"Snatch," "Hole," or "Honey-pot"? Semantic Categories and the Problem of Nonspecificity in Female Genital Slang.

Two questionnaire studies on female genital slang (FGTs) are presented. Study One explored semantic categories in 317 different FGTs (and 351 different male genital terms [MGTs]) collected from 156 females and 125 males. Data were coded into 17 categories, and tested for sex differences. More FGTs were coded standard slang, euphemism, space, receptacle, abjection, hair, animal or money. More MGTs were coded personification, gender identity, edibility, danger, or nonsense. Study Two used 49 FGTs to investigate the extent to which slang provides a consistent specific vocabulary for female genitals. The 251 respondents commented on 5 terms each. Respondents absolutely agreed on meaning for only 4% of terms. The implications of both findings for women's genital experiences and sexuality are discussed.

As soon as you deal with [sex] explicitly, you have to choose between the language of the nursery, the gutter and the anatomy class (C. S. Lewis, quoted in Hughes, 1991, p. 241).

Many people appear to consider women's genitalia to be unmentionable. In one study, only 7% of respondents (10% of men, 5% of women) considered the vagina a body part that is freely mentionable (Allan & Burridge, 1991). A more recent survey found that 53% of women "felt some discomfort using the word vagina" (Bulletin, 1994, p. 10). Women and gynecologists have been shown to rarely mention the word vagina (or even a synonym) during gynecological consultations (Weijts, Houtcoop, & Mullen, 1993). Female participants in focus groups looking at sexually explicit magazines "avoided referring to the genitals of the models" (Boynton, 1999, p. 454). Despite public debate and discussion about sex and sexuality, the vagina remains a taboo or private topic (Braun, 1999).(1)

Taboo topics tend to generate many slang(2) expressions (McArthur, 1992), and these have been conceptualized as functioning to resist oppressive norms that deny voice to certain groups of people and render some subjects unspeakable (e.g., Hughes, 1992; McArthur, 1992). Previous studies of slang terms for female and/or male genitalia (e.g., Cameron, 1992; Cornog, 1981; Richter, 1987) have found rich variety. Some collections cite more than 1200 terms for "vagina" and more than 1000 for "penis," drawing on "every imaginable aspect of the appearance, location, functions, and effects of the genitalia" (Allan, 1990, p. 161). However, women have been found to be less likely than men to produce terms for their own genitalia (or for men's genitalia), more likely to produce euphemistic terms (Sanders & Robinson, 1979), and more likely to report using formal terms for genitalia, across different interpersonal contexts (Simkins & Rinck, 1982). Men have similarly been found to report using more derogatory words for both male and female genitals than women, although absolute frequency varied by interpersonal context (Murnen, in press).

Many feminist commentators have noted a lexical gap in female genital terms (Mills, 1995), which are divided between the anatomical, the coy or euphemistic, and the derogatory, raising the question, "what can women call their own organs" (McConville & Shearlaw, 1984, p. 11; see also Lees, 1993). Anatomical terms, such as vagina, vulva, and clitoris, are considered "clinical and impersonal" (Sanders & Robinson, 1979, p. 29; see also Karpf, 1991). Coy or euphemistic terms, such as down there, privates, and crotch, "strengthen the view that a woman's genitalia are something mysterious, vague and taboo: 'eclipsed' through the avoidance of naming" (Ussher, 1989, p. 20). Others, such as cunt, gash, and twat, are considered to be derogatory, "epithets of hate" (Greer, 1986, p. 77), in which "the enigma and mystery are replaced by more explicit, derogatory terms" (Ussher, 1989, p. 20), and which sexualize women's genitalia from a heterosexual male perspective (Mills, 1995). As Held (1980) commented, "better not to think of it at all than to think of it as a gash, twat, cunt, slit" (p. 184).

According to Gibbs and Nagaoka (1985), "the use of slang metaphors permits speakers to not only convey specific propositional information, but also some indication of their attitude towards this information" (p. 178). Slang evokes meaning by drawing on the shared cultural knowledge of the users (McArthur, 1992), and slang terms for female genitalia would thus be expected to encode ideas about women's bodies, women's place in the world, and women's place in sex. As slang is a largely spoken and dynamic language (Coombs, Chopra, Schenk, & Yutan, 1993; McArthur, 1992) it evolves to meet the needs and situations of the moment (e.g., Hummon, 1994). There is some evidence that terms in use do change over time: for example, a tally of general slang terms in use at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill over a 15-year period (1972-1987) showed a retention rate of less than 10% (McArthur, 1992, p. 940) (although others disagree; see Grossman & Tucker, 1997). With three decades of feminist challenges to derogatory social attitudes toward, and language around, women and women's genitalia, it is possible that terms for women's genitalia have moved beyond the euphemistic or the derogatory, and offer a comprehensive vocabulary for talking about the female genitalia.

