The Straight Up-and-Up
Tired of the daily grind (19th–20thC), bored with doing the hori- zontalize (c. 1845)? Not to worry. We’ve got more ways of doing it than Heinz has pickles; more flavors than Baskin-Robbins. Why settle for just vanilla sex (1990s)?
You can try it nestled together spoon fashion (19thC), or, if you’re really game, attempt a perpendicular (mid 19thC), also known as an upright grand (c. 1925). It’s nothing more than the old three-penny bit (late 18th–20thC)—what the girls on the cor- ner once featured as their standing bargain.
Though a somewhat shaky proposition, your standard knee- tembler (c. 1860), otherwise known as a quickie (20thC), was the perfect answer to the man on the run. Ever a favorite of the pros, it has failed to catch on at home. According to Kinsey, only four per- cent of married woman say that they would stand for it.
Impatient to get on with it? You might try having a dog’s mar- riage (19thC) or making a dog’s match of it (19th–20thC)— doing it by the wayside, down and dirty. It, however, just might take longer than you think. Dogs have been known to be linked together for hours on end after the sexual act. The penis swells, and the muscles of the female contract, locking the penis within; thus insuring that not till death will they part.
It’s a tough act to follow, but you could possibly try doing a dog’s rig (mid 18th–19thC), defined by Grose as “sexual inter- course to exhaustion followed by back-to-back indifference.”
Read more – Bawdy Language – http://bawdylanguage.com
In what state “you must stay in the missionary position and have the shades pulled while having sex”?
– answer – North Carolina
EVEN MORE:
Dumb Laws in Virginia – “Not only is it illegal to have sex with the lights on, one may not have sex in any position other than missionary.”
Lawmakers in Indonesia are considering a new criminal code that would make unmarried couples having sex illegal, with a penalty of up to five years in jail.
Stupid Laws from Florida – “Having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal”. “It is considered an offense to shower naked”. “Oral sex is illegal”. “You may not fart in a public place after 6 P.M. on Thursdays.”
New York – “A fine of $25 can be levied for flirting. This old law specifically prohibits men from turning around on any city street and looking “at a woman in that way.” A second conviction for a crime of this magnitude calls for the violating male to be forced to wear a “pair of horse-blinders” wherever and whenever he goes outside for a stroll”.
In Dyersburg, Tennessee, it is illegal for a lady to call a gentleman for a date. Clearly no one in that town is getting laid!
In Washington State, it’s totally legal to eff an animal like an animal, as long as it weighs less than 40 lbs. What, fatty farm pets don’t deserve some love?
The biggest internet porn consuming state, Utah, gets freaky in their laws too. Sex with an animal is totally cool, unless you’re doing it for cold hard cash! Hey, why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free!
While most would argue that this is place where the people get screwed many different ways, in Washington D.C., engaging in any sexual position other than missionary is illegal.
Dr. Bawdy was able to stand it till he was totally smashed and pissed off by Texas’s law – “The entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a formula for making beer at home”.
Directly from the desk of Dr. Bawdy – http://bawdylanguage.com/blog
Another dirty word – the ASS…
The ass is a dependable part that holds up its end of things. As the seat (19thC), it certainly knows its place.
It would be wrong, however, to think it just rests there. This is a hard-working part that quietly goes about its business at the ori- fice, functioning as the shithole (19thC), the brown bucket (20thC), the dirt road (early 20thC), and the poop-chute (20thC). However, there’s little recognition paid its work, and no more insulting a remark than being called “a fucking asshole.” Nothing personal, it’s just one person’s opinion, and as Dirty Harry Calla han (Clint Eastwood) reminded us in The Dead Pool (1988), “Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one.”
Getting Off One’s Ass
The entire experience proved so puzzling, some could no longer locate what they were looking for. They looked to the backside (16thC), the posterior (c. 1614), the rear end (c. 1920s) or the behind (described in the OED as something “in the rear of any- thing moving” or “the rear part of a person or garment”).
Not knowing where else to turn, they came up with the lower back (late 19thC). Things were now desperate. In 1912, British papers recorded news from South Africa of a certain Lord Methuen who had been wounded in the fleshy part of the thigh. Most thought this all very ass backward (or bass ackward, both 20thC), a somewhat strange expression used to describe something that’s askew or out of sync. So too with the expression itself, ass- forward being a much more accurate description of the condition.
Read Bawdy Language – http://bawdylanguage.com
It’s not unusual to insult people by identifying them with their body parts. Calling someone a prick is a commonplace insult, but we reserve use of the expression for males of a particular character, and not for men in general. Cunt, on the other hand, is not only a term filled with contempt and disdain, but it is applied indiscriminately, regardless of the person’s character, insulting not only the person toward whom the remark is aimed, but all women everywhere.
