Comments on: “Penetrate” v. “Engulf” and the multiple meanings of the “f” word: a note on feminist language http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/ Author, Speaker, Professor, Shattering Gender Myths Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:08:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: The Animate Object (A Rough Sketch) « Dear Diaspora http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/#comment-9511 The Animate Object (A Rough Sketch) « Dear Diaspora Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:31:12 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/#comment-9511 [...] How do we assign subject/object functions in a sex act? Are they by definition the same as active/passive roles? Do we read sex like a sentence so that the “object” is recipient of a subject’s performance of a verb? And if so then through what unsound cipher is such a sentence translated? (See: penetrate vs engulf.) [...] [...] How do we assign subject/object functions in a sex act? Are they by definition the same as active/passive roles? Do we read sex like a sentence so that the “object” is recipient of a subject’s performance of a verb? And if so then through what unsound cipher is such a sentence translated? (See: penetrate vs engulf.) [...]

]]> By: Angelia SDarrow http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/#comment-9510 Angelia SDarrow Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:17:26 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/#comment-9510 I write erotica professionally. For me there is no getting around the word "fuck." (or some of the female genital terms which are almost NEVER right for the story, but the publisher demands them anyway) So far, I don't have a lot of heterosexual work out there, but in the three I do, there is eveloping, taking him in and active female sex. Of course there is entering and penetrating as well because I write imaginary egalitarian sex, where they're both doing it for the pleasure. Sometimes, I think it's easier just to write the GLBT stories. I write erotica professionally. For me there is no getting around the word “fuck.” (or some of the female genital terms which are almost NEVER right for the story, but the publisher demands them anyway)

So far, I don’t have a lot of heterosexual work out there, but in the three I do, there is eveloping, taking him in and active female sex. Of course there is entering and penetrating as well because I write imaginary egalitarian sex, where they’re both doing it for the pleasure.

Sometimes, I think it’s easier just to write the GLBT stories.

]]> By: Jha http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/#comment-9509 Jha Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:23:28 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/#comment-9509 I thought I'd read about that from somewhere else! Goodness. I totally took that to heart and used it in some <a href="http://community.livejournal.com/fan_constructs/24350.html" rel="nofollow">erotic fanfiction</a> (fanfic readers are a lot more open to such linguistic experiments) that I recently wrote. For some reason I thought it was figleaf at Real Adult Sex, not you. No wonder I was searching completely fruitlessly at his blog! XD I thought I’d read about that from somewhere else! Goodness. I totally took that to heart and used it in some erotic fanfiction (fanfic readers are a lot more open to such linguistic experiments) that I recently wrote. For some reason I thought it was figleaf at Real Adult Sex, not you. No wonder I was searching completely fruitlessly at his blog! XD

]]> By: Randomizer http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/#comment-9508 Randomizer Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:38:35 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/#comment-9508 A short quote on point: it "shows us that much of what is distinctly human in us--our capacities for language, for thought, for communication, and culture--do not develop automatically in us, are not just biological functions, but are, equally, social and historical in origin -- Sacks A short quote on point:

it “shows us that much of what is distinctly human in us–our capacities for language, for thought, for communication, and culture–do not develop automatically in us, are not just biological functions, but are, equally, social and historical in origin

– Sacks

]]> By: Randomizer http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/#comment-9507 Randomizer Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:35:49 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/#comment-9507 I like the entirely not related by homonymious (it sounds to me like "f*cked-up") jewish term -- "verkahtka" as in "That's just completely ~ !" As for the way language defines the limit of cognition, let's not forget Oliver Sacks work on sign language "Seeing Voices." I like the entirely not related by homonymious (it sounds to me like “f*cked-up”) jewish term — “verkahtka”

as in “That’s just completely ~ !”

As for the way language defines the limit of cognition, let’s not forget Oliver Sacks work on sign language “Seeing Voices.”

]]> By: Nav http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/#comment-9506 Nav Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:49:32 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/#comment-9506 I like fuckily for the adverb version, e.g. "I did pretty fuckily on that test." I don't know if it works, but it always gets a laugh. I like fuckily for the adverb version, e.g. “I did pretty fuckily on that test.”

I don’t know if it works, but it always gets a laugh.

]]> By: P. Burke http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/#comment-9505 P. Burke Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:57:05 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/#comment-9505 RJN: I think "right" can be used as an interjection. (Right! I'll go do that then!) You're right about infixes, though. Are there any non-swear words that can be used as infixes in English? It just occurred to me that "goddamn" works the way "fuck" does, even without inflection. (Goddamn! I don't give a goddamn if you goddamn me to the goddamn bowels of hell, although I think it's goddamn rude of you to do so. But if you feel like it, that's just fan-goddamn-tastic.) RJN: I think “right” can be used as an interjection. (Right! I’ll go do that then!) You’re right about infixes, though. Are there any non-swear words that can be used as infixes in English?

It just occurred to me that “goddamn” works the way “fuck” does, even without inflection. (Goddamn! I don’t give a goddamn if you goddamn me to the goddamn bowels of hell, although I think it’s goddamn rude of you to do so. But if you feel like it, that’s just fan-goddamn-tastic.)