Many of the feminists who have commented on female genital slang (e.g., Greer, 1986; Mills, 1995; Ussher, 1989) have done so from the perspective of a "cultural member," drawing on their knowledge, experiences, and perceptions as women and feminists, rather than basing their critique on empirical research. The aim of our current research was to collect slang terms for female and male genitalia from (young) British people in order to access the range of genital slang terms currently available, and to explore (via content analysis) the meanings and attitudes they convey. In this paper, we present findings from two studies. The first examines the semantic categories evident in female genital slang (FGTs). The second addresses the issue of nonspecificity among slang terms.

STUDY ONE: SEMANTIC CATEGORIES IN GENITAL SLANG

Study One aimed to collect FGTs (and male genital terms [MGTs]) that were currently culturally available in Britain, and to explore the semantic categories evident in these terms. Our primary interest lay in exploring the conceptual frameworks such categories rely on, and reproduce (see Cameron, 1992).

METHOD

Data were collected from 156 women aged 18-50 (Mdn = 20) and 125 men aged 16-36 (Mdn = 20). Respondents were primarily undergraduate students at five universities in central and northern England, although 4% were non-student women who completed the questionnaire as the opening exercise in focus groups where they discussed a range of issues related to the vagina. Respondents were recruited in undergraduate classes and in the Student Union building, and asked to complete the questionnaire at that time. The only demographic information recorded was sex and age.

The questionnaire, which took between 5 and 10 minutes to complete, instructed respondents to list as many different terms as they knew for female and for male genitalia, in two columns.(3) Eighteen spaces were provided in each column, with indications that respondents could continue on the back if they wished. Only two respondents (both female) provided more than 18 FGTs, and only five respondents (two male, three female) provided more than 18 MGTs. The collection of terms respondents are aware of, rather than those they actually report using, is common in slang research (e.g., Aman & Sardo, 1982; Cameron, 1992; Grossman & Tucker, 1997). However, this means we can only comment on sex differences in the generation of slang terms, rather than on their reported use. Sex differences in the number of terms produced were tested for using ANOVAs and t-tests.

The slang terms were subjected to a content analysis. Categories were identified through repeated reading of the data, and terms were coded into categories by each author. An inclusive coding approach was taken, so that each term was coded into as many categories as were relevant (e.g., the term "beaver" was coded standard slang, animal, and hair). Interrater reliability for coding was 0.80, and differences were resolved by discussion. While we were primarily interested in FGTs, a comparison of categories for MGTs was used to understand FGTs in the broader genital slang context. For each category, analysis centered on a contrast between the total number of instances of FGTs and MGTs produced for that category, by sex of respondent.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Frequency of Genital Terms

Although participants produced an average of around seven FGTs and seven MGTs (see Table 1), a two-way ANOVA showed significant effects for sex of participant (F[1,279] = 246.78, p [is less than] .005), "sex" of genital term (F[1, 279] = 23.65, p [is less than] .05), and for their interaction (F[1,279] = 20.81, p [is less than] .05). Overall, respondents produced fewer FGTs on average than MGTs (see Table 1), F(1,279) = 23.65, p [is less than] .05.(4) Male respondents produced significantly more FGTs, F(1, 279) = 4.13, p [is less than] .05, and MGTs, F[1,279] = 13.63, p [is less than] .001, than female respondents (see Table 1). Male respondents also produced more terms for their own genitalia than for women's, t(124) = -2.94, p [is less than] .00. In contrast, there was no difference between the number of terms produced by female respondents for their own and for men's genitalia. Compared to the number of FGTs produced by women, the average number of MGTs produced by men was about one third as many. This suggests that men (still) have a significantly more extensive vocabulary for talking about their own genitalia than women do for talking about their own.

Table 1. Mean (and SD) Number of FGTs and MGTs
Produced, by Sex of Respondent

Respondents          FGTs          MGTs           Total

Women (N = 156)   6.59 (3.50)   6.62 (3.35)   13.21 (6.41)
Men (N = 125)     7.54 (4.31)   8.34 (4.46)   15.87 (8.23)
Total (N = 281)   7.01 (3.90)   7.38 (3.97)   14.39 (7.3.8)

Across all respondents, 317 different FGTs were produced. About a third (32%, n = 101)(5) of these were generated by two or more respondents; 15% (n = 48) were provided by at least five. The most common terms were cunt, fanny, pussy, vagina, and muff (see Table 2). Similarly, across all respondents, 351 different MGTs were produced. More than one third (38.5%, n = 136) were generated by two or more respondents; 17% (n = 58) were generated by at least five. The most common were dick, willy, penis, cock, and (k)nob (see Table 3). More than 60% of FGTs and MGTs were mentioned by only one respondent, and this considerable idiosyncrasy suggests that respondents might simply have made up these terms. However, many were included in other collections or dictionaries of slang (e.g., Green, 1998; Partridge, 1982; Wentworth & Flexner, 1975), including the only term which we included in the follow-up questionnaire (quim; see Green, 1998; Money, 1982) that was not recognized by at least one respondent (see Study Two). Moreover, given our interest in cultural resources--the "underlying cultural and conceptual system governing the structure of this lexicon" (Cameron, 1992, p. 369)--idiosyncrasy and invention are not problematic.

