RSS
The English language has a problem (and thus, due to the dominance of English, much of the world has a problem) with the word “sex” meaning both the basic biological division of humanity and sexual acts.
I can recall about two decades ago that the late Larry Auster criticized me for summarizing my blog as being, among much else, interested in “race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation etc etc,” when I should have said “race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation etc etc.”
Larry had a good point. But I chose the word “gender” rather than “sex” so that Google would categorize me as an intellectual rather than as a porn purveyor.
My guess is that the efflorescence of pornography over the last half century has rendered the old word “sex” radioactive by giving it a hubba hubba sense. I’d imagine that when, say, Henry James 130 years ago offered some urbane reflection on a countess’s sensibility as reflecting that of “her sex,” only the horniest denizens of 1893 would respond by instantly calling up pornographic imagery.
But these days, due to the pervasiveness of video pornography, a lot of people can’t stop thinking about “sex” as meaning sex acts. So, the kind of people who took four years of French have substituted “gender” as a polite euphemism for “sex,” with catastrophic results for trusting adolescents.
My suggestion is that we English speakers should come up with different words for “male vs. female” and “sexual acts.”
Unfortunately, I’m neither creative nor cool, so whatever I come up with would be disastrous. But I implore those of you who are creative and cool to work on this problem.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
The term “sodomy” served this function, but it’s gone out of fashion. “Sex” connoted procreative heterosexual sex, while “sodomy” referred to the various non-procreative “sexual” acts that get called “sex” nowadays. This was much more accurate. We speak of “gay sex” and 2 men “having sex” these days, but that’s incorrect. 2 men cannot have sex i.e. procreative heterosexual sex; they can only commit sodomy. A man and a woman can also commit sodomy as well, of course, and a lot of the heterosexual activity these days that’s called “sex” is not sex proper but sodomy.
The song of the Women’s Airforce Sevice Pilots (WASPs) in World War Two. Note they used “gender” to indicate biological sex even back then. It’s not a new thing.
This squeamishness is an explanation of why the RBG biopic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Basis_of_Sex
Underwhelmed at the box office.
I recall that twenty or thirty years ago I had settled upon using ‘gender’ for the biological categorisation to avoid confusion. More recently though, people have corrected me for this because gender supposedly means the sex that you say you are (of course they don’t use these terms). So, Bruce Jenner’s sex is male, but his gender is female. My 1995 dictionary just says that gender means sex, with no whiff of the recent baroque elaborations. A modern dictionary says ‘the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones’. In summary, we had a perfectly good word to distinguish categorisation sex from sexy sex, but we’ve wasted it to pander to the delusions of 1% of the population.
Sex remains an act. Males could be testos and women estros. Homesexuals can figure it all out on their own.i guess. That’s what you are asking.
Cis-sex?
Allosome?
Revive archaic kind in the sense of sex?
My suggestion is that we English speakers should come up with different words for “male vs. female” and “sexual acts.”
Well there IS a word that starts with “f” that describes sexual activity, but you shouldn’t use it in polite company.
It’s dead common you know. 😉
(ducks the flying muck from the truck)
Goodness and thank you. G. Gordon Liddy used to belabor “words have gender, people have sex.” I tried and tried to promote that with no success.
with the word “sex” meaning both the basic biological division of humanity and sexual acts.
When I was a lad “sex” referred to the biological division.
The acts went by a collection of colourful terms including shagging, bonking, …
The best fun was the Scots term heughmagandie (online world seems to favour the spelling houghmagandie) though admittedly half the fun lay in the inability of anyone English to pronounce it.
“But I chose the word “gender” rather than “sex” so that Google would categorize me as an intellectual rather than as a porn purveyor.”
Explains why you use several other false terms, like Afrukin Uhmerican.
I choose to misspell those words so that I do not assist you in your quest to be a google intellectual.
I’m fine with using gender to describe the categories of men and women. I know it’s been co-opted by the transgender movement, but many critics of the transgender movement are just as insistent about what gender is. I prefer to stay out of word debates like this and just go with what’s easiest to understand.
To avoid confusion sexual acts should be renamed “Hiding the salami.” No further confusion.
Sex is the proper biological term, and should be used if that’s what you’re talking about. Masculine/feminine, male/female; there’s nothing wrong with these terms, nor the he, she, its which flow from them.
“Gender” is the problem. It is a construct, and a nonsensical term rammed down our throats by the grifters, quacks, and perverts in the “gender” racket. No sensible person should use the term unless they are teaching grammar to children, or to others learning a new language.
If my memories of my schoolboy latin are correct, the “gender” construct is both perverse, and fluid in it’s original, and proper usage. That is, “gender” would declare a table to be a woman or a window to be a man (constructivist crazy-talk), except in the ablitive case, when the window would become a woman (fluidity). Presumably, these “genders” would be assigned at the birth of a new word. So, our “gender” creeps couldn’t even come up with a creative new construct of their own, and just stole the old one from the Romans.
