Dirty Language

For all the trouble we give Dick, Richard is a rather common name. In fact, the nickname ‘Dick’ predates the anatomical implication by at least three centuries. In the time between these interpretations, ‘dick’ took on the meaning ‘guy,’ a reasonable segue to its current meaning, which men are often associated with. Fascinatingly, ‘dick’ also serves as a shorthand for detective—which I can only imagine arose from a rather unfortunate encounter a Richard had with the law.

Regardless, it is not fair for Dick to receive all the attention. It is easy to consider the modern sexual lexicon in isolation, but good reason—or at least comprehensible insanity—must stand behind each word we currently use. Modest terms are quickly warped into desire, and expressly sexual terms are thrown around in a surprisingly unwarranted ‘PG’ manner.

For instance, consider ‘punk.’ Originally meaning a socially undesirable or sordid individual, the term took on the meaning of female prostitute in Shakespearean English. Later, it meant a young gay prostitute. But these meanings are nearly forgotten when the modern individual thinks of ‘punk.’ Today, ‘punk’ has lost almost all its sexual undertones. When punk rock emerged in the 1970s, it quickly became a major music genre and came to monopolize the word. It is now almost exclusively interpreted as meaning a ruffian or a global music genre.

Perhaps more intuitive is the origin of ‘scumbag.’ Though a relatively tame insult by modern standards, the word is innately lewd. It began as a term in sugar refining and came to mean condom by 1939. Thirty-one years later, by 1970, it had become an insult. Since then, the thought behind the insult gradually faded to its modern iteration, entirely dissociated from sex.

It is often difficult to track the exact origin of a word. After all, slang is rarely recorded. Take, for example, the term ‘pussy.’ One explanation says the word derives from the Old Norse term for pocket or pouch. The more popular explanation traces it to a Low German word for cat, ‘puss.’ Hence the modern meaning of ‘pussycat,’ a term which was actually considered to be a compliment for women and later morphed into a crude anatomical descriptor. Of course, as feminine descriptors tend to do, it would also become an insult amongst men to call each other cowardly. Yet, the real reason it is considered so derogatory is the use of the term as synonymous with women altogether, diminishing the individual into just an organ.

Similarly contested and offensive is the term ‘cunt.’ The word’s origins are disputed. Some trace it to the Latin ‘cunnus’ (‘vulva’) or ‘cuniculus’ (‘burrow’ or ‘channel’), while others point to Kunti, a figure in the Hindu epic the Mahabharata. However, that is a popular but unproven theory. The popularization of ‘Cunnus Diaboli’—the notion that women’s genitals were innately sources of evil—would not occur until long after these origins crossed paths, making it all the more difficult to pinpoint a source. In this case, the word has been somewhat reclaimed. I could not count how many times I have heard someone claiming to be ‘serving cunt’—a phrase popularized by drag communities.

More modern terms are perhaps easier to trace. Consider the popularization of the pet names ‘mommy’ or ‘daddy.’ Though they may have seemed absurd, they have quickly taken on enough socio-sexual context for the relatively inept listener to assume a sexual relationship rather than a familial one. Perhaps this is related to the natural evolution of using ‘baby’ as a term of endearment, which has been occurring since at least the 17th century. Except, ‘daddy’ is not that new. In fact, since at least 1681, ‘daddy’ has been used to refer to the pimps and older customers of prostitutes. In 1912, African American women used the term to refer to their male lovers. By 1922, ‘daddy’ became a quick abbreviation of ‘sugar daddy.’ Currently, society accepts that these terms are used to invoke not only a sexualized power dynamic but also a sense of caretaking rather than true incestuous fantasy.

Perhaps the simplest term in origin is ‘fuck.’ It is an entirely English word, Germanic in origin and related to others meaning “to strike” or variations of “to move back and forth.” Despite this simplicity, plenty of false histories have been popularized. It is not Latin in origin, nor is it Old English. It is certainly not an abbreviation of “Fornication Under the Consent of the King” or “For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge.” I suppose, in the modern world, it’s a good thing these sayings are fake, as they would not still apply; yet, I am partial to the notion of an acronym. I’m personally fond of “Favor Upon and Caress Kismet,” though I suppose that may be too flowery for the context in which ‘fuck’ is generally spoken.

Of course, a term can be used in both gentle and rough contexts. Pornography, derived from a combination of the Greek words for prostitute ‘porne,’ and writing ‘graphein,’ was defined originally as any writing or art regarding prostitutes themselves. It was in the early 20th century that ‘pornography’ began to refer to the genre. Still, it remains a rather vague term, encompassing various media, methods, and magnitudes. While we often shorten the word to ‘porn’ or ‘porno,’ specifying a sexual video, a glance at social media will reveal the increasingly popular alternative—‘smut.’ Originating from the German ‘smutten,’ meaning ‘debase’ or ‘defile,’ ‘smut’ meant ‘stain’ long before it meant any reference to sex. In the 1660s, it was noted as meaning ‘obscene language.’ Today, ‘smut’ and ‘porn’ are synonymous—the only difference I have noticed is in context. That is to say, ‘smut’ seems to serve as the more polite, literary version of ‘porn.’

To consider any depiction of sex more polite—or impolite—than any other might seem rather arbitrary. Yet, in the natural flow of ever-evolving language, we have managed to codify socially acceptable—and unacceptable—ways to refer not only to sex but to all of sexual identity.

Star Binyamin ’30 (starbinyamin@college.harvard.edu) is [insert expletive here] comping the “Harvard Independent.”