Table 2. Ten Most Frequently Given Terms for Women's
  Genitalia (FGTs), With Number of Respondents
  and Percentage of Total Sample

Term                   N     %
Cunt                  230   82.0
Fanny(a)              214   76.0
Pussy                 167   59.5
Vaginal               162   57.5
Muff                  118   42.0
Beaver                82    29.0
Twat/twot             80    28.5
Minge                 70    25.0
Vadge/vag/vaje/vage   37    13.0
Snatch                36    13.0

(a) This term retains different meanings on the two sides of the
Atlantic
- in Britain, the female genitalia, in North America, the buttocks.

Table 3. Ten Most Frequently Given Terms for Men's
Genitalia (MGTs), With Number of Respondents
and Percentage of Total Sample

Term                 N       %

Dick                243     86.5
Willy               183     65.1
Penis               175     62.5
Cock                168     60.0
(K)nob              136     48.5
Prick                79     28.0
Todger               58     20.5
Bollocks             55     19.5
Balls                46     16.5
Todger               30     10.5

In sum, men produced more slang terms for both men's and women's genitalia than did women. Our findings mirror previous research (e.g., Gordon, 1993; Grossman & Tucker, 1997; see also Jay, 1980) which has found that men are more knowledgeable about, more frequent users of, and more frequent creators of slang than are women (although see de Klerk, 1990, 1992). Cameron (1992), for example, who had four male college student friends and eight female college student friends produce slang terms for male genitals, found that males produced almost three times as many MGTs as females (144 compared to 50). While our results mirror this trend, the differences in real terms are far smaller. We also found that respondents produced more slang terms, and more varied slang terms, for men's genitalia (compared with women's), which also mirrors previous findings (e.g., Aman & Friends, 1981; Cornog, 1981, 1986). However, while numbers might tell us something about the relative linguistic resources of men and women respectively, they do not tell us anything about the slang itself. To really understand what FGT and MGT slang is doing, we need to analyze the terms themselves.

Semantic Categories in Genital Slang

Analysis of the semantic or metaphorical categories in genital slang is not common. Previous authors who have collected MGTs have noted categories of violence, weaponry, body parts, animals, food, meat, personification, tools, instruments, and romance among others (Cameron, 1992; Cornog, 1986; Richter, 1987). FGT categories have been noted to include absence, violence, containers, hair, food, names, buildings, money, and euphemism (e.g., McConville & Shearlaw, 1984; Richter, 1987). Green's (1999) The Big Book of Filth provides a comprehensive listing of both FGTs and MGTs by category. Our FGTs were coded into 17 different categories: standard slang, euphemism, space, receptacle, abjection, hair, animal, money, personification, gender identity, edibility, danger, nonsense, sex and pleasure, plants, fantasy creatures, and urination (see Table 4 for examples). The same categories were used to code the MGTs, although an additional 9 categories were also used (musical instruments, vehicle, leisure or sporting equipment, size, nongenital body parts, tools, precious things, physical shape, and erection). These 26 categories accounted for 93% of the data.

Table 4. Examples of FGTs and MGTs for Each Category (Excluding
Standard Slang)

Category          FGTs                     MGTs

Euphemism         Bits, down below,        Bits, end, extension,
                   downstairs, private      member, privates
                   parts, middle

Nonsense          Chuff, doot, hoo-hoo,    Cham, diddle, dong,
                   tren, wanny              slomb, winks

Space             Cave, gap, hole,         No terms
                   pit, slot

Receptacle        Box, disk drive,         Ball bag, happy sack,
                   gism pot, honey pot,     love sac, nut sac,
                   spunk bin                sac

Abjection         Black cat with a         Chicken neck, custard
                   cut throat, meat         chucker, lump of meat,
                   seat, slit arse,         one-eyed milkman,
                   stench trench, tuna      purple headed yoghurt
                   waterfall                thrower

Hair              Beard, brush, fur jaw,   Monkey, donkey wood,
                   hairy, moustache         bald-headed monkey,
                                            one-eyed
                                            woom weasel

Animal            Beaver, cat, monkey,     Bird, lizard, snake,
                   pussy, rat               monkey, worm

Money             Penny, thruppeny bit,    No terms
                   tuppence, two pence,
                   fur purse

Personification   Bessy, Fanny, Fiona,     Dick, John Thomas,
                   Mary, Nan                Peter, Percy, Willy

Gender Identity   Girl patch, the          Big guy, fella, lad,
                   old gal, old girl,       old man, the guy
                   womanhood, womanly
                   bits

Edibility         Beef burger, bean,       Gherkin, meat, pork,
                   fish, fudge, pie         sausage, spuds

Danger            Bermuda triangle,        Chisel, harpoon, lethal
                   black hole, growler,     weapon, sword, weapon
                   sharpener, squirrel
                   trap

Sex & Pleasure    Fuck hole, gates to      Big red fun bus,
                   heaven, pink             joystick, passion
                   pleasure palace,         tool, sexual wand,
                   spasm chasm, shagbox     veiny bang stick