Off with their heads! Ooops. The Red Queen is busy reading to the grandkids down at the local library’s Drag Night.
As to your issue with google/porn, that’s above my pay grade, Old Boy.
No, because crude language in public discourse has only increased. “Sex” is like AD/BC. Keeping it doesn’t fit with the sort of people who orchestrated the Covid Vaccination scheme and exhibit a kind of galvanic response when it comes to supporting abortion. When we’re ready to burn the witches like Ann Coulter and the CDC Admiral, we can have the word sex back.
OTOH, I now think that the relatively recent demand to use “gender” (which used to apply only to nouns in relevant languages) to mean what before meant “sex” (biological) was a long term project to grind us down for the sake of World War T.
Gagootz
It used to be called “sexual intercourse” in polite society, or “fucking” in cruder terms.
There was a time when porn companies tried to set up offices, or at least mail drops, in the town of Intercourse, PA, much to the chagrin of the local Amish town elders. “Intercourse” having once had a somewhat broader meaning of “commerce” or “exchange” in general before taking explicit overtones thanks to the widespread use of the term “sexual intercourse.”
So… Sexual Intercourse – an exchange having to do particularly with the male-female distinction. I think we can take the hint!
Then it all went downhill.
Bring back “coitus” so we can relegate “sex” to a box you check on your driver’s license form?
The colloquially abbreviated "sex" means that and all the decoration and cruft different people put around the act (and even substitute for it).
I think we need a word for that.
Many government forms no longer have that box, but rather, "Gender assigned at birth."
I always liked the word “congress” to describe the sexual act. That fact that it metaphorically describes what happens in Washington is merely a bonus.
My vote goes to the Homeric “Coupling/As is the custom of women and men”. (Fitzgerald trans.)
Well, your first example describes the solution we’re headed towards, right? It just takes a while for a shift in language use to become complete. You and Auster are just temporarily at odds. Give the world another hundred years of both ubiquitous porn and shemales. “Gender” will then become the only term to describe the chromosomal (or social role) difference. “Sex” will exclusively describe the fun we do with our private bits.
“Gender”, at least in this use, is rendered genre in French. Try that in English sometime. “What genre are you?” (Or is it ” which”?)
One thing I like about the French language is that a dramatic performer is still an acteur or an actrice.
probably not since the whole point of transgender is that you can have a different gender than expected from your biological sex. Keeping the two words separate is vital to the project. They actually had a lot of work to do reminding people that these mean two different things after decades of misuse.
The problem with sexual intercourse and especially coitus, is that they are too specific (at least in my mind). They refer to the P going into the V and then out again before repeating.
The colloquially abbreviated “sex” means that and all the decoration and cruft different people put around the act (and even substitute for it).
I think we need a word for that.
“biological sex”
Bring back “coitus” so we can relegate “sex” to a box you check on your driver’s license form?
Many government forms no longer have that box, but rather, “Gender assigned at birth.”
the late Larry Auster criticized me for summarizing my blog as being, among much else, interested in “race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation etc etc,” when I should have said “race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation etc etc.”
I greatly miss Larry Auster and his trenchant commentary, which influenced my thinking. It was from him I learned of this site, as he often had a bone to pick with Sailer over something he wrote. In the last years of Auster’s life there was an annual dinner held for him in a private room at a New York restaurant, where you could meet other regular commentators. Larry was convivial on these occasions, but he was a curmudgeon at heart and it was easy to get on his wrong side and be totally cut. This happened to someone who had been one of his longtime friends and financial supporters, who was left hurt and bewildered. Auster lived very marginally and I was saddened when he wrote me asking if I could lend him $200 as he didn’t have the train fare to attend a meeting that was being held in Philadelphia.
In those years there was an alt-right dinner club that met monthly in New York City, at which one might meet many of the big names. Auster told me about it and suggested I apply to join, but by the time I began attending he had already quit. He was too cranky–not “clubbable,” as they say.
A colleague once told me he wasn't fazed by snarly customers, as they may just have had a bad breakfast that day. I tried to maintain that attitude toward both Larry and Sam, but they could make it hard at times.
I never saw Larry act cranky there, but the retired prof insisted on acting as moderator, except that he wouldn't shut up, and was a trouble-maker (bad-mouthing me to the club founder and to a guest speaker--I almost leaped across the table at him), and the founder turned into a social climber. And so, when the prof's bad-mouthing of me got the founder to start issuing "rules" just for me ("no note-taking"), I told him "I'm out."
