BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

You say "cunt" like it's a bad thing...

  
  

Page: (1)234

 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:14 / 17.06.02
Quoth SFD:

even/especially on barbelith, i feel like i'm banging my head against a brick wall - i'm well away from perfect and i try to continually look at myself and learn - but when stuff like the continual use of the word 'cunt' passes as okay here, i seriously wonder what the point is.

Responded BioK9:

While i've rarely, if ever, called a woman a cunt or whore, I have on occasion called various women bitches. For want of a better expletive, I quess. The thing is, no one complains when I call my boss a dick, hard-on, or cock. So why is cunt so offensive? Should I call a female supervisor a "glorious virtuous goddess of light" when she treats me like shit? Fuck that, she gets what he gets.

And as far as banging you head on the wall goes, just because you state your opinion doesn't mean others are going to agree with it. And just because they don't agree with it doesn't mean they havent given it thought.

Well, special people?

This is in the Conversation as that exchange originated therein, and also because it could go Head Shoppy (how does language condition thought) or Policy (should there be a Barbelith swearbox?)

But, first up:

Is use of the word "cunt" to mean a bad person misogynistic? Does it bespeak a fundamental loathing of women. In particular, to call a woman a "cunt" - aggressively dehumanising, or just convenient metonymy? Is the case for the defence successfully made by, "Well, I call people pricks/cocks/tools...", or is there still something in the fact that "cunt" remains the nastiest cookie-cutter term of abuse?

And, by the same token, is the same censure relevant to calling people "twats" or "ladyparts", or is there something very special about "cunt"? What does it mean when *you* call somebody a cunt?
 
 
Sax
11:27 / 17.06.02
I personally have a great affinity for the word, but always use it as a male-orientated insult. Don't think I've every used it at a female. I personally do not use it in a mysoginistic sense; although I'm sure it will be argued that the very fact of using it is mysoginistic. Almost all my close friends hate the word, but to me it is a short, sharp shock of a cuss that conveys so much in so little. I don't think I've ever used the word and actually meant to liken someone to female genitalia; the word has transcended its dictionary definition for me, and has a whole set of connotations that probably only satisfy certain criteria laid down in my head.

And I try to never use it in front of my mum.
 
 
w1rebaby
11:32 / 17.06.02
or is there still something in the fact that "cunt" remains the nastiest cookie-cutter term of abuse?

Why is "cunt" worse than "twat"? I think there's something about the sound of the word and the way it's spoken, actually; it's very aggressive. "Twat", you have to open your mouth wide, and it's longer. More so with "fanny". And really, nobody is going to use "pudenda" except if constructing a lengthy Blackadder-style insult.

"Cunt", you can say through gritted teeth or while snarling.

I urge anyone at work to now go to the loos, look in the mirror and say "cunt" repeatedly, followed by "twat" - ideally loudly, and while other people are there. Look at the expressions you make.
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:50 / 17.06.02
I'll confess that I use "cunt" myself as a term of abuse. I'd like to think that this isn't unconscious discrimination on my part and that I employ the term because it still has a small shock value that is increasingly hard to find. But self deception is such an easy thing. Interestingly, I tend to use the word "cunt" in a non gender specific way. I'm not sure if that affects anything or is simply a reflection of my muddle headed thinking.

So I suppose that I agree with both SFD and BioK9. I don't use the term very often myself but I think that sensitivity should probably rule over freedom of expression. Of course there is a case to be made that in making the word "cunt" taboo, we actually reinforce the negative associations that go along with female genitalia.

As for PC in all its madness, badness and sadness we should reflect that this has become a stick with which conservatives beat liberals. I rarely, if ever, call something PC and prefer to use terms like "(in)sensitivity" and "(in)considerate". The problem with PC is that there are underlying assumptions that behaviour should be proscribed regardless of offence caused or intended. I recently heard that the term "stupid woman" is not PC and "niggardly" has famously been stamped upon. What about "nitty gritty", which developed an invented history of rascism denied by all lexicographers?

All of which is beside the point as "cunt" clearly does cause some offence and has been used offensively. Are we (as men) happy that this word shoud become one that we do not use, but that women are free to? This is like the status of "nigger", but with the added complication that cunt actually means something specific. Do men have any say in this? Perhaps not.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:54 / 17.06.02
I find it interesting that you assume "pudenda" refers exclusively to ladyparts. Why? Because it ends with "-a"?

