“Skeptics are not cynics!” Biggles ejaculated.
KY is known to Americans as a two-letter state abbreviation for Kentucky, but in Australia, where there are comparatively fewer state abbreviations (and some are three-letters), people almost invariably link KY to the Johnson & Johnson product KY Jelly; an, um, err…”personal lubricant”.
I recently made the mistake of referring to “KY” to colleagues, in good, clean context, but this received several smutty schoolboy replies. Perhaps I knew this could cause confusion, or at least correlation. Do we have dirty minds, or is there something else at work here?
Well, we all know that I have a dirty mind, and that you do too, dear reader. But that’s beside the point as to why I say “cock” and you think of “male genitalia” before you think of a “rooster”; and why I say “masticate” and you think “masturbate”; and I say “lubricate” and you think of your favorite “orifice”, rather than “valves and pipes” (and why you think of an orifice when I say “valves and pipes”? Is there any end to your filth?!)
Cor. Get out the whiskey and let’s continue. You need a stiffner for this one… (shut up!)
There are several co-occurring cogntive-linguistic elements at work here involving taboo, and semantic structure. No, don’t go yet. Think about the following sentences:
1. Do you want the breast or the leg?
2. Australia was once a penal colony.
3. You have a beautiful cock.
I put it to you that the words breast, leg, penal and cock stood out, and even though you know these can be innocuous, non-sexual sentences, these words have either made you feel embarrassed, or perhaps even a little aroused, but definitely titillated (…sorry for that last one).
…Now, let’s look at these examples a little more intimately.
1. “Do you want the breast or the leg?” By context you would assume the topic is chicken, and “breast” would normally form part of the slightly more comfortable phrase “chicken breast”. “Breast” is curious in this singular form though, and “leg” might not even get a look in as a dirty word unless it’s coupled with another anatomical word. I bet you’re probably thinking of the phrases “I’m a breast man” and “I’m a leg man”. You’re probably wondering why I didn’t also say “thigh”.
Overall, chickens cause many linguistic problems. I once ordered a “stuffed chicken” and was told the more polite form is “seasoned chicken”. Technically, it’s fucking stuffed, but deli staff have delicate sensibilities – even if they do force spices up a dead chicken’s ass.
Moving on…
As another example, “I’m really wet”. Was I caught out in the rain? Am I sweaty, or did I just shower? Paralinguistic factors (pitch, volume) would assist in deciphering the textual ambiguity here, but I can guess what you’re thinking. Wet is innocuous in “The car is wet” but with a human subject (esp. female), the connotations heat up. These are examples of semantic generality – where one word has multiple related meanings (like a chip of wood, or a potato chip). Here, the naughty meaning usually wins out.
Breast, leg and wet are often innocuous in context and especially in fixed phrases, but in isolation, it’s like a word association test where every word has you responding with “sex!” Think throb, passage and stool – where would British comedy be without such double entendres?!
2. “Australia was once a penal colony.” I said this to a trolley driver in SoCal once. He, like you, thought I said “penis”. Why did this happen? Because penal is phonologically similar to (sounds like) penis, and penile. This is why “masticate” will probably make you think of “masturbate”. I once teased a fellow in a supermarket with, “Excuse me, where are the condiments?” Of course, condiments sounds like “condoms”, and this is where the poor red-faced fellow directed me to – aisle 4, right next to the KY jelly, rather than aisle 8 with the Vegemite.
This phenomenon also occurs in the title of Dr Wayne W Dyer’s book Your Erroneous Zones. Eyebrows will be raised if you read this book on a bus. People confuse “erroneous” with “errogenous”, especially when erroneous is followed by “zone”, which makes you think of “that spot” on your neck, or elsewhere…
Penal, condiment and masticate sound like taboo terms, and therefore, they become taboo by association. They are stigmatized in the same way as penis, condom and masturbate.
This process of pejoration (a word that develops negative connotations) by association can relegate an innocent word to obsolescene. That’s why some of these words sound so archaic, they’ve been spanked so hard they aren’t used much anymore. As an historical example, the word coney (meaning “rabbit”) disappeared from usage due to its phonological similarity to cunt.