The word sex today means the act, and gender means the biological type, because that’s how people use those words. Word meanings change over time and depend on how people use them. This is not a problem that needs to be solved and we don’t need to correct people’s language. Anyway, America is not going to change the way it talks because iSteve bloggers say so, so why bother. Just use the words as people understand them and you will be understood.
Sex = sex act
Gender = sex type
When people claim that gender is not biological, that isn’t a word usage issue, that’s a false claim about reality, and the proper response to these people is to prove them wrong with sound argument (and kick their asses out of this country).
Some of the transgender people are not happy with this distinction, but most people seem to have accepted it.
Back when the legalization of pornography was mooted in the USA back in the 1970s, there were many shades of opinion. There were those who wanted to ban what was already legal, those who wanted to legalize “everything”, and various nuanced proposed regulatory regimes. And there were all manner of studies proving phonography was a menace, harmless, or good for you.
But everyone in the debate made the same two unexamined assumptions:
1) All porn would cost money.
2) One would have to go out somewhere to buy it (or pay to watch it in a theater).
The current level of porn drench was utterly inconceivable to all.
The Pennsylvania hamlet was named for a literal intercourse, where two turnpikes met. It wasn’t abstract at all.
There are nearby communities named Gap, Blue Ball, and Bird-in-Hand. Were they ahead of their time?
I greatly miss Larry Auster and his trenchant commentary, which influenced my thinking. It was from him I learned of this site, as he often had a bone to pick with Sailer over something he wrote. In the last years of Auster's life there was an annual dinner held for him in a private room at a New York restaurant, where you could meet other regular commentators. Larry was convivial on these occasions, but he was a curmudgeon at heart and it was easy to get on his wrong side and be totally cut. This happened to someone who had been one of his longtime friends and financial supporters, who was left hurt and bewildered. Auster lived very marginally and I was saddened when he wrote me asking if I could lend him $200 as he didn't have the train fare to attend a meeting that was being held in Philadelphia.
In those years there was an alt-right dinner club that met monthly in New York City, at which one might meet many of the big names. Auster told me about it and suggested I apply to join, but by the time I began attending he had already quit. He was too cranky--not "clubbable," as they say.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Nicholas Stix
Sam Francis was the same way, minus the “convivial” part. But he was always in bad health.
A colleague once told me he wasn’t fazed by snarly customers, as they may just have had a bad breakfast that day. I tried to maintain that attitude toward both Larry and Sam, but they could make it hard at times.
You can say that again. I pulled up your house on Google Maps and was shocked.
Sorry to doxx you bruh.
The story I’ve heard is that Intercourse, Bird-in-hand etc picked those names on purpose to attract tourists and sell paraphernalia.
https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/how-did-intercourse-bird-in-hand-and-blue-ball-get-their-lewd-sounding-names/article_4ddfc21a-31bd-11e7-8371-cb3a5ca4bc9a.html
More like a “bow chicka wow wow” sense.
One of the major tools of the oft derided “culture war” is for the left/Woke/”progressive” side to constantly use new words and phrases for old ones.
This is deliberate and part of their ruining university social sciences to replace the old with the authorized New.
This practice has many advocates since by shoe-horning new terms for old, without having any real new elements or improvements, this makes them appear to be pioneers or thought leaders. University payrolls are full of ambitious hacks who want to appear “cutting edge.”
Much more can be said about this.
One current year example of this is the now universal Woke journalism use of the word “partner” for a person one is said to be living with the subject individual.
So Woke journos don’t want to distinguish between married and unmarried couples. Or gay ones (for a night), etc.
They do sometimes say/write “husband, wife” but if you notice, “partner” is often the penciled in Party Line “correction.”
Language and word usage has always evolved. But Woke left enforcers invent terms which they now want to force you to use unnaturally. The artificial ones always remove old characteristics which are now Memory Holed. “Gay” is mandatory for homosexual or queer, even though individually these are not any happier than others, sometimes quite the opposite.
You and your “partner” can be one night hook ups or 30 year married. See, no difference?
When they demand you use words they want to put in your mouth, and punish you if you don’t, that’s Woke fascism. A sinister way to control and limit your freedom of speech.
What I find interesting is the way ideological arguments are embedded in our various neologisms.
Who could possibly be against 'antifascism,' for example? To call vagrants 'homeless' is to imply the solution: give them a home, and they'll be fine. To be sexist is akin to being racist which is like being fascist; it is, of course, morally indefensible.
We have a variation on this at the moment. To criticize the state of Israel is to be anti-Semitic. It would be perfectly legitimate to take up literally any position concerning the state of Israel, just as it would be concerning any state; I'd be decidedly antiquarian if I opposed Home Rule for Ireland, for example, but it wouldn't actually be immoral. You'd best be sure of your ground if you're going to be anti-Semitic, though.
