Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
What is your favourite?
Flaxen-haired, thick and bushy 11%
Wispy, possibly juvenile 20%
Well-trimmed toothbrush 23%
El conejo calvo, completamente calvo 6%
Strange pagan symbol, melding seamlessly into wiccan tattoo 11%
Wouldn´t know, never seen one 25%

Votes: 43

 Is ?cunt? banned from adequacy?

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Jan 30, 2002
And if so why? I like ´cunt´. Of course, I also like cunt (that of my wife and my wife alone and, of course, only for the purposes of procreation) but that is another matter.

More diaries by adolf
Presidential Pretzels
Naked dancing and losing friends
Potato error
Hello I?m not completely new here and I?m fairly mediocre
Australia and Australians
Many people are offended by this word which has it´s roots in Middle English, and some consider it to be related to the latin `cuneus´, meaning `wedge´. Interestingly, ´cuneus´ is also the source of the word ´coin´, lending credence to the suggestion that money and cunt are rarely found far apart (I believe Iceberg Slim had something similar to say).

I am not offended by the word, although I think it is important that some people are, because only thus can it retain its efficacy. It is high time that a word with such a rich history and controversial connotations should be given an airing on adequacy.


Beware of less then erudite readers (none / 0) (#1)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 12:23:00 PM PST
I, for one, know of the Germanic origins of the word, and can understand it being used in scholarly settings, but am a little leery of using it in a non-scholastic setting. First, you may end up being associated with fuzzy-minded God-offending lesbians, as happened at my alma mater. Secondly, you may be pilloried by the less educated, as happened with David howard in Babylon by the Potomac.

A. Rightmann

No (none / 0) (#2)
by Right Hand Man on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 12:54:21 PM PST
I cannot imagine that it would be banned from one of the most open minded forums I have encountered, although I agree with Mr. Rightmann with regards to its sparse use. Much like the word niggardly, it seems to have fallen into disfavor, no doubt due to the efforts of the political correctness movement.

"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

The Danger of language dilution (none / 0) (#3)
by First Incision on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 03:28:28 PM PST
While I will not dispute your privilege to spout profanities on Adequacy, I will ask for some restraint.

Profanity is a very powerful rhetorical tool. It gets people's attention; it conveys strong emotion.

Like any blade, profanity dulls with use. Witness how, in a few decades, "fuck" has gone from being a shocking affront on people's ears to an overused syllable little stronger than "damn."
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

Indeed (none / 0) (#7)
by adolf on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 01:42:35 AM PST
My only suggestion was to air the word, not to apply it to all and sundry with gay abandon.
It should be saved only for the most liberal of liberal atheists, for the very worst members of the anarcho-syndicalist conspiracy which threatens to undermine the values of our civilisation.
Tony Blair, for example.

It's a word, just like any other, (none / 0) (#4)
by chloedancer on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 07:03:49 PM PST
and its more common, modern definitions/colloquial usage can even be rendered up courtesy of as such:

(1) The female genital organs.
(2) Sexual intercourse with a woman.
  • Used as a disparaging term for a woman.
  • Used as a disparaging term for a person one dislikes or finds extremely disagreeable.

    While there are several words that can be deemed to be "offensive" within our culture, there are very few that I'm aware of which deliver the same payload of both disparagment and a gender bias in the extreme. For example, while calling a man a "dick" may, in a general sense, meet both of these conditions, the severity associated with doing such in most circumstances is considerably lessened (and may also reinforce or even celebrate the presence of his male sexual organ in opposition to the "wedge", gash or absence that is the primary characteristic of female genitalia).

    The real question isn't "Is it banned on Adequacy?" or even "Is it offensive?"; instead, I would offer this for your consideration as a presumed male of the species:

    Do you embrace a double standard regarding its usage and would you be offended/outraged if anyone were to apply the term to you?