I don't think I've ever used the word and actually meant to liken someone to female genitalia; the word has transcended its dictionary definition for me, and has a whole set of connotations that probably only satisfy certain criteria laid down in my head.

Hmmm....there is certainly the idea of "second-order qualities" - like saying a man is sad is not the same thing as saying a painting (or possibly a haircut) is sad - the "second-order quality" of the word "sad" is "producing sadness in others without actually being sad itself at all". Thus, "cunt" may have the second-order quality of "possessing undesirable characterstics that make a person loathsome or contemptible". But you don't need a weatherman to see that in the first example the second-order quality is quite closely connected to the first-order quality. Is it in the case of "cunt", suggesting that the use of the word to describe someone you don't like functions only because it is either taking or throwing back unpleasant associations onto the first-order meaning?

At present, Sax's argument seems to be "'Cunt' when I use it as a swearword isn't in any way connected to 'cunt' as descriptor of ladypart, because it isn't in my head", which is as elegant as it is unprovable, and presumably has limited bearing on how it is received. Is intent relevant?
 
 
Shortfatdyke
12:04 / 17.06.02
my point really was this: how can we possibly have a 'revolution' unless or until we break *everything* down? language is just one aspect of the whole picture. as the topic abstract says, language is *man* made, more accurately, white man made. if we don't question where our language comes from, how can we really change ourselves? in the miss black america thread, *for example* (music section) a band that are supposed to be 'political' and 'punk' use phrases such as 'sucking corporate cock'. i know *what* they mean by it, but unless we dissect *where* a phrase like that comes from, how and why they say what they say, (including calling the men who run the music bisiness 'cunts') that band *appear* to be happy for revolution/politics/punk to be for the boys. this may not be the case. but this is how they appear.

i *do* use the word cunt. as it is intended - a powerful word to describe female genitalia. cunts are beautiful. to use it as an insult is quite horrendous, in my mind.
 
 
sleazenation
12:10 / 17.06.02
so how about the arguement modern use of cunt is egaliterian since it is attempting to lower its status as swearing taboo and move it into a position of equiality with male parts and gender neutral body parts in the great league table of the comparative badness of swearwords.

Then at last perhaps we will be able to cause offence with out causing offence.
 
 
Sax
12:10 / 17.06.02
Is intent relevant?

Oh, absolutely. I do, of course, accept your argument, Haus, that just because I say that the word isn't a reference to female genitalia when I say it the argument is completely unprovable and therefore holds no water at all.

However, to take the "intent" line a little further, "cunt" to me is a slightly more serious curse than "everyday swearing" like fanny, arse, bollocks, dickhead, fuck, etc, therefore if I was roused enough to utilise the word to its full advantage it would likely be because the object of my wrath had displayed evidence of "possessing undesirable characterstics that make a person
loathsome or contemptible" and would, therefore, be deserving of the appelation.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
12:17 / 17.06.02
I think to say "well, I want to insult a specific woman who has wronged me, and cunt was the only word that came to mind" speaks of a certain lack of creativity. Obviously, 'cunt' is a very contentious word, and maybe if just for the sake of 'better safe than sorry', taking the effort to come up with a different epithet is worthwhile.

Insulting a specific person, female or not, need not involve misogyny, I think.
 
 
Persephone
12:20 / 17.06.02
Following sleazenation, there isn't this objection to calling a man a "dick," which doesn't necessarily refer to his penis-like qualities but merely his not-nice qualities. This raises to mind a chicken-or-the-egg dilemna --would equalizing "cunt" to "dick" aid in equalizing women to men? Or is the current status of "cunt" a bellwether of the status of women?

Maybe we should just agree to switch to "asshole" for everything, as a genderless term of abuse.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:25 / 17.06.02
However, to take the "intent" line a little further, "cunt" to me is a slightly more serious curse than "everyday swearing" like fanny, arse, bollocks, dickhead, fuck, etc, therefore if I was roused enough to utilise the word to its full advantage it would likely be because the object of my wrath had displayed evidence of "possessing undesirable characterstics that make a person
loathsome or contemptible" and would, therefore, be deserving of the appelation.

...because, like female genitalia, they are loathsome or contemptible?