Plants            Bush, flower,            Twig and berries,
                   jungle, forest           wood, woody

Fantasy           Fairy, gremlin,          Purple monster, purple
                   hairy Cyclops,           headed monster
                   Smurf burger

Urination         Pee hole, pee-pee,       Hose, little fireman's
                   piss flaps,              hose, Dee pee, pisser,
                   plumbing, wee            plumbing
                   wee hole

Standard slang. The most common FGTs and MGTs we coded as standard slang (see Table 2 & Table 3). Respondents were more likely to generate standard slang terms in reference to female genitalia than in reference to male genitalia, t(280) = -4.194, p [is less than] .001 (see Table 5), perhaps reflecting a wider variety of alternative terms for male genitalia. The category of standard slang is not particularly interesting for our current analysis, except in so far as it illustrates the endurance of many ancient terms for the genitalia, and indicates the apparent resilience of particular connotative associations buried deep in the etymological origin of these terms. In addition to the well-known British slang terms, such as cunt (thirteenth century; Hughes, 1991), minge (early seventeenth century; Mills, 1991), twat (seventeenth century; Richter, 1987), and muff (seventeenth century; Partridge, 1982), some terms generated by very few respondents, which we initially took to be idiosyncratic, have long histories. For example, queynte (1 respondent) dates from Middle English (Montagu, 1967), while cunnie/cunny (3 respondents) was evident from the early sixteenth century (Hughes, 1991). Cunnie/cunny is apparently not a diminutive form of cunt, but an obsolete form of cony or rabbit (Partridge, 1982), which Richter (1987) explains as arising out of a focus on female pubic hair.

Table 5. Total Number of Instances of FGTs and MGTs, by Sex and
Category Total number of terms generated within each category

Category             Type    By women    By men       Total
                              (N=156)    (N=125)     (N=281)

Standard slang(a)    FGTs       623        533        1156
                     MGTs       586        437        1023
Euphemism(a)         FGTs        60         17          77(****)
                     MGTs        25         21          46
Nonsense(b)          FGTs        19         17          36
                     MGTs        40         17          57(*)
Space(a)             FGTs        32         56          88(****)
                     MGTs         0          0           0
Receptacle(a)        FGTs       104        104         208
                     MGTs        13         14          27
Abjection(a)         FGTs        59        106         165(*****)
                     MGTs        16         32          48(**)
Hair(a)              FGTs       237        230         467(*)
                     MGTs         0          7           7(***)
Animal(a)            FGTs       154        142         296
                     MGTs       110        123         233(***)
Money(a)             FGTs        19          4          23(*)
                     MGTs         0          0           0
Personification(b)   FGTs       150         83         233(*****)
                     MGTs       284        214         498
Gender Identity(b)   FGTs         4          2           6
                     MGTs        23         37          60(*)
Edibility(b)         FGTs        41         61         102(*)
                     MGTs        68         93         161(**)
Danger(b)            FGTs        33         37          70
                     MGTs        95        151         246(*****)
Sex & Pleasure       FGTs         0         10          10(****)
                     MGTs         1         12          13(****)
Plant                FGTs         7         19          26
                     MGTs         0          7           7
Fantasy              FGTs         7          5          12
                     MGTs         0          2           2
Urination            FGTs         8          3          11
                     MGTs         6          3           9

Note. The total number of terms collected was 1970 for FGTs; 2071 for
MGTs. The totals would add to more than these figures as terms were
coded into more than one category.

(a) Indicates significantly more FGTs than MGTs in that category,
(b) Indicates significantly more MGTs than FGTs in that category.

Significant differences in the mean number of terms generated by women
and men for FGTs or MGTs in each category are indicated: (*) p < .05,
(**) p < .01, (***) p < .005, (****) p < .001, (*****) p < .000.

Dictionaries of slang make various suggestions about the likely derivation of terms, but it is unlikely that contemporary users imbue standard slang terms with seventeenth (or other) century connotations. We have therefore made no attempt to code slang terms in ways which reference their (putative) etymological origins (e.g., the derivation of cunnie/cunny was not used as a basis for coding it as small furry animal). Nonetheless, it is worth noting the extent to which the origins of many ancient slang terms reflect and map onto the semantic category system we developed here.

Euphemism. Terms coded as euphemism were those which made vague reference to a general body location. FGTs such as down there, downstairs, front bottom, hairy area and middle used mild, nonspecific (even inaccurate) euphemisms to not name that part of women's bodies. Many MGTs mirrored the FGTs--bits, genital area, privates, and thing/thingy, for example, although the male genitalia were also an extension or a member. Thing has served for both female and male genitalia since Middle English (Hughes, 1988). In total, more "euphemistic" genital slang was produced in reference to women's genitalia than in reference to men's genitals, t(280) = 2.217, p [is less than] .01 (see Table 5), which was also found in Richter's (1987) data. Women were more likely than men to produce euphemistic terms for female genitalia, F(1, 279) = 10.722, p [is less than] .005, while there were no sex differences in the production of euphemistic MGTs.