Look at the photo examples that capitalize on the homophonic (audial) similarity of “Phuket” (poo-ket) to fuck it - and
“Sofa King” to so fucking. This is why we laugh at the name Fanny, and make stupid jokes about Uranus. The French Connection brand of clothing do something similar with their FCUK label, a transposition of letters that bears a structural resemblance to FUCK.
Sometimes a word looks exactly the same as a taboo word, and it is so tainted that the variant usage shrivels up altogether, like a flaccid…
3. “You have a beautiful cock”.
Words with the same form but completely different meanings are polysemous (like a kind/nice person versus a kind/type of person). Polysemy of a taboo word can result in the death of the non-taboo variant. For example, cock is rarely used to mean “rooster”, and often for humorous purposes only. Ass is rarely used for “donkey”. Pussy for “cat” is going this same way too.
The rude sense becomes the most salient sense.
This is why “ejaculate” only appears in pre-World War II Biggles and Enid Blyton novels. Over time, ejaculate=exclaim gave way to ejaculate=orgasm.
Taboo ‘dispreferred’ meanings are almost invariably preferred usages.
The bad or naughty or adverse connotations are often the ones to fight and survive. Think of drink – it is becoming more associated with ‘alcoholic drink’ in usage today. Think of abuse – it is more associated with ’sexual abuse’ than ‘verbal abuse’.
Words like niggardly and denigrate are dying, as a result of their structural similarity to the n-word. It’s a semantic crime.
These words aren’t cognates (i.e., related etymologically, in origin) but we blame them anyway.
If you look like John Edward you’ll be mistaken for being John Edward, and treated like him…
Consider the word skeptic.
Skeptic is riddled with negative connotations and stereotypes. I don’t care how many of you argue that ’skeptics aren’t cynics’. Clearly, if we look at language use (reality, folks – how people really think and how people really speak) skeptic has polysemy – multiple co-existing senses.
A skeptic is a ‘conspiracy theorist’ to many. A skeptic is a ‘cynic’ to many. A skeptic is a ‘nasty, naysaying, doubting curmudgeon’ to many. And a skeptic is ‘a person who thinks critically about paranormal and pseudoscientific claims’ to many.
Which senses are winning out? The ones with negative connotations.
Face it – skeptic is sort of like cock, ass and stool – but even more like drink or abuse. There are senses of skeptic with negative connotations that are competing for saliency.
I don’t advocate that we replace skeptic, especially with a poncy word like bright – this can only open us up to Steven Pinker’s euphemism treadmill, where a word or concept is so stigmatized that replacement words are inevitably stigmatised (think handicapped and special).
My advice is, wear your skeptic label with pride – promote useful, practical and healthy skepticism, and be a good example of a skeptic. We skeptics need to reclaim skepticism, and become the salient sense.
Let’s become known as being funny, smart and caring – rather than cocks, asses and stools.
UPDATE: I just did an interview on this topic for Podblack.
23 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Recent
- Jesus Fucking Christ, it’s Blasphemy Day!
- Paranormal Punk’d
- No Sex Please, We’re Ghost Hunters!
- Ghost hunting can be a real pain in the ass…
- The Skepbitch is psychic
- blog post from the skeptical trenches
- You cannot petition the lord with prayer!
- Skepticism: Going out of business?
- Subjectivity, Semantics and Shoes…
- “Skeptics are not cynics!” Biggles ejaculated.
- Why I haven’t vaccinated my children…
- Extremists Exploit Disaster
-
Links
- Bad Language
- Bad Astronomy
- CSI: The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
- Bad Psychics
- Snopes
- Humbug!