Shades of Alan Partridge's "And don't write in saying that was sexist, because it isn't."
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
12:31 / 17.06.02
I'm curious... are women who use the word as a pejorative buying into the same HIStory (without going all King of Pop on your collective asses) of the othering of femininity, of basic misogyny? Or do you think there are other factors at work there?

I have no ideas, before you ask, hence the question...
 
 
Lurid Archive
12:32 / 17.06.02
as the topic abstract says, language is *man* made, more accurately, white man made - sfd

As a white, middle class, heterosexual male - so many sins in one body - it is perhaps pure defensiveness that makes me think this is all too simplistic. It almost makes it sound as if *we* had a meeting to decide how to discriminate and who the targets should be. I'll leave it to someone with a better knowledge of history and the development of language to enlighten us.

As for the "revolution" that sfd refers to, haven't we had this conversation before? We can probably agree that a progression and evolution of language to incorporate eglitarian qualities - whatever that may mean - is desirable. I'm not sure what a revolution entails and it does sound a touch Orwellian, but that may be my Monday paranoia kicking in.

If I can pick up on another of sfd's points

cunts are beautiful. to use it as an insult is quite horrendous, in my mind.

Presumably the use of prick, dick, tool etc as insults is also offensive but the privileged role of men negates the detrimental impact? This makes me think in order to be "PC" one must take account of current prejudices and embed them in usage. So that, to be PC, one must speak of men and women differently, in order to avoid sexist language. Does this highlight the very attitudes it tries to avoid, if only by omission?
 
 
Sax
12:34 / 17.06.02
All good points and ones I can't really argue with.

I suspect my lack of dismay at the word probably relates to the fact that I was introduced to it in the playground as a term of contempt before I knew that it was a derogatory slang word for the female genitals.

I suppose I'm just an unreconstructed working class Northerner of a certain age.
 
 
Sax
12:41 / 17.06.02
...because, like female genitalia, they are loathsome or contemptible?

Shades of Alan Partridge's "And don't write in saying that was sexist, because it isn't."


Okay, okay. Your logic is impeccable and you're obviously right on this one. Before this thread runs to 15 pages, I don't think anyone will take issue with the fact that the word is a derogatory term for the female genitalia. I'll try to watch my mouth in future.
 
 
Billy Corgan
12:43 / 17.06.02
Why say the word "cunt" when you can say the word "cooter"? I just don't get it.
 
 
moriarty
12:43 / 17.06.02
It has been stated many times that in Barbelith there are certain things that are taken as givens, racial slurs being considered off-limits as one of them. In all the time I've been here, even when I disagreed with a person's points, I could at least understand where they were coming from and why they said what they did. The use of the word "cunt" as an insult in these parts(and, yes, "twat" etc.) is the one thing I could never get my head around.

Unlike SFD, I wasn't particularly worried about it's use. I'm just coming at it from the viewpoint of understanding why "cunt" is allowed and something I believed to be as innocent as the term "girl" isn't. Before that whole can of worms is opened again, I would like to concede defeat in that arguement. What it taught me was two things. That even if a term is predominant in my own region, while in an international community (like Barbelith) it might be wise to figure out why it's seen in a negative light, and how that might apply to my own perceptions. And, tying into the first point, waking me up to the startling revelation that not everyone in my community is necessarily agreeable with the term, even if they are typically silent about it.

It's been said so much better already by others, but I'll give it a try anyway. The word "cunt" means female genitalia. It is used by a growing number of people, like SFD, in a positive way. When this word (or other words similar to it) are used as insults you are making a statement that you find female genitalia to be "weird and nasty" even if you don't mean it that way. To people who still equate the word to female genitalia, even if they are bystanders and not the subject of your insult, you are sending a hateful message.

I cannot believe one of the most conservative posters on Barbelith has to point this out. And thanks for making this a Conversation topic, Haus. Finally.
 
 
that
12:47 / 17.06.02
As sfd says, I think we should start thinking about the literal meaning of what we say, as well as how we mean it 'metaphorically'. If we stopped to think about actual real physical cunts every time we were tempted to use the word as a term of abuse, would we still use it? (I use 'we' loosely, as I have never used the word cunt as an insult). Maybe so - but at least then 'we' couldn't lie to ourselves about what we were *really* saying. And I think that we should do that with every single word that is similarly used - dick included. Bastard, and bugger, both of which I am guilty of using, are two others that we should all think about before they are used as terms of abuse/dismay - 'cause if we thought about their literal meanings and origin, perhaps we wouldn't be so quick to do so anyway. Language matters, and does inform our reality, does help perpetuate the current, depressing, state of affairs. Maybe we should all *think* more before we speak? Be more inventive with your 'insults'. And maybe a brief pause in the heat of the moment to consider what you say would avoid fights and misunderstandings - who knows?