Euphemistic genital slang is vague to the extreme, with no clear bodily reference point, which implicitly reinforces the idea that we should not talk, or even think, about genitalia explicitly. Our findings suggest that euphemism is more often produced by women than men, and is particularly likely in relation to women's bodies. One explanation for this is that it reflects previous findings that women are "polite" speakers of English (Lakoff, 1975), and generally produce more euphemistic slang, overall, than do men (e.g., Gordon, 1993; Sanders & Robinson, 1979). It is also possible that young girls and women are exposed to euphemistic terms more frequently than are boys, and are hence more aware of them. However, regardless of why women produce more, the continued presence of euphemistic FGTs reinforces a situation where women talk about their bodies in "oblique and disconnected language" (Jackson, 1999, p. 37), and encourages an ongoing mystification (and denial) of women's genitalia (see Braun & Wilkinson, 2001).

Space. The terms coded as space referred to forms created by material absences. Many of these referred to the landscape, to spaces created by "absences" of land - a cave, a hole, a love canal, a tunnel, or the Grand Canyon. Such terms implicitly constitute the female body as a landscape, with attendant suggestions of exploration, colonization, and ownership. In these terms, women's genitalia are defined by the "potential space" of the vagina (Loulan, 1984, p. 35), rather than by the presence of the different aspects of the female genitalia. Moreover, as the vaginal walls usually touch when a woman is not aroused (Boston Women's Health Book Collective, 1992), the metaphor of space reflects the vagina in an aroused state,(6) which links it to the category receptacle. Space FGTs were more likely to be produced by male respondents than by female respondents, F(1,279) = 11.381, p [is less than] .005. While the space category was common in FGTs, MGTs never invoked space (see Table 5).

Receptacle. Women's genitalia were represented as (potential) containers (e.g., bucket, box, hairy goblet), places to put things in (e.g., furry letterbox, disk drive, socket, slot), containers for semen (e.g., gism pot, spunk bin, honey pot), and containers for the penis/sex (e.g., willy warmer, wank shaft, shagbox). Feminists have asserted that paradigmatic women are "holes, receptacles, containers--things [men] can or want to fuck" (Penelope, 1990, Speaking Freely, cited in Sutton, 1995, pp. 286-287), and the prevalence of terms within this category (and the space category) seems to encode--albeit in an often milder form--this construction of the vagina/woman as receptacle for male desire. The proliferation of receptacle FGTs can be contrasted with very few receptacle MGTs, t(280) = -11.328, p [is less than] .001 (see Table 5), most of which seemed to refer to the scrotum (e.g., ball bag, nut sack, sac).

Abjection. Abjection was another category more evident in FGTs than MGTs, t(280) = -7.630, p [is less than] .001 (see Table 5). Abjection was invoked in various ways: through reference to dirtiness (e.g., front bum, dirt box), uncooked (bloody?) meat (e.g., meat seat, chopped liver), vaginal secretions of all types (e.g., slushing fuck pit, the snail trail), smell (e.g., smelly hole, stench trench), and wounds (e.g., gash, gaping axe wound). Wound terms often made reference to a violent act (e.g., black cat with its throat cut, sliced stomach). These terms construct women's genitalia (and women) as dirty and smelly, as leaky and uncontained. Abjection corresponds, in part, to the revolting_effluvia theory (Allan, 1990)--that female genitalia are derogated because of their secretions and close association with excretion and urination. Abjection FGTs were far more frequently produced by men than by women, F(1,279) = 15.780, p [is less than] .001. Men also produced more abjection MGTs than did women, F(1,279) = 6.889, p [is less than] .01. However, it is worth noting that abjection MGTs never invoked dirtiness or wounds, and MGTs referring to secretions appeared "comical" (e.g., variations of custard chucker, one-eyed yoghurt thrower).

Hair. Reference to hair was far more frequently found in FGTs than in MGTs, t(280) = -22.327, p [is less than] .001 (see Table 5). Hairiness was referenced directly, though the use of adjectives like "hairy" and "furry" (e.g., hair pie, furry letterbox), and invoked indirectly--through reference to items that are themselves hairy, or have a hair-like character (e.g., muff [the most common], carpet), and the use of the term beard (e.g., bearded axe wound, bearded cup of love). The metaphors invoked by furry animals (e.g., pussy, beaver) and vegetation terms (e.g., jungle cunt, bush) also suggested hair. The frequency of hair FGTs contrasted sharply with the absolute absence of explicit reference to hair in any of the MGTs. It appears as if the "visibility" of the penis and testicles/scrotum overrides the visibility and importance of men's pubic hair. In women, the presence of the pubic hair is foregrounded by its position in relation to the vulva.(7) Allan and Burridge (1991) commented that, "the correlation of the female pudend with furry animals may result from the fact that--in contrast to many men--on most women, public hair is the only substantial patch of body hair" (p. 99). However, we would argue that hair can be seen as a form of euphemism, because the genital structures are implied through association, rather than directly referenced.