These novel usages and definitions serve a purpose. Those erstwhile hooligans who start calling themselves 'antifa' acquire an actual right to engage in vandalism and even physical assault. We must care for and nurture those so unfortunate as to lack homes; it would be wrong to insist there's something wrong within them. How can you argue women should be treated differently than men? You'd best moderate your demands when it comes to whatever horrors Israel is perpetrating at the moment. If they were Hutus, you'd be reduced to tentatively suggesting daily pauses in the clubbing of the Tutsis.Replies: @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar
And in French, male/female is sexe.
One thing I like about the French language is that a dramatic performer is still an acteur or an actrice.
https://i.imgur.com/Iw88hTv.pngReplies: @anon, @Colin Wright
Idk, this seems more of a poetic liscense to create a rhyme. They aren’t referring to their biological organs rather their femininity.
I don’t think the word sex has always been used in the same way.
I don’t think the 18th century pornographic classic Fanny Hill even uses the word sex.
Even when I was young, the word was intercourse, or colloquially ‘fuck’ or ‘bugger’.
Gender used to be more of a grammatical term. Spanish has two genders for nouns, and German has three genders.
The interesting thing is that the third German gender ‘it’ is often applied to nouns that obviously seem like they ought to be male or female to an English speaker.
Even the German word for girl is grammatically neuter because it ends in the diminutive form -chen.
I believe that traditionally the term “sex” was the biological category encompassing male and female divisions. “Sex” as the act – “to have sex” – is a more modern usage. In the past it would have been referred to as “sexual intercourse” or “sexual congress” or before that “he got her with child” or “he lay with her” or, as more likely, was just not talked about at all. Our society is sex-besotted, so the topic seems to come up a lot more. The normalization of homosexuality has resulted in their point of view becoming more prevalent and, as they are a group largely defined by what they stick where, it has coarsened society a great deal.
Sex = sex act
Gender = sex type
When people claim that gender is not biological, that isn't a word usage issue, that's a false claim about reality, and the proper response to these people is to prove them wrong with sound argument (and kick their asses out of this country).Replies: @Roger
No, about 50 years ago feminists and academics convinced most people that the distinction between sex and gender is that sex is biological and gender is the assumed identity.
Some of the transgender people are not happy with this distinction, but most people seem to have accepted it.
"Gender" is the problem. It is a construct, and a nonsensical term rammed down our throats by the grifters, quacks, and perverts in the "gender" racket. No sensible person should use the term unless they are teaching grammar to children, or to others learning a new language.If my memories of my schoolboy latin are correct, the "gender" construct is both perverse, and fluid in it's original, and proper usage. That is, "gender" would declare a table to be a woman or a window to be a man (constructivist crazy-talk), except in the ablitive case, when the window would become a woman (fluidity). Presumably, these "genders" would be assigned at the birth of a new word. So, our "gender" creeps couldn't even come up with a creative new construct of their own, and just stole the old one from the Romans.Off with their heads! Ooops. The Red Queen is busy reading to the grandkids down at the local library's Drag Night.As to your issue with google/porn, that's above my pay grade, Old Boy.Replies: @Frau Katze
There is also a neuter grammatical gender in Latin, if I remember correctly. I agree, the assigned genders never made sense and the whole thing was a waste of time. Let us be glad that English has lost grammatical gender.
https://i.imgur.com/Iw88hTv.pngReplies: @anon, @Colin Wright
That song gets worse towards the end. ‘Our landings are rough/our recoveries quick.’
By the way, these are the young women whose prosody you criticize:
https://i.imgur.com/0Gxnw0E.jpg
How about this poem? Is it okay with you?
https://i.imgur.com/ndCwDmc.jpg
What a swell guy you are. All America's youth aspires to be just like you.
Or maybe not.Replies: @Colin Wright
‘…When they demand you use words they want to put in your mouth, and punish you if you don’t, that’s Woke fascism. A sinister way to control and limit your freedom of speech.’
What I find interesting is the way ideological arguments are embedded in our various neologisms.
Who could possibly be against ‘antifascism,’ for example? To call vagrants ‘homeless’ is to imply the solution: give them a home, and they’ll be fine. To be sexist is akin to being racist which is like being fascist; it is, of course, morally indefensible.
We have a variation on this at the moment. To criticize the state of Israel is to be anti-Semitic. It would be perfectly legitimate to take up literally any position concerning the state of Israel, just as it would be concerning any state; I’d be decidedly antiquarian if I opposed Home Rule for Ireland, for example, but it wouldn’t actually be immoral. You’d best be sure of your ground if you’re going to be anti-Semitic, though.
These novel usages and definitions serve a purpose. Those erstwhile hooligans who start calling themselves ‘antifa’ acquire an actual right to engage in vandalism and even physical assault. We must care for and nurture those so unfortunate as to lack homes; it would be wrong to insist there’s something wrong within them. How can you argue women should be treated differently than men? You’d best moderate your demands when it comes to whatever horrors Israel is perpetrating at the moment. If they were Hutus, you’d be reduced to tentatively suggesting daily pauses in the clubbing of the Tutsis.