- No Answers in Genesis
- Australasian Science
- Ian Rowland
- The Skeptic’s Dictionary
- Richard Dawkins
- Aussie Bad Psychics
- The Skeptics Society
- The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible
- James Randi Educational Foundation
- Mondo Skepto
- Skeptico
- SAPS: Skeptical Analysis of the Paranormal
- Margaret Downey
- Haunted America Tours
- The Correx Archives
- Skeptoid
- Skelliot’s Weblog
- Murray Angus Gunn
- Skeptic Friends Network
- Geoglyphs’ Ramblings
- Penn Says…
- The Sycologist
- New York City Skeptics
- Language Log
- Profgrrrrl
- Dr Crazy
- Bitch, Ph.D.
- Psycgirl
- Lesboprof
- Pharyngula
- Mad Science Mama
- The PR Lab
- The Southern Fried Skeptic
- The Friendly Atheist
- Orkutcídio em Massa para Adoradores de Lasagna
- Jim Thompson
- The Sunday Hangover with Warren Ellis
- Angry Black Bitch
- The Weblog of Israel Walker
- Skeptical Acid
- NoBeliefs.com
- The G Bitch Spot
- Mixed Nuts
- Shrine to Shane – group
- The Skeptard
- Mississippi Atheists
- Skeptopia
- Non-Sense
- Skeptics of Carlos – An Australian Blog Circle
- Sarahnomics
- Kevin Horn’s DAILY BBG
- Oddee
- The Doctor Atlantis Show
- The Perky Skeptic
- Bootfoot
- Secular Earth
- Anthroslug
- The Skepdick
- Iconoclasts Anonymous
- Knowledge Summit
-
Archives
- September 2009 (1)
- August 2009 (2)
- July 2009 (1)
- June 2009 (2)
- May 2009 (1)
- April 2009 (1)
- March 2009 (1)
- February 2009 (3)
- January 2009 (3)
- December 2008 (3)
- November 2008 (1)
- October 2008 (3)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
I’m Dr Karen Stollznow, Academic, Author and Paranormal Investigator of the Skeptical Kind…
I’m a Director of the 

This post was amazing. Thank you.
When I read this I was hot and sweaty(1), aroused(2) and hard(3).
1 Due to the ambient temperature and humidity
2 Stirred to action
3 Difficult to deal with
Nicely done. A penetrating examination of the issue. As I read it I kept hoping you’d skip some obvious example, but you got all the fun ones that popped into mind. And though it’s a funny issue in some ways – it’s also a fascinating one. Without meaning harm, a generation of people casually use ‘gay’ to mean ‘lame’ without consciously considering how homosexuals have fought to embrace that word as a publicly tolerated euphemism for sexual orientation. Meanwhile the pejorative ‘faggot’ has made it difficult for me to buy a bundle of sticks without calling them the cumbersome ‘bundle of sticks.’ I do recall with some amusement reading a medieval tale of a monk who was having trouble loading a bundle of sticks on his donkey – but due to the word-choice of the author a modern reader got a rather racy mental picture from the otherwise innocuous story.
And it was only last year that it occurred to me that ‘ass-load’ was how much a donkey could carry, not how much one could theoretically fit up one’s butt.
Ah language.
How appropriate after having just experienced the #fisting phenomenon on twitter.
You have a beautiful mind, Doctor K.
Oh Cunning Linguist, how proudly you display your naughty bits. Seeking not mere intercourse, but a rapturous give-and-take affair, ending in articulated ecstasy.
(and some fucking chocolate)
Rinse. Repeat.
Excellent article!
I’m not sure about the conclusion that the negative connotations of “skeptic” are winning. At Dragon*Con, the ghost hunters are very quick to say “We’re skeptics” as if skepticism is some badge of honor. They seem use that adjective to bolster the opinion that they should be believed.
And this is all the more reason to follow your advice.
I consider myself an expert in this gutter minded society.
With the last name Adcock and the standard office email structure of putting first initial, last name as the email address, I was stuck with madcock@blahblahblah.com.
Amongst many professional colleagues I was asked in a whisper “Do you know what your email spells? I would promptly answer “Yes, it’s an angry rooster”. I had more fun at their embarassment than anything.
Just passing by.Btw, you website have great content!