  • Unfortunately (none / 0) (#6)
    by adolf on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 01:35:46 AM PST
    I am so used to being called it that I am far from being offended by it. In fact, it brings a sense of nostalgia, taking me back to my early years, when I grew up thinking it was my name.
    But, I don´t agree with your opinion that calling somebody a dick celebrates the male genitalia. If anything, the increased offensiveness of the c-word is, dare I say it, rather more due to the innate prudishness of women than anything else (I do not necessarily blame women themselves for this prudishness, of course). Until recently, most women would have been loth to admit they even had a cunt, let alone had seen it or played with it. Of course, I do not suggest that any adequate maiden or wife would have played with theirs, in full knowledge of the wrathful vengeance which God would wreak on them.

    Nope. (none / 0) (#9)
    by hauntedattics on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 06:16:15 AM PST
    If women's prudishness is 'innate,' how can you talk about blaming them for it? It's like blaming someone for having a nose or ears.

    What if women's dislike of the word 'cunt' stems not from prudishly refusing to own up to one, but from being called one? Chloe is right, you know - there is a difference between 'dick' and 'cunt.' Maybe you need to be a girl to understand the nuances of that difference, though.

    Good point (none / 0) (#10)
    by adolf on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 06:46:35 AM PST
    What I meant to say was that over centuries women have been forced into a denial of their sexuality by the prevalent cultural mechanisms, and that this is something that, of course, I would not blame them for.

    I was trying to have my cake and eat it; denigrate bitches on the one hand, and seem sensitive and understanding at the same time.

    Sensitive and understanding are not my strong points.

    And, the fact that women dislike being called a cunt more intensely than men do, does not prima facie preclude the reason for that from being their (innate or whatever we call it) prudishness.

    Uhm, no. (none / 0) (#11)
    by tkatchev on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 07:10:09 AM PST
    The real reason is that men are more used to bending over and "taking it" from the Man.

    On average, men are raped several times more often than women; those who have been in jail or in the army know what I'm talking about.

    P.S. Please don't make the point that it's just "men doing it to themselves". The very fabric of our society is such that it needs to abuse men to keep functioning. Compared to other things society does to the average man, being called a "dick" is really a very minor issue.

    Peace and much love...

    Uhm, yes. (none / 0) (#12)
    by adolf on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 07:48:41 AM PST
    You´re right. I didn´t want to share my experiences with such complete strangers, but there can be no doubt that that to which you refer has indeed shaped my own feelings on this matter.

    As somebody who has obviously shared these horrific experiences, would you like to talk? There is nothing more rewarding and liberating than finding somebody else who has suffered in a similar manner. I feel sure that, as a veteran member of this friendly community, you will not pour scorn on my advances.

    Don´t be afraid to cry. You´ll never walk alone.

    Why does our society need to abuse men? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 08:53:19 AM PST
    And are they abused more than women?

    I suppose it's the fact that other men are doing that disguises the abuse if your assertions are correct.

    Simple. (none / 0) (#15)
    by tkatchev on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 10:54:36 AM PST
    The fact of the matter is simply that men are expendable.

    Women are given respect if only for the reason that they are needed to make more babies; men, on the other hand, are only needed for their sperm-producing capability. Like any farmer will tell you, you only need a few prize bulls to fertilize a whole cow herd.

    (Not that I condone the views expressed in this post; personally, I find them disgusting. But, it's the way our liberalist society works.)

    Peace and much love...

    It doesn't answer my question (none / 0) (#21)
    by piloti on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 04:16:53 PM PST
    Why is male rape so prevalent?

    Fortunately I have never experienced it myself having never been in jail, boarding school or the army. Is it a power thing or a sexual thing?

    The fact it occurs in these hierarchical societies leads me think it is a power thing. But I would like to know your take on it

    Ever heard the phrase (none / 0) (#24)
    by chloedancer on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 06:40:38 PM PST
    "breeding stump"? You strike me as being more astute than to honestly believe that women are valued inherently for their ability to bear loinfruit.

    "Bitch", on the other hand, (none / 0) (#14)
    by chloedancer on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 10:47:37 AM PST
    inspires pride for me, particularly when being called such by an angry man who's lost his temper and his control. It usually means that the poor fool's frustrated 'cause I'm not just not being whoever he wants me to be or whatever else he would prefer, etc. In short, it means that whatever we were arguing about, at that point I know I've won. It infuriates them all the more when I smile in response -- it's a terrific feeling, really.

