of step with the literal meanings. If you use them around me in the way Shakes did (Queen C-nt of F-ck Mountain), that's fine. But if you use them in the way Pachacutec did, you'll fail to communicate effectively with me.
Amanda, thanks for showing me the humorous possibilities of charts like these.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Dec 2, 2006 12:17:02 PM
"With respect to Petey's abhorrence of "ballsy" and its ilk..."
And FWIW, I'm fine with "ballsy" as long as the user isn't also derisive of female genitalia. "Ballsy" is actually a pretty good word.
But I always do find it ironic to see the mouth-breathers wanting Dems to "have more balls" when we are objectively, in so many different ways, the Pussy Party - a fact of which we ought to be proud.
Posted by: Petey | Dec 2, 2006 12:19:42 PM
"Ballsy" is, for the record, the American English antonymn of "pussy". Which again, shows a pervasive misogynist bent to these sort of things. The other antonymn to "pussy is "cocky". I'm amused that "cocky" has become non-vulgar.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | Dec 2, 2006 12:24:11 PM
Well, SCMT, given your repeated use of accusations of male on male cocksucking as your ultimate blogospheric insult, I'm reasonably certain the point here is going to remain somewhat elusive to you...
Dude, your making willfully (one hopes) idiotic points is totally turning me on.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Dec 2, 2006 12:32:54 PM
All this shit makes me appreciate Kevin Drum. You don't find this crap over at his place.
Posted by: Kyle | Dec 2, 2006 12:33:17 PM
Glad to see that kdub brought up "dick" and "prick"... any thoughts on these terms? From a female perspective, I can kinda see how either can be negative-- after all, we are conditioned to be wary of them early on-- but that's not entirely fair either.
A few more random responses:
You'd think they'd cherish the providers of this desired service. But no.
Key word is "service," because relationships between those who provide services and those who receive them tend to be a bit uncomfortable at best. If you think of it as a favor, it might be easier to follow this point.
(The other part of this, which no one seems to link to it, is the current vogue for calling women "skanky" and "whorish" - for instance this week's events with Britney, Paris and Lindsay - which is about separating them from other women and having them seem less than for being frankly sexual.)
I dislike "whorish"-- let's face it, the women mentioned don't need to actually use sex as currency in their dealings with men IRL-- but I think "skanky" probaly merits a bit more examination. Women are terrible about judging other women for sexual expression, which is IMO wrong and counterproductive; however, I also tend to think that obviously performing sexuality, making it fake and rather ugly, tends to diminish those who perform it somewhat because the subtext is that they're merely manipulative and aren't that interested in sex on a more personal (and rewarding) level. To me, that's "skanky," but YMMV.
I am not sure I like the idea of steel ovaries
LOL... trust me, the idea of steel balls testicles is even worse. Ouch.
Posted by: latts | Dec 2, 2006 12:45:49 PM
"What are most people going to be more embarrassed buying at a grocery store---tampons or toilet paper?"
Speaking of which, from age 11 till about 90 seconds ago I assumed the English epithet "bloody" referred to menstruation, which would fit the general theme of words that implicitly trash anything womanly. The etymologists of Google, however, all say it's not true. (The word totally wigged out upper crust Victorians however.)
My first-ever blog post came from my bafflement that the word c*cksucker could be a slur. I think Weboy and Amanda have the answer.
Cool post, Neil.
figleaf
Posted by: figleaf | Dec 2, 2006 12:46:18 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