Cunts *are* beautiful. Hell, next time someone calls you a cunt, take it as a compliment. Yes, penises are laughed at, worried about, and dick, cock, etc are used as fairly mild terms of abuse - but men still have primary control over 'world affairs'. Why is the word cunt offered so much venom as a term of abuse? 'Cause real cunts are scary and mysterious, just like a Giger picture or the sarlacc pit? However, letting 'cunt' become a common-or-garden insult like 'dick' won't help women achieve equality. Misogyny won't suffer if the use of the word cunt becomes accepted as a general mild term of abuse. It *will* suffer if we all start trying to think before we speak. A lot of bad stuff might get a bit better if we were all more careful. Do you really hate cunts? No? So why use it as an insult?
 
 
bitchiekittie
12:50 / 17.06.02
most "curse words", to me are in no way really bad in and of themselves. true, they have power - like most people, when Im angry I tend to pull out the naughty words. but I string them together into nonsense phrases which eventually tend to have a lightening effect on my mood. like just about everything else, I see humor in them, and that is the main reason why I enjoy them

I personally call myself cunt - it is, to me, a fairly affectionate recognition of my personality quirks. I like who I am, and it feels as if adding the word cunt (or bitch, or similar feminine slanted insult words) takes away the power of someone else to hurt me with such terms. I see as a fun (sometimes powerful) claim on a word thats meant to injure me

that said, Id be cautious about using that word - or any other word or phrase typically accepted as offensive - on someone else.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:02 / 17.06.02
Well, we haven't established yet if it's a bad thing...

It's like....well, take "fuck", which is nice and uncontentious since these days at least it is pretty democratic (boys can fuck boys who fuck girls who fuck girls who fuck boys like they're girls and so on).

So, fuck me, fucking hell, fuck my old boots, whoopee-fucking-do....the sexual sense of fuck is important in some cases here, in terms of making the phrase comnprehensible, but by the time we get to "fucking hell", or "whoopee-fucking-do", it doesn't really have any sense of two or more people having sex. That verbal sense is no longer required for the phrase to be comprehensible - "fucking" could perfectly well be replaced by "bloody" or "arsing", and it isn't primarily because "fucking" has a particular weight to it that makes sense when I want to ascribe a certain emphasis to something. It isn't a part of the sense unit any more at all:

I hate your mum and I hate you.

I hate your mum and I fucking hate you.

I fucking hate your mum and I fucking hate you.

The fact that it doesn't *need* to be in the sentence at all for the sentence to be coherent, that is that the sentence in no sense relies on either the word or its first-order qualities, makes it more of an emotional sound-effect than a reference, good or bad, to sex.

So...can "cunt" be defended as a similar "emotional sound-effect". Possibly not in the "you are such a cunt", or "what are you looking at, you bitch cunt?" sense (particularly when its used is combined with a metonym i.e a woman is being addressed). But what about "Ooooh...I cunting hate semolina" or "You left the keys in the car? Oh cunty cunty cunty bollocks!", where the sentence does not rely on the ladypart sense of the word for its meaning (although perhaps for its impact), and the term itself is subjected to a linguistic jouissance that further destabilises its relationship to the holiest of holies. CAn it simply become an "emotional sound effect).

Am reminded here of Harry Redknapp, bless him, saying of Michael Carrick that if he made on mistake "suddenly 25,000 people are cunting on him"...

Sax: I think part of the point is that it doesn't *have* to be a "derogatory slang word for the female genitals". SFD sees its use in the proper context (i.e. describing female genitalia with due respect) as in no sense derogatory - it is, I imagine she would argue, the poisoning of the well of cuntliness that is its derogatory and pejorative adaptation that causes problems.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:52 / 17.06.02
I think Moriarty makes a very good point on the other "leg" of this question - what are the criteria for "acceptability"? I remember that dear uncomplicated Aussie fellow (who was ever so much brighter than his peer group) getting terribly exercised about the idea that one should in an international community refrain from using the word "Paki" when in his homeland and his adopted homeland it was a) apparently a neutral term for the Pakistani Cricket team with no pejorative meaning (a point disputed by other Australians, but leave it aside) and b) a word with no weight in Tennessee, where Pakistanis were thin on the ground, not to mention c) Pakistanis didn't mind being called Pakis anyway (a contention again disputed by various sections of the Pakistani press, but shove that to the crowded sideplate also).