Words Fail
Man has not only spoken ill of the cunt but has also described it in glowingly romantic terms. According to Karen Horney, the noted psychiatrist, this makes very good sense. Both approaches reflect man’s deep-seated dread of the female genitalia; each in a different way helps allay this fear. By making little of the cunt, he convinces himself that there is nothing to fear from so mean an object. Through its idealization he insures the unlikelihood of harm from so divine a being.
And we have no shortage of superlatives to describe it. We have everything from the dearest bodily part (Shakespeare) to the best part (Earl of Dorset), the best in Christendom (Rochester), and la belle chose (Chaucer). For some, it’s been just plain out of this world — as in heaven (18thC).
Yet that nagging fear is always there beneath the surface. It’s also been sheer hell (18thC) and a devilish thing (18thC); so much so that many would dispense with the entire matter by put- ting the Devil into hell (18thC).
Some reserved judgment, as did John Donne with the best- worst part. Others extolled it as a masterpiece and featured it prominently as the star (16thC), depicted ofttimes as pretty- pretty (17thC) and indescribably quaint, as in Chaucer’s “Miller’s Tale”: “Full prively he caught her by the queinte.”3
At its lowest, this cloven stamp of female distinction (18thC) has been reduced to a suck-and-swallow, a man (or fool) trap, a butter boat, an oystercracker, and sperm-sucker (19thC). At the same time, it’s been elevated to a position of power as the control- ling part (19thC) and the regulator (late 18thC–19thC).
It’s almost as though they forgot its more mundane functions as the water box (19thC), or streamstown (c. 1820–90), the gener- ating or brat-getting place (19thC), the nursery, and the bath of birth (early 20thC).
Read more – Bawdy Language Book – http://bawdylanguage.com
Language describing woman has also traditionally joined dirtiness with sex. Words describing her as slovenly and untidy made her immoral as well, inferring that sloppy women were as derelict in their morals as they were in appearance. Man meanwhile got off clean.
A case in point is the evolution of the slut (14thC) or slattern (17thC). She started life innocently enough as a slovenly woman, speaking more to her messiness than her morals. But she soon developed a playful side. Samuel Pepys wrote in his diary: “Our little girl Susan is a most advanced slut and pleases us mightily.” It was then but a short jump to impudence and then to you know what. As Henry Fielding noted, “I never knew any of these forward sluts to come to good.” Indeed. A hundred years later Dickens told us exactly what she had become, “a slut, a hussy.”
A Class by Herself
Her reputation was further suspect as a woman of a certain class (19thC).5 Bunters (18th–19thC) picked up the rags from the streets, scrubbers (early 20thC) cleaned and washed, and doxies (16th–18thC, from the Dutch docke, a “doll or dolly, a mistress or prostitute”) accompanied those who begged for a living. The trollop (17th–19thC) was a coarse and vulgar street person. Everyone knew the tramp and her friends for what they were. Class distinctions always made it easy to identify them, though the hoity-toity wench (late 17th–early 19thC) didn’t know her place.
Not only was it traditional to treat lower-class women like dirt, but to further characterize them as lewd. Lewd once referred to anyone not belonging to the holy orders, hence unlearned and unteachable.
The language claimed many an innocent victim in this fashion.
No more Slut Bullying.
Use other words.
Read more – Bawdy Language Book – http://bawdylanguage.com
The New York Times last week showed its usual squeamishness about language when it discussed allegations of sexual misconduct against a pop-philosopher of some note. The journalist writing the article noted how, “In recent years, he ( the philosopher) has pursued a more popular bent, writing books on movies, sports and Shakespeare, along with cheekier projects like a short 2008 volume subtitled A Critique of Mental Manipulation (the title is unpublishable here).”
Dr. Bawdy put his research staff on this immediately and found the title that the journalist said was “unpublishable here” to be “Mind-Fucking.” What is truly mind-fucking is how frightened the Times and its journalists are of certain words. This hearkens back to when the Times couldn’t find it in itself to fully print Jimmy Carter’s comment as to how he was going to whip Teddy Kennedy’s ass and when one of its own reporters, Adam Clymer, had been identified by Dubya as a “major league asshole”—reporting only that “He used an obscenity.”
What is obscene is the Times fucked up sense of priorities and prudishness. What is obscene is not a few colorful words which should be recorded for the sake of accurate reporting—but the Times reporting which fails to address the obscene use of power and justifies excursions such as the Iraq war through truly fucked up reporting such as that of Judith Miller which allowed her and the Times to become hand-maidens of the administration in justifying an illegal and immoral enterprise.
Directly from the desk of Dr. Bawdy – http://bawdylanguage.com/blog