]]> By: John http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/#comment-9504 John Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:56:06 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/#comment-9504 This just in (or as some would say, surrounded)! Say what you like, it's a fine thing to see literacy demonstrated. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125737663000529407.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel We look forward to the, uh, excrement, hitting the fan. This just in (or as some would say, surrounded)!

Say what you like, it’s a fine thing to see literacy demonstrated.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125737663000529407.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel

We look forward to the, uh, excrement, hitting the fan.

]]> By: Richard Jeffrey Newman http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/#comment-9503 Richard Jeffrey Newman Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:41:46 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/#comment-9503 P. Burke: A quick response. Yes, of course you need to inflect, but also, of the examples you have given, neither of those words can function as an infix (fan-fucking-tastic) nor can they function as an interjection (Fuck! That was great.) I confess that I cannot now think off the top of my head of how to use fuck as a preposition or conjunction, but I know I have seen examples of at least one of them somewhere. P. Burke:

A quick response. Yes, of course you need to inflect, but also, of the examples you have given, neither of those words can function as an infix (fan-fucking-tastic) nor can they function as an interjection (Fuck! That was great.) I confess that I cannot now think off the top of my head of how to use fuck as a preposition or conjunction, but I know I have seen examples of at least one of them somewhere.

]]> By: P. Burke http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/#comment-9502 P. Burke Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:27:25 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/11/04/penetrate-v-engulf-and-the-multiple-meanings-of-the-f-word-a-note-on-feminist-language/#comment-9502 I love <a href="http://www.nerve.com/Dispatches/Westerfeld/SpaceCowboy/Russ.html" rel="nofollow">this passage</a> from <i>The Female Man</i> by Joanna Russ. It depicts an act of intercourse between a woman and a man, where the language makes the woman look powerful and active, and the man look passive. I'm always torn between perceiving it as beautifully erotic (for reasons that should be obvious) and perceiving it as creepy (because the narrator is having sex with what amounts to a male Real Doll, not with an actual person). Warning: language pedantry ahead. <blockquote>On a very basic level, it’s a simple grammatical issue—is the penis the subject of the sentence or is the vagina the subject of the sentence. If the vagina is the subject and the penis the object, then obviously the active verb would be envelope, as opposed to penetrate.</blockquote> There are at least three distinct things going on here: what the subject of the sentence is, what verb you choose, and whether you use the passive voice. You could say "The penis was engulfed by the vagina". There, "the penis" is the subject, "the vagina" is the object, and you're using the passive voice. <blockquote>In my class, I always get a laugh out of students when I use “fuck” to illustrate the different parts of speech; as far as I know, it is the only word in English that can be used as all of them.</blockquote> I've never quite understood how this was supposed to work. Are you allowed to inflect, or not? If yes, then why not "draft" (The draft is coming. They'll draft you, and you'll have to live in a drafty barracks, through which the wind blows draftily) or "drunk" (The drunk had drunk the whole bottle and was wandering drunk down the street, mumbling drunkenly). "Right" doesn't even seem to require inflection (I have a right to right these upturned barrels, both the left one and the right one, and I'm right proper annoyed that you're trying to stop me). If inflection is not allowed, how do you get "fuck" to be an adverb? Maybe you just use "fucking" the whole way through? (That was some lovely fucking. I enjoyed fucking that fucking cantaloupe; it was fucking awesome.) (Ew. Sorry about that.) I love this passage from The Female Man by Joanna Russ. It depicts an act of intercourse between a woman and a man, where the language makes the woman look powerful and active, and the man look passive. I’m always torn between perceiving it as beautifully erotic (for reasons that should be obvious) and perceiving it as creepy (because the narrator is having sex with what amounts to a male Real Doll, not with an actual person).

Warning: language pedantry ahead.

On a very basic level, it’s a simple grammatical issue—is the penis the subject of the sentence or is the vagina the subject of the sentence. If the vagina is the subject and the penis the object, then obviously the active verb would be envelope, as opposed to penetrate.

There are at least three distinct things going on here: what the subject of the sentence is, what verb you choose, and whether you use the passive voice. You could say “The penis was engulfed by the vagina”. There, “the penis” is the subject, “the vagina” is the object, and you’re using the passive voice.

In my class, I always get a laugh out of students when I use “fuck” to illustrate the different parts of speech; as far as I know, it is the only word in English that can be used as all of them.

I’ve never quite understood how this was supposed to work. Are you allowed to inflect, or not? If yes, then why not “draft” (The draft is coming. They’ll draft you, and you’ll have to live in a drafty barracks, through which the wind blows draftily) or “drunk” (The drunk had drunk the whole bottle and was wandering drunk down the street, mumbling drunkenly). “Right” doesn’t even seem to require inflection (I have a right to right these upturned barrels, both the left one and the right one, and I’m right proper annoyed that you’re trying to stop me).

If inflection is not allowed, how do you get “fuck” to be an adverb? Maybe you just use “fucking” the whole way through? (That was some lovely fucking. I enjoyed fucking that fucking cantaloupe; it was fucking awesome.) (Ew. Sorry about that.)

]]>