    Funny, most of the men I know would be infuriated if someone called them a "cunt", honestly more so than most of the women I know. It has been my observation that it's used as some sort of ultimate "You're not a man!" insult, much as was previously true in the case of the word "bitch".

    The kind of man who would likely hurl that word at me in an attempt to scorch is, oddly enough, exactly the sort who wouldn't be gettin' any from me, ever. And not because they used that particular word; instead because they're obviously of such low intelligence that it was the best they could come up with -- and that demonstrates a distinct lack of grace under fire in my book. At least a clever or articulate insult merits some small measure of respect, even if it pains me to recognize this at times.

    Also, could someone please explain to me this: Why is it that heterosexual guys who are rumored to think about sex/women/fantasies/etc. several times each and every minute are the ones most likely to use various terms that generally degrade women when insulting insult other men? Does anyone else see the discrepancy between the ongoing act of chasin' pussy and insulting people with words like "motherf*cker" and "cunt"?

    And to carry this line of thinking a bit further, I'd like to know what, exactly, are men are implying whenever they express admiration for a woman by stating that "She's got balls!"? If the implied logic is true (that balls are more admirable than cunt), then might it be possible that male sexuality is a much more confusing subject than society would generally have us believe? I could go on, but there'd be little to be gained in doing so, I suspect.

    (And then you have the gall to wonder why we don't find y'all irresistable and why it's so difficult to catch and hold our affection? Now if I could only stop laughing and think about something more easily resolved instead... C'est la vie.)

    "Male sexuality". (none / 0) (#16)
    by tkatchev on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 11:04:53 AM PST
    This "male sexuality" you speak of is really driven by two fears: the fear of impotence and the fear of homosexuality. These two fears are intertwined, like Siamese twins, slowly merging one into the other.

    You see, because many men are unconsiously fearful of impotence they feel like they need to assert their "ability to perform" at any possible moment; they "chase pussy" because they desperately need to prove to themselves that they are still "manly", not because they really like sex. In fact, that is probably why so many of these men profess utterly mysoginistic views -- they feel like women hold some sort of unjustified "power" over them, forcing them into sexual conduct that they don't really want.

    The second fear -- that of homosexuality -- is when a man is afraid that he might be gay and not even know it. The idea is that if you try homosexual intercourse you'll end up liking it so much that you'll be converted to the "homosexual movement". This ties in with the fear of impotence, because most men believe that passive gays are all impotent -- being that you don't need to be able to achieve an erection to "enjoy" homosexual intercourse.

    (I could go on for pages more, but I think I'll spare you the angst here.)

    Peace and much love...

    have I been trolled? (none / 0) (#17)
    by nathan on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 12:23:07 PM PST
    And then you have the gall to wonder why we don't find y'all irresistable and why it's so difficult to catch and hold our affection?

    Not lately, but thanks for asking. For me, a much more interesting question is: "Why is it so difficult to find a woman whose head is on sufficiently straight to be worth catching, and capable of sustaining a genuine relationship?"

    No offense, but knocking men on the head for being troglodytes is probably more "Sex in the City" than

    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    You get out what you put in. (none / 0) (#18)
    by tkatchev on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 01:10:52 PM PST
    I think it's that simple, really -- you have to decide what you want, either sex[1] or respect. I don't think it's possible to have both. If you want women to respect you, (directed at the generic "you", not you personally, nathan) you need to respect women. If you use women as sex object, you'll be treated as a sex object back. And, as we all know, for women "sex object" means "big, fat, juicy wallet".

    [1] By "sex" I mean the "let's get it down like animals", not the "marital relations".

    Peace and much love...

    precisely (none / 0) (#19)
    by nathan on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 02:22:24 PM PST
    That's why I choose respect. I haven't so much as held hands with my SO (maybe tonight at the opera.)