Point being, the question there was what, in that context, was *wrong* with George Bush Jr. calling the members of the nation of Pakistan "Pakis". To compare inferos superis, whether or not we find the term "cunt" used to describe somebody somebody doesn't like personally offensive or upsetting, if it is clear that some people do *over and above* any offence they personally might receive from its usage (i.e. they are not just offended by being called a cunt, but also by other people being called cunts), and that they are valued members of our community , be that Barbelith, our circle of friends, the family of Mankind (ah-hah!), are we being unnecessarily constrained by feeling unable in good conscience to use the term freely, or unnecessarily insensitive in continuing to do so?
 
 
rizla mission
14:04 / 17.06.02
So...can "cunt" be defended as a similar "emotional sound-effect"?

Yeah, good question. Because just about all conventional swearwords seem to have some unwholesome ideological connotations, and it would be nice to have some alternatives to just sort of going "BLUUUAAFFEEERRR!!" whenever I get angry..
 
 
Sax
14:41 / 17.06.02
Oh, I just don't know any more. This started off as Haus asking what people think and then seemed to turn into me defending the use of the word, which wasn't what I expected or wanted to get drawn into.

I fully understand, nay completely agree with, the arguments that have been put forward. I just think that a lot of people do use the word as "an emotional sound-effect" without thinking about what they're really saying, and as has been pointed out, perhaps that is the problem. Maybe I'll do what Cholister suggested and in future visualise what it is I'm delivering as a term of abuse, and decide whether the object of my wrath should really be compared to what I'm about to compare them to.

And maybe I should think of something else to say.

And maybe then the moment will have passed, and I won't get in as much trouble as I tend to.
 
 
gozer the destructor
14:59 / 17.06.02
Jeez, this is a humdinger of a quandry. I must admit I use the word cunt, i think because it's just accoustically aggresive and not for what it refers to ie genitalia, but a real not to be trusted person. As i said in a former post on a different thread im fair game, for the femminists out there, to educate me but when i call someone a cunt im not thinking 'female genitals', im not thinking at all.

Understand both sides, not sure what my opinion is, let's face face it, genitals are funny.
 
 
grant
15:47 / 17.06.02
Sidebar question: a cock is a rooster, and Dick is a friend of mine. Why is "cunt" not anything else? Pussy certainly is. So, for that matter, is "cooter" (it's a turtle).
 
 
Ierne
16:02 / 17.06.02
...when i call someone a cunt im not thinking 'female genitals', im not thinking at all. – gozer the destructor

Sounds like more thinking, and less name-calling, might do the trick.

And if one must be nasty to another person, how about a little creativity? A little originality? Too much to ask? I realize that such things require thinking...

These comments are for the board in general to (oo-ee!) think about, and not intended as a response to any particular individual.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
18:30 / 17.06.02
Yes, penises are laughed at, worried about, and dick, cock, etc are used as fairly mild terms of abuse - but men still have primary control over 'world affairs'.

What do you mean by that last bit? Try as I might, I can't make it balance out the sentence. Or were you being sarcastic and me too thick to grasp it?

I'm just coming at it from the viewpoint of understanding why "cunt" is allowed and something I believed to be as innocent as the term "girl" isn't. Before that whole can of worms is opened again...

What thread was this discussed in? I can't seem to find it.

I don't think i have much to offer in this conversation because where I come from/am currently residing, there are much worse things to be called than "cunt". I don't think I know anyone outside of this message board that finds it particularly offensive, or at least more so than "bitch" (which is not to say that these people don't exist. I'm sure they do. But I really don't think that it's as big a deal in the U.S. as it apparently is in the UK). In my mind, "bitch" is much more derogatory.

I'm going to have to give it more thought, though. Lately I've had to decide what parts of the language I want to use or have used in reference to me as I become more aware of the effects of language on people. It's kinda weird living here in Detroit, because for the first time in my life I have more black friends than white, and I am sometimes introduced as "my nigga Johnny". Which is new, I admit. Also new are the strange looks from younger co-workers when I ask them not to use the word "fag" at work.