_________________________________
Did you know that over 94% of personal computers have hidden corrupt dangerous files with over 150 hidden errors and bugs on them?
The zeitgeist is moving in the right direction in Australia at least. From the National Curriculum Board’s Framing Paper for Science for the incoming National Curriculum. Point 18:
Also, all the Senior Science syllabuses in Queensland (my neck of the woods) and the Year 10 Guidelines for Science use the word “scepticism”.
One other point, I came across the word “ejaculate” in a Sherlock Holmes book. Something like:
Initially it confirmed my suspicions about two single men living together, and then I looked it up in the dictionary…
Feminist is another such word for which the negative is taking the lead.
“Feminist”, bitch, hard ass, lesbian or butch female who desires to castrate every man she encounters because she hates that she was born without a penis.
Versus “feminist”, a person who advocates for equal social, political and cultural rights for women.
If it comes from you I don’t mind getting a rooster, a donkey or a cat, even if you name them using alternate words.
Enjoyed your post inmensely.
Karen – love – absolutely LOVE – this play on words!!!! And Neil’s reply was equally as amusing.
You said
“My advice is, wear your skeptic label with pride ”
I do, I do I do I do I do I doooooooooo….
so much so that I even proudly wear rose-coloured skepticals!!!!
a PROUD skeptigal

and sydney-based member of The Australian Skeptics
This isn’t very fair. There’s a priming effect also. Once one is thinking in a dirty fashion one is more likely to notice other things that sound dirty. So by mentioning KY Jelly explicitly up front you already has us thinking about sex. The effect would still be there even without this priming but the priming helps make it more pronounced.
Thanks for everyone’s comments!
Joshua – the “priming effect” isn’t a semantic phenomenon. The image may have ‘primed’ readers, but without that, my Australian readers would construe “KY” as ‘jelly’, not ‘Kentucky’. Don’t be ethnocentric.
I’m glad you observe “the effect would still be there even without this priming”. Therefore, you’re really not adding anything to this discussion at all…
Nor do I think there’s anything ‘unfair’ about the article…
Not quite what I meant. I agree that the Australian readers would have had the same response. The point was that once you’ve brought up the subject of KY Jelly you’ve already primed people so the associations made in the next paragraph are stronger and quicker than they would be otherwise.
As a resident of Adelaide, I’ve never heard of KY.
Re: “Think of abuse – it is more associated with ’sexual abuse’ than ‘verbal abuse’“, yeah, but it’s hard to say which member of that pair is the odd one out. There are other forms of abuse that are right up there with sexual abuse (and with good reason).
Oh, and Karen, if I ever meet you, I would be happy to perform a linguolabial ejective for your pleasure, and I also hope you’d be willing to help me practice my advanced tongue root.
As another resident of Adelaide, I’m quite aware of KY Jelly.
well, not THAT aware of it. I know it exists
I liked the article, nice work. In one of the Discworld novels, Terry Pratchett has a character who goes around telling the carolers to sing “The little red hen who crowed in the morn”, and then explaining why they were signing about a hen and not a …. rooster. Of course, pointing out the “bad” word made it more noticeable to people who otherwise wouldn’t have noticed at all.
There is an “attack political Speech” in which a canidate accuses his opponent with, “his son masticates–often right at the dinner table! And his daughter is a Thespian, an act she performs before paying customers!!”
I’m so glad I happened across your blog via Action Skeptics because this post alone makes me want to be your best pal. I’m such a nerdy word whore. I’m your newest fan. Thanks for giving me pub chat this weekend.
Definitely have to disagree on the “skeptics” bit. I consider a skeptic to be a person who isn’t willing to go along with sheeplike public consensus on issues of religion, political claims, or paranormal topics. Conspiracy theorists may call themselves skeptics, but the rest of us just call them crazy.
Mojo – as you admit, this is what *you* “consider a skeptic to be”.
In usage, “skeptic” has several other meanings, whether we like them or not.
Only today I’ve been saying on Twitter that we need to make our sense the most salient…
mind blowing wow your good i need more friends like you