    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    R-E-S-P-E-C-T (none / 0) (#23)
    by chloedancer on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 06:38:25 PM PST
    You'd likely not believe it, tkatchev, but the Queen of Soul was on my mind (and that song in particular) when I hit the "Post" button that last time 'round. Was it that obvious? ;)

    RE: Sex vs. respect... Maybe the two are mutually exclusive; maybe not. While it's true to some degree, I've also been lucky enough to encounter the rare individual with whom both can be enjoyed tremendously. In some ways, it's easier to push the limits with those whom I know respect me, if only because I know that I'll never have to ask that sheepish cliché of a question the morning after.

    And I've done the predatory one-night-stand thing, but I can say honestly that it wasn't the big, fat, juicy wallet that drew my attention, either.

    RE: You get what you put in -- 'Tis true. If a man wants my respect, it has to be a mutual condition from the get-go -- especially if it is aptly demonstrated through action and not lip-service.

    You doubt my sincerity? (none / 0) (#22)
    by chloedancer on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 06:25:16 PM PST
    For me, a much more interesting question is: "Why is it so difficult to find a woman whose head is on sufficiently straight to be worth catching, and capable of sustaining a genuine relationship?"

    That one I won't even pretend to be able to answer. But that's beside the point, really. The discrepancy in how the words are applied was what I was referring to; the mixed message that is common within the culture is enough to make a thinking woman wary, that's all -- the men who don't deliver a consistent message seem untrustworthy, at least to me.

    ...troglodytes...and ...Sex in the City...:

    To the former, I say "Your word, not mine." And to the latter, I really wouldn't know; haven't seen even one episode (by all accounts it just strikes me as being Cosmopolitan for TV), but I'd bet that you have. Please remember where the subject started and focus a bit more, hmm?

    hey, Chloe... (none / 0) (#25)
    by nathan on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 07:10:05 AM PST
    Do yet get this tetchy when contradicted in real life?

    I'd bet that you have [seen Sex in the City.]

    This is a bet you would, in fact, lose.

    remember where the subject started and focus a bit more, hmm?

    I am quiveringly and humbly apologetic, bitch.

    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    Can't you just feel the love? (none / 0) (#26)
    by chloedancer on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 08:25:29 AM PST
    Thanks for the compliment, Nathan. I'm touched, really. I'd suspect that you don't call a woman a "bitch" often and I'm pleased that you've seized the opportunity to look past your borders in this circumstance.

    RE: Real life... I'm whatever I wish to be at any given moment; lately the fiesty streak has been prominent and I'm unapologetic. You get what you settle for, after all.

    Yo... (none / 0) (#27)
    by nathan on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 09:28:09 AM PST
    This is starting to be a rather grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    I must say, calling someone "bitch" who enjoys being called a bitch because it shows stupid men to be what they are (ie stupid) on a weblog - is an enormously fulfilling and validating experience.

    elenchos better hurry up and delete this post, as it is making even me ill.

    Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

    Does this mean (none / 0) (#28)
    by chloedancer on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 01:28:20 PM PST
    that I've got you under my thumb? Score!

    Lax standards, you? I'd call a reality check on that, all things considered.

    Ouch. (none / 0) (#29)
    by hauntedattics on Fri Feb 1st, 2002 at 02:27:02 PM PST
    Keep this up, and I may have to re-think our special relationship.

    How about a compromise? (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by poltroon on Wed Jan 30th, 2002 at 07:16:01 PM PST
    Instead of "cunt" or no "cunt", lets just say "cuntpower" or "supercunt", or "supercuntpower".

    If only I could still stroll... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 05:07:52 AM PST
    ...along Londons Cuntgrope Lane, now sadly renamed.

    Why are you posting here? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jan 31st, 2002 at 03:32:27 PM PST
    Well, so much for this place being "News for Grown-ups". I don't know why anyone bothers to post anything here. The censorship is so rampant and widespread, you'd swear this was the former Soviet Union. My advice to totalandcomplete; don't bother posting here anymore. You're wasting your time with these philistines.


    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to