Language sucks. I'm just going to refer to everyone as "unit" followed by a number based on the order I met them compared to all the other units.
 
 
that
19:09 / 17.06.02
I meant: Men. Have. Far. More. Than. Their. Fair. Share. Of. The. Power. In. The. World. This is despite their ownership of a penis, and the attendant worries and jokes regarding it, and the mild insults derived from that organ. Women. Are. Not. Treated. As. Equal. To. Men. Some here have suggested that if the word cunt became a *casual* insult, like 'dick', that would help redress the balance of power between the binary genders. It wouldn't. Men are privileged *despite* their relationship between their penises and language. And yes, the relaionship *is* a lot different than that between women's genitals and language. However, if the word cunt slipped down the 'shock factor' scale, women would still not be any better off. The power balance would remain the same, tipped significantly in favour of the male. We need to analyse our language, face up to it, deal with it, rather than to ignore it and hope that its significance becomes less over time. Because it won't. It's implications might become more ground in, more a part of the scenery - hidden, insidious (they already are, it seems, seeing how few of us analyse our language), but unless the underlying issues of equality and the lack thereof are addressed, then we won't really get anywhere.
 
 
that
19:12 / 17.06.02
That was directed at Johnny O, btw, to clarify my earlier statement for his benefit. And, apologies for the grammatical error - I, of course, meant its, not it's.
 
 
Elijah, Freelance Rabbi
19:40 / 17.06.02
based on the "Cunts are wondefull things" statement, if i am jewish can i say Kikes are my favorite people, or were i black are Niggers the best friends i ever had?
what im asking, really (and poorly), is this: is SFD trying to reclaim a word, or use the word for its original purpose?

And, SFD and others, do you use to words cock, dick, nutsack and any other words for male parts as insults?
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
19:56 / 17.06.02
I find it strange that so many people in this thread seem to discredit the notion of actually insulting someone with anything other than scatological references and/or words derived from words for genitals...

Judging on what she's written, maybe it's a better bet that SFD refrains from gender/genitalia insults than to assume that she naturally uses them for men and not for women?
 
 
Elijah, Freelance Rabbi
20:01 / 17.06.02
im not assuming, im ASKING, hence the ? at the end of the sentence
 
 
Ierne
20:04 / 17.06.02
I'm beginning to feel that brick wall slamming forcefully into my head...

Elijah – are you seriously not understanding the nature of this thread? Can you not comprehend what is making people angry here?

Or are you just being antagonistic? What part of:

i *do* use the word cunt. as it is intended - a powerful word to describe female genitalia. cunts are beautiful. to use it as an insult is quite horrendous, in my mind.

are you not getting? Her statement is quite clear, at least to me.
 
 
The Sinister Haiku Bureau
20:32 / 17.06.02
Okay, I have a feeling I'm gonna regret getting into this, but I'm just gonna shut my eyes, not look down, and deposit my 2c. I personally don't believe that 'cunt' is any more or any less offensive than 'dick' 'wanker' 'shithead' or any other sexual or scatological swearword. I have never heard anybody outside barbelith argue that it was, however, as the meaning of a commuication is in the mind of the person recieving it, and not the person transmitting it, I try to refrain from using it on barbelith at least. (Of course, I try to avoid such flaminess anyway, but should I need to start telling some anecdote about 'some cunt i met the the other day' (or some such) I would adjust my language appropriately).
However, I'm still not convinced that the argument that saying 'cunt' as an insult opresses women, without adequetely justifying the female-oppressing characteristics of other swearwords (fuck, shit, wank, dick). To me, at least, it makes more sense to argue that, since dicks, anuses, wanking, and fucking all recieve similar treatment in our language, that the whole issue is not one of the evil patriarchy oppressing women through language, but one of the evil, sexually repressive, churches etc (all male dominated, admittedly) being so anti-sexuality that all references to sexual organs and actions are considered dirty and wrong. Everybody's a victim- even the people responsible for it. But maybe this is just my 3rd-rate Reichian philosophy kicking in...
 
 
Rage
00:42 / 18.06.02
The PCness here is really starting to take a toll on my chaotica, to be trite.
 
  

Page: (1)234

 
  
Add Your Reply