Why are you okay with taking up any position concerning any state, but not one concerning a particular group? What’s the difference?Replies: @Colin Wright
The story of the web site “sex dot com” is fascinating and pretty much the biggest magnification of Seinfeldism in legal history.
>it is the dot com bubble
>the most precious substance in the universe is the spice “meme”
>the spice extends buffering time
>the spice extends consciousness
>the spice is found only on urls
>making up the right url equals unearned wealth beyond measure, outlander
>scumbag A decides to create and register the irl “sex dot com”
>which is hilarious because as you all of course know true erotica is not sex but leading to sex
>Enter scumbag B
>he petitions the court, and, unbelievably, is taken for true, with the Palestine that actually he and not the other is the true scumbag A
>this continues in our learned and judicious courts
>for decades
>the most obvious clickbait url ever was never allowed to flower because it is still in legal limbo
False advertising: This post contains no boner material.
English is, in many instances, an imprecise language. Take for instance “nation”. This noun has 4-5 meanings, i.e.- it’s basically meaningless.
On a field trip in 7th grade, we rode an historic train from Intercourse to Paradise, PA. Previous years had gone to Hershey Park, which probably wore out the chaperones (or the Park).
I don’t think this happens only in the English language. In fact, it happens in every language I know how to read.
“Sexual” activity should be referred to in general as “love”; specific acts have specific words which designate them (e.g. copulate, etc). All other meanings of the word “love” are either fictitious or may be replaced with better words, therefore use of “love” with these meanings should be abandoned so that there is less confusion in the world.
But the lawn is so green.
Well there IS a word that starts with “f” that describes sexual activity, but you shouldn’t use it in polite company.
It’s dead common you know. 😉Replies: @SFG
Fornicate?
(ducks the flying muck from the truck)
What I find interesting is the way ideological arguments are embedded in our various neologisms.
Who could possibly be against 'antifascism,' for example? To call vagrants 'homeless' is to imply the solution: give them a home, and they'll be fine. To be sexist is akin to being racist which is like being fascist; it is, of course, morally indefensible.
We have a variation on this at the moment. To criticize the state of Israel is to be anti-Semitic. It would be perfectly legitimate to take up literally any position concerning the state of Israel, just as it would be concerning any state; I'd be decidedly antiquarian if I opposed Home Rule for Ireland, for example, but it wouldn't actually be immoral. You'd best be sure of your ground if you're going to be anti-Semitic, though.
These novel usages and definitions serve a purpose. Those erstwhile hooligans who start calling themselves 'antifa' acquire an actual right to engage in vandalism and even physical assault. We must care for and nurture those so unfortunate as to lack homes; it would be wrong to insist there's something wrong within them. How can you argue women should be treated differently than men? You'd best moderate your demands when it comes to whatever horrors Israel is perpetrating at the moment. If they were Hutus, you'd be reduced to tentatively suggesting daily pauses in the clubbing of the Tutsis.Replies: @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar
Is it immoral to be anti-Semitic? Why?
Why are you okay with taking up any position concerning any state, but not one concerning a particular group? What’s the difference?
That’s like golf course grass, Chief!
My father, born in 1923, told me that he was not allowed to write or utter the word “intercourse.”
He said the problem arose when he was in high school and using the word, in its logical sense, in a paper or something. Apparently it was his mother who had a problem with it.
Speaking as whatever I am, I will just say that our people have a problem with sex. Sex in whatever form, be it linguistic, anatomical, or just good fucking.
That’s right, fucking.
Get over it. Sex is good. Relax and it is better. BTW, let other people do it any way they want to. Let even men who want to pretend to be women do it. Let men who like “women” with penises (shemales) enjoy! Who cares?
Let women show their bodies and pussies (female sex!) to cameras or to audiences if they want to, as some I knew did. Who cares?
And yes, your sex is either male or female. I agree with Steve that this is a linguistic problem with English — but I also believe that it would not even be a problem is we were not still prudes like my grandmother.
It’s sex. Who the fuck cares?
I greatly miss Larry Auster and his trenchant commentary, which influenced my thinking. It was from him I learned of this site, as he often had a bone to pick with Sailer over something he wrote. In the last years of Auster's life there was an annual dinner held for him in a private room at a New York restaurant, where you could meet other regular commentators. Larry was convivial on these occasions, but he was a curmudgeon at heart and it was easy to get on his wrong side and be totally cut. This happened to someone who had been one of his longtime friends and financial supporters, who was left hurt and bewildered. Auster lived very marginally and I was saddened when he wrote me asking if I could lend him $200 as he didn't have the train fare to attend a meeting that was being held in Philadelphia.