Animal. Reference to an animal (or an animal part) was common in both FGTs and MGTs, although respondents provided more animal terms for FGTs than MGTs, t(280) = -3.821, p [is less than] .001 (see Table 5). There was, however, a contrast between the types of animals referred to. FGTs most frequently referred to small furry animals (e.g., pant hamster, rat, cat), although larger hairy animals (e.g., beaver, badger, horse), and aquatic animals (e.g., kipper, prawn, fish) were also commonly mentioned. In contrast, the animals most frequently referred to in MGTs were snakes (e.g., black mamba, trouser snake, python), although some birds (e.g., cock), hairy animals (e.g., monkey, donkey wood), and elongated (leg-less) animals or animal parts (e.g., maggot, tail, chicken neck) were also listed. Weatherall and Walton (1999) noted a similar contrast in sexual slang--female terms were domestic animals; male terms were wild beasts.

Money. The money category was evident in FGTs but never appeared in MGTs (see Table 5). FGTs contained both explicit (e.g., tuppence, thruppeny bit, Mrs Penny), and implicit (fur purse, pocket book) references to money. In most terms, the amount of money was very small, suggesting reference to money rather than to value. Many FGTs not coded with this category (e.g., fish, lettuce, quiff) have, historically, meant money (Wentworth &. Flexner, 1975), and many have simultaneously meant prostitute--Green's (1999) money category is identified as the money-maker. These terms suggest women's worth and value to be in their genitalia, and commodify the genitalia as objects to be purchased. Indeed, commodity was a sixteenth century British term, now obsolete, for the genital area (McConville & Shearlaw, 1984). Women produced more money FGTs than did men, F(1,279) = 5.466, p [is less than] .05 (see Table 5).

While there were no references to money in MGTs, there was a contrast case of terms that depicted preciousness (e.g., crown jewels, sexual wand, Aladdin's lamp). These items are precious to the extent that they should be retained and cherished, rather than having the common transactional status of money. Their (often priceless) value is also higher than that of the money FGTs.

Personification. A common category was personification, with proper nouns being used to describe the genitalia--FGTs such as Bessy, Lulu, Mary, Nan, and Mrs. Dinky, and MGTs like Benny, Jimmy, John Thomas, Peter, and Tom Byron. Respondents produced significantly more personification MGTs than FGTs, t(280) = 16.761, p [is less than] .001 (see Table 5).(8) The comparatively frequent personification of male genitalia has been noted by other commentators, who suggest that it might "derive from the belief that a penis leads a life of its own to a much greater extent than its female counterpart" (Allan & Burridge, 1991, p. 103). Cornog (1986), who identifies genital pet names (for both penis and vulva), similarly points to a separation of genital "personality" from the individual's personality. She has identified this as part of a broader pattern of genitomorphism (Cornog, 1981).

Female respondents were more likely to personify female genitalia than were male respondents, F(1,279) = 20.991, p [is less than] .001, but neither male nor female respondents gave female genitalia the elevated status accorded male genitalia in terms relating to important personages (e.g., general, bishop, little major)--a finding also noted by Cameron (1992).

Gender identity. Terms were coded as gender identity when the genitalia were ascribed an "essence" of maleness or femaleness. Only a very small number of different slang terms (n = 6) referred to gender identity as female (e.g., girl patch, womanly bits). This is a reversal of a common aspect of slang noted by others (e.g., Greer, 1970; Hummon, 1994; Sutton, 1995)--that terms used for women's genitalia are often also used for the woman herself (and for prostitutes). Historically, various other FGTs also meant "woman" in one form or another (e.g., biff; Wentworth & Flexner, 1975). In these terms, there is an elision between part and whole--women and women's genitalia are not separable, they are, to all extents and purposes, the same thing. However, gender identity was significantly more evident in MGTs than FGTs, t(280) = 6.867, p [is less than] .001, including terms such as manhood, man fat and the boys. Common-sensical notions of the penis represent it as masculine and, indeed, as maleness (Garber, 1993; Potts, in press). Male respondents were more likely than female respondents to describe male genitalia in such ways, F(1,279) = 6.316, p [is less than] .05.

Edibility. Food was more common in MGTs than FGTs, t(280) = 3.621, p [is less than] .001 (see Table 5). Wentworth and Flexner (1975) noted that food "is probably our most popular slang image" (p. xiii), being particularly common in relation to sex (McConville & Shearlaw, 1984; Richter, 1987; Weatherall & Walton, 1999), and frequently found as terms for woman (Greer, 1970; Hughes, 1991; Sutton, 1995). However, the category edibility glosses over the variability within it, which, for FGTs, included frequent reference to meat (e.g., bacon rashers, kebab, meat curtains); fish/seafood (e.g., tuna waterfall; fish, clam); and "sweet tidbits" (e.g., love muffin, fudge, cake-hole). Feminist writers have used the imagery of women as (a piece of) meat as a metaphor for women's oppression (Adams, 1990). However, meat was also common in MGTs (e.g., meat and two veg, pork sword, T-bone). Meat FGTs frequently referred to cooked meat (e.g., burger, badly wrapped kebab(9)), presumably a reference to genital shape or appearance (and possibly secretions), while the meat MGTs only included three references to (elongated) processed meats (e.g., salami, lunch sausage, sausage). Given this, it is unclear what the image of meat does differently in relation to women's and men's genitalia, and raises the question of how we should theorize it differently.

While feminists such as Greer (1970) have argued, convincingly, that food terms for women and women's genitalia position women as "for consumption" (p. 265), the category of edibility was prevalent in MGTs as well (see also Weatherall & Walton, 1999), suggesting both female and male genitals are so conceptualized. Men produced significantly more food terms than did women, both for their own genitalia, F(1, 279) = 7.347, p [is less than] .01, and for women's, F(1,279) = 5.726, p [is less than] .05.

Danger. Danger terms represented the genitalia as (potentially) harmful, and were produced significantly more frequently for MGTs than for FGTs, t(280) = 9.794, p [is less than] .001 (see Table 5). However, the way danger was represented in each differed. FGTs generally signaled a passive danger. The female genitalia were represented as places from which people/things never return (e.g., the Bermuda triangle) or get sucked into to (e.g., the black hole, electrolux), hidden dangers (e.g., squirrel trap), and warnings of danger (e.g., hairy growler, bomb doors). These terms invoked the vagina dentata motif (the vagina equipped with teeth and dangerous or deadly to penises) and the penis-captivus myth (where the penis is "captured" and cannot be removed after coitus) (Beit-Hallahmi, 1985).

In contrast, MGT danger was an attacking danger -- implemented, used, fought. War imagery was common (e.g., stabbing truncheon, heat seeking missile, torpedo, sword). When we consider FGTs as wounds (see Abjection), we have a scenario where women's genitalia are wounds, and male genitalia inflict wounds (although see Bordo's, 1999, comments about MGTs). Men were more likely to generate danger MGTs than were women, F(1,279) = 22.430, p [is less than] .001. These data provide a striking contrast to the cultural stereotype in which women's genitalia are perceived to be dangerous (to men) (e.g., Allan, 1990; Beit-Hallahmi, 1985; Lerner, 1976), while men's are not described as dangerous (to women) in the same way.

Nonsense. Nonsense slang referred to vague, inoffensive terms that had little or no meaning in standard English: terms like biff, foo-foo, minky and winkie in FGTs, and chod, dongce, spondoolies, and winks in MGTs. Such terms implicitly infantalize both female and male genitalia, and can be considered a form of euphemism. More nonsense slang was produced for male genitalia than for female genitalia, t(280) = -2.784, p [is less than] .00 (see Table 5), and nonsense MGTs were more frequently produced by women than men, F(1,279) = 4.226, p [is less than] .05, as Cameron (1992) also found. This relative frequency might reflect a phenomenon frequently found in female focus groups which we have dubbed the silly willy phenomenon, whereby men's genitalia are mocked as ridiculous by women (Braun, 1998; see also Hill, 1998).

Sex and pleasure. Reference to sex or (sexual) pleasure was very rare both in FGTs and in MGTs. Most MGTs focused on pleasure (rather than sex explicitly), and many emphasized giving pleasure (e.g., joy giver, passion giver, wife's best friend), although, with the exception of the latter, it was not entirely clear whose pleasure was at issue. Sex was referred to with terms like veiny bang-stick. FGTs invoked pleasure with terms such as pink pleasure palace and rave in the cave, and sex with terms like slushing fuck pit. A few of the sex FGTs seemed to represent female genitalia as passive sites for male sexual activity (e.g., fuck hole, wank shaft). All FGTs, and most MGTs, were produced by men (see Table 5)--for FGTs, F(1,279) = 11.064, p [is less than] .005; for MGTs, F(1,279) = 11.227, p [is less than] .005. The sweet tidbits FGTs (see Edibility) may also symbolize a pleasure--women as sweet deserts--but it is not clearly sexual.

Other categories. FGTs were coded into three additional small categories. The plant category included terms like bush and forest, which presumably index pubic hair, as well as terms like flower. The only reference to plants in MGTs was with twig and berries, wood, and woody. The fantasy creature category contained such imaginary creatures as fairy, hairy Cyclops, and gremlin. The only "fantasy" creature in MGTs was also dangerous: a purple (headed) monster. All terms which referenced urination were coded in the urination category: for FGTs, this included pee-pee, piss flaps, and wee wee hole; for MGTs, hose, pee pee, and pisser. Because our focus in this paper has been on FGTs, categories that were evident in MGTs but not in FGTs have not been discussed. These are worth noting for their contrast: musical instruments (e.g., pink oboe); vehicle (e.g., big red fun bus); leisure (e.g., toy) or sporting equipment (e.g., mid wicket); size (e.g., Big Ben), nongenital body parts (e.g., main vein, love organ), and tools or other useful implements (e.g., jackhammer, chopper, tackle).