In those years there was an alt-right dinner club that met monthly in New York City, at which one might meet many of the big names. Auster told me about it and suggested I apply to join, but by the time I began attending he had already quit. He was too cranky--not "clubbable," as they say.Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Nicholas Stix
I was a founding member of that dinner club for a year or so. Its founder, then a good friend, said that he had wanted very much to have Larry, me, and a certain third party (a retired college professor).
I never saw Larry act cranky there, but the retired prof insisted on acting as moderator, except that he wouldn’t shut up, and was a trouble-maker (bad-mouthing me to the club founder and to a guest speaker–I almost leaped across the table at him), and the founder turned into a social climber. And so, when the prof’s bad-mouthing of me got the founder to start issuing “rules” just for me (“no note-taking”), I told him “I’m out.”
“The English language has a problem…”
The English language has no such problem, Steve. English-language countries have a political problem.
Some time in the 19th century, communism arose. feminism also arose during that century. The most famous feminist tract of early feminism was probably herland (1915), a novel by Charlotte Perkins Gilman (1860-1935), in which females gave birth through parthenogenesis.
In 1963, after the communist party usa refused her entry, a well-to-do Stalinist named Betty Freedman (1921-2006; she and her husband changed their name to “Friedan”) re-modeled feminism, as an imitation communist party (like the so-called civil rights movement).
If memory serves, the feminazis started “gender” talk.
The militant homosexualist movement began in 1970, with the stonewall riot, in which grown homosexuals fought for the right to have adult-to-adult and adult-to-child homosexual sex in public places, and for children to be served alcohol in homosexual saloons.
Although sexual butchery had begun in America with George Jorgensen in 1952, the sexual psychopath liberation movement didn’t take off until generations later.
sexual psychopaths adopted communist sophistry (via feminazism and militant homosexualism), and demanded, among other things, that people speak of “gender,” rather than “sex.”
Several years ago, our host said, in reference to feminists, that he’d given up fighting the matter, and had adopted “gender” over “sex.” This story about google and pornography is a new one.
Coming up with clever euphemisms won’t help. The sexual psychos/feminazis, etc., will ignore you or destroy you. They see weakness as weakness, and respond, accordingly.
In scientifically and/or ethically questionable ventures, such level-headedness may be more bug than feature. Where is the disgust, the rage? I think of typographer Eric Gill, who screwed his daughters and his dog not so much out of lust as out of curiosity. (He kept notes.)
At least early "sex changes" were limited to the hardest-core cases, and steps were taken to cull out the less-than-sure. Regret was rare.
Later on, it was actively pushed, and you have many sad cases such as Walt Heyer:
https://ruthinstitute.org/dr-j-show/walt-heyer-left-being-trans/Replies: @Ralph L
Old-school authors and songwriters used to refer to a man “making love” to his sweetheart, by which they innocently (?) meant “pitching woo”.
As in Cole Porter’s “Mind If I Make Love to You?”:
In the Heaven stars are dancing
And the mountain moon is new
What a rare night for romancing
Mind if I make love to you?
By the rock era, "make love" pretty much meant "have sex", with which it scans and can be replaced by-- "Feel Like
Makin' LoveHavin' Sex...", "Do You WannaMake LoveHave Sex, or do you just want to fool around...", "All I Wanna Do IsMake Love toHave Sex With You", etc.The use of the word sex to refer to the act does not seem to have existed before the 20th century. According to one online source:
https://etymologyotd.wordpress.com/2018/09/07/sex-first-coined-by-dh-lawrence-as-sexual-intercourse/
I am not qualified to judge the accuracy of this account. It is worth noting that neither Samuel Johnson’s dictionary from 1755 nor Noah Webster’s dictionary from 1828 use define the word sex as referring to an act rather than the distinction between male and female, and neither defines intercourse as to the act of copulation.
>it is the dot com bubble
>the most precious substance in the universe is the spice "meme"
>the spice extends buffering time
>the spice extends consciousness
>the spice is found only on urls
>making up the right url equals unearned wealth beyond measure, outlander
>scumbag A decides to create and register the irl "sex dot com"
>which is hilarious because as you all of course know true erotica is not sex but leading to sex
>Enter scumbag B
>he petitions the court, and, unbelievably, is taken for true, with the Palestine that actually he and not the other is the true scumbag A
>this continues in our learned and judicious courts
>for decades
>the most obvious clickbait url ever was never allowed to flower because it is still in legal limboReplies: @Glaivester
What?
“Quick” rhymes with “stick.”
By the way, these are the young women whose prosody you criticize:
How about this poem? Is it okay with you?
What a swell guy you are. All America’s youth aspires to be just like you.
Or maybe not.
Copulate! Fornicate!
Did anyone mention either of those two? I lost my place on the thread. “Copulate” sounds disgusting but “fornicate” always seemed like good, clean fun. Then there’s Shakespeare’s “making the beast with two backs”.
i always thought coitus was great. sounds obscure and real scientific. more people should appreciate the word coitus.
The ultimate way one can have her.
The inanimate state
Means a man needn't wait,
And eliminates idle palaver.Replies: @Jim Don Bob
We need new words for mtf & ftm trans folks, who may want to but are not “passing”.
We should prefix q’ to the usual, so mtf become: q’women, q’she, q’her, q’her
An ftm: q’man, q’he, q’him, q’his.
More accurate. The trans folk reject their bio sex identity, but that doesn’t make them the “other binary” gender, it makes them something else.
Eunuchs, and “it” might also fit, but seem likely to be acceptable.
That sort of “consenting adults” talk is what brought us to where we are. Do you think the current insanity just magically appeared around 2008?
Bourgeois female prudishness as part of a larger Victorian sensibility is stupid, and it’s something Angloid societies have catered to for generations. It infects all aspects of our society.
A more serious society, for example, would bring back shaming for promiscuity and illegitimacy, make marriage and divorce more difficult to obtain, criminalize adultery or make it finable as a breach of contract, and countenance (but not celebrate) prostitution and abortion as unfortunate, but necessary outlets. “Rough trade” on the other hand would be vigorously prosecuted and punished. Trying getting that set of policy proposals passed.
I fully expected the first line to be “Now that I’ve got your attention…”
The English language has no such problem, Steve. English-language countries have a political problem.
Some time in the 19th century, communism arose. feminism also arose during that century. The most famous feminist tract of early feminism was probably herland (1915), a novel by Charlotte Perkins Gilman (1860-1935), in which females gave birth through parthenogenesis.
In 1963, after the communist party usa refused her entry, a well-to-do Stalinist named Betty Freedman (1921-2006; she and her husband changed their name to “Friedan”) re-modeled feminism, as an imitation communist party (like the so-called civil rights movement).
If memory serves, the feminazis started “gender” talk.
The militant homosexualist movement began in 1970, with the stonewall riot, in which grown homosexuals fought for the right to have adult-to-adult and adult-to-child homosexual sex in public places, and for children to be served alcohol in homosexual saloons.
Although sexual butchery had begun in America with George Jorgensen in 1952, the sexual psychopath liberation movement didn’t take off until generations later.
sexual psychopaths adopted communist sophistry (via feminazism and militant homosexualism), and demanded, among other things, that people speak of “gender,” rather than “sex.”
Several years ago, our host said, in reference to feminists, that he’d given up fighting the matter, and had adopted “gender” over “sex.” This story about google and pornography is a new one.
Coming up with clever euphemisms won’t help. The sexual psychos/feminazis, etc., will ignore you or destroy you. They see weakness as weakness, and respond, accordingly.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
Jorgenson was born to Danish parents in NYC and was fluent in their language. Denmark is where the technology, if that’s the word, was pioneered. Vaginoplasty had been used as plastic surgery before that as treatment for birth defects in real women; it took the Danes to apply it to men. They are among the most level-headed people in Europe, but with curious exceptions. They lead the world in human semen exports, for example.
In scientifically and/or ethically questionable ventures, such level-headedness may be more bug than feature. Where is the disgust, the rage? I think of typographer Eric Gill, who screwed his daughters and his dog not so much out of lust as out of curiosity. (He kept notes.)
At least early “sex changes” were limited to the hardest-core cases, and steps were taken to cull out the less-than-sure. Regret was rare.
Later on, it was actively pushed, and you have many sad cases such as Walt Heyer:
https://ruthinstitute.org/dr-j-show/walt-heyer-left-being-trans/
They still like to wank like a Viking.
Why are you okay with taking up any position concerning any state, but not one concerning a particular group? What’s the difference?Replies: @Colin Wright
Good question.
It’s at least potentially cruel.
Our society does say it is okay to oppose a given organization or voluntary association, but not an ethnicity per se. Little Johnny can quit the Klan, but he can’t stop being white.
Personally, I find myself driven to take up biased positions against blacks and Jews — but I’d rather I didn’t find it necessary. In general, I prefer to assume that every group has both pleasant and unpleasant tendencies; and after all, individuals do vary.
I will point out that my loathing for Israel and opposition to it is distinct from my conclusions about Jews. I’d oppose Israel no matter what ethnicity had formed the state. Scandinavians could have gone there and demanded we support them; I’d be quite as hostile to it as I am in the actual case.
By the way, these are the young women whose prosody you criticize:
https://i.imgur.com/0Gxnw0E.jpg
How about this poem? Is it okay with you?
https://i.imgur.com/ndCwDmc.jpg
What a swell guy you are. All America's youth aspires to be just like you.
Or maybe not.Replies: @Colin Wright
?
What I find interesting is the way ideological arguments are embedded in our various neologisms.
Who could possibly be against 'antifascism,' for example? To call vagrants 'homeless' is to imply the solution: give them a home, and they'll be fine. To be sexist is akin to being racist which is like being fascist; it is, of course, morally indefensible.
We have a variation on this at the moment. To criticize the state of Israel is to be anti-Semitic. It would be perfectly legitimate to take up literally any position concerning the state of Israel, just as it would be concerning any state; I'd be decidedly antiquarian if I opposed Home Rule for Ireland, for example, but it wouldn't actually be immoral. You'd best be sure of your ground if you're going to be anti-Semitic, though.
These novel usages and definitions serve a purpose. Those erstwhile hooligans who start calling themselves 'antifa' acquire an actual right to engage in vandalism and even physical assault. We must care for and nurture those so unfortunate as to lack homes; it would be wrong to insist there's something wrong within them. How can you argue women should be treated differently than men? You'd best moderate your demands when it comes to whatever horrors Israel is perpetrating at the moment. If they were Hutus, you'd be reduced to tentatively suggesting daily pauses in the clubbing of the Tutsis.Replies: @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar
Frank Luntz decided to turn this around. He changed “estate tax” to “death tax”, and opened many more minds to lowering it. Al Franken gave him high praise in his blurb for Luntz’s book, comparing him to Paul McCartney when his own side’s wordsmiths were more like Yoko Ono.
Those who recognize it as America’s homegrown version of fascism. That was a common joke in the 1930s and 1940s, attributed (wrongly) to various wits of the day. A parallel quip was the GOP’s “Fighting fascism abroad in order to impose it at home.”
A better analogy than you’d think. As with Arabs and Israelis, the perpetrator/victim glasses can be used both ways. Tutsis had mass-massacred Hutus in next-door Burundi 22 years before the Rwandan episode.
On the other hand, Rwandans, like Ugandans and Colombians before them, have rebounded relatively nicely from their hellhole days. That seems less of a prospect in the Holy Land.
In scientifically and/or ethically questionable ventures, such level-headedness may be more bug than feature. Where is the disgust, the rage? I think of typographer Eric Gill, who screwed his daughters and his dog not so much out of lust as out of curiosity. (He kept notes.)
At least early "sex changes" were limited to the hardest-core cases, and steps were taken to cull out the less-than-sure. Regret was rare.
Later on, it was actively pushed, and you have many sad cases such as Walt Heyer:
https://ruthinstitute.org/dr-j-show/walt-heyer-left-being-trans/Replies: @Ralph L
They lead the world in human semen exports
They still like to wank like a Viking.
I am not qualified to judge the accuracy of this account. It is worth noting that neither Samuel Johnson's dictionary from 1755 nor Noah Webster's dictionary from 1828 use define the word sex as referring to an act rather than the distinction between male and female, and neither defines intercourse as to the act of copulation.Replies: @Ralph L
“Making love” was just earnest chatting, usually by the man, before WW2 or so.
Coitus upon a cadaver
The ultimate way one can have her.
The inanimate state
Means a man needn’t wait,
And eliminates idle palaver.
As in Cole Porter's "Mind If I Make Love to You?":In the Heaven stars are dancing
And the mountain moon is new
What a rare night for romancing
Mind if I make love to you?Replies: @Reg Cæsar
Sammy Cahn used osculate as a synonym in the title song of the 1960 film Let’s Make Love, starring Yves and Marilyn. (Are surnames necessary?) It was probably still innocent, if edgy, with the adult audience of the day.
By the rock era, “make love” pretty much meant “have sex”, with which it scans and can be replaced by– “Feel Like
Makin’ LoveHavin’ Sex…”, “Do You WannaMake LoveHave Sex, or do you just want to fool around…”, “All I Wanna Do IsMake Love toHave Sex With You”, etc.Coitus in Portuguese and Galician is coito. There is a common word, coitado, which sure looks related but may also derive from an old verb that meant “to inflict pain” (-ado denoting the passive past tense, like -ed.) It means something like “you poor thing”. You can hear it in Carlos Lyra’s classic “Influência do Jazz”.
The ultimate way one can have her.
The inanimate state
Means a man needn't wait,
And eliminates idle palaver.Replies: @Jim Don Bob
Burma Shave
Not to split hairs, but rather to add context. Sodomy includes all “unnatural acts” you referenced as “various non-procreative “sexual” acts”. Buggery is a once often heard English word that refers to anal intercourse alone. It should be remembered that when the laws prohibited these “unnatural acts” it was aimed at both males and females, contrary to what the sodomites have you believe.