SUMMARY

In Study One, we have found that males produced significantly more slang than females. More FGTs than MGTs were found in the standard slang, euphemism, space, receptacle, abjection, hair, animal, or money categories. More MGTs than FGTs were coded personification, gender identity, edibility, danger, or nonsense. Reference to sex or sexual pleasure was rare in both FGTs and MGTs. Sex differences in the production of slang were found for many categories.

STUDY TWO: NONSPECIFICITY OF FEMALE GENITAL SLANG

Female genital slang provides an alternative to "clinical" anatomical terminology, and might appear to offer a rich and varied vocabulary with almost endless possibilities for communicating about women's genitalia. However, we were struck by what seemed to be curious imprecision in female genital slang. Almost all of the 317 different FGTs we collected appeared simply to refer to the genital area in general, without a clear and specific physical referent (e.g., vagina, clitoris, labia), and as co-researchers we were unable unambiguously (and consensually) to attribute specific meanings to them.

Slang terms for clitoris, in particular, have been described as virtually nonexistent. According to Mills (1995), "there is, as far as I know, no word to refer to the clitoris, in a non-medical way" (p. 104), a situation McClintock (1992) refers to as "the blank balance sheet of our society's concern for women's pleasure" (p. 115). Roger's Profanisaurus (1998), the sweating dictionary of "over 2250 rude words and phrases" (front cover), contains only three terms for clitoris (bell, button, fanny flange), and even in Green's (1999) comprehensive listing of about 1000 FGTs, only 21 (many of which are variations on a word/phrase) are specifically designated clitoris (see also Kanner, 1944). Cohen (1978) claims that Rufus of Ephesus (first and second century AD) first used clitoris as an anatomical reference, and included three synonyms, one of which was myrtle berry (based on the appearance of the berry; see also Kanner, 1944). Murtle was a term generated by one respondent, as were bean, button, and little man in the boat, all of which we thought might refer to the clitoris, and with which Green (1999) concurred.

Slang terms for the labia seemed initially clearer: Beef curtains (24 respondents) are defined as "labia minora, or small lips" (Roger's Profanisaurus, 1998, p. 10), or simply "labia" (McConville & Shearlaw, 1984, p. 12). We also understood the terms flaps, fanny flaps, or piss flaps to refer to (inner or outer) labia (see also Green, 1999). Curiously, however, the Blokes Dictionary (http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/6518/dict.htm) defines flaps as "clitoris".

Terms connoting receptacles or holes (e.g., cave, hole, socket, slit) seemed likely to refer specifically to the vagina (although one dictionary defines slit as a raffish term for clitoris; Partridge, 1982). There seemed to be some confusion between the vagina, the anus/rectum, and the urinary meatus. Some of the terms generated by one respondent (slit arse, dirt box, duff, fudge) are defined as anus or rectum in Roger's Profanisaurus (1998) (which also defines chuff as meaning both anus and vagina). Others such as pee pee, pee hole and wee wee hole would seem more appropriately to refer to the urinary meatus than the vagina. However, as we have noted elsewhere (Braun & Kitzinger, 2001), some people apparently believe that urine is passed through the vagina--a notion evident in the derivation of minge (the Latin mingere, meaning "to void urine"). Minge originally meant "urinate" when it entered the English language in the early seventeenth century (Mills, 1991 ).

The apparently rich vocabulary of slang is illusory if it does not actually differentiate those parts of the genitalia about which one might wish to communicate during (for example) sex, gynecological consultations, or childbirth. These might include the clitoris, inner labia, outer labia, perineum (for which there appears to be almost no slang terms: Green, 1999, lists three), or more specific features of, for example, the clitoris (clitoral shaft, clitoral hood, etc.). This follow-up study aimed to investigate the extent to which slang terms for female genitalia were actually consistently understood to be referring to specific and precise genital parts.

METHOD

In total, 184 women aged 18-40 (Mdn = 19), 40 men aged 18-34 (Mdn = 19), and 27 respondents who did not indicate sex aged 18-32 (Mdn = 20), answered the questionnaire. Respondents were all undergraduate social science students at a university in central England. As respondents were given one of 10 different versions of the questionnaire, number of respondents per version varied between 19 and 34. Each version contained 5 different FGTs (in total, 49 different FGTs). Respondents were asked to indicate, for each FGT, (a) whether they had seen the term before, (b) what part of women's genitalia they thought it referred to, (c) how sure they were about their answer to question (b), and (d) whether they would ever use that term to describe women's genitalia. They were also given the opportunity to explain their answer to question (d). The questionnaire was accompanied by an anatomical drawing of the female genitals with parts labeled for reference (Moore, 1992, p. 314), which was selected for its detail and "realism." Additional clarificatory labels (clitoris, clitoral hood, labia minora and majora, perineum, pubic hair, vagina) were added to the image, and it was given the title "the external female genitals (the vulva)." The 49 FGTs used were chosen from the total of 317 generated by respondents to the questionnaire in Study One, including the most common and those we thought, based on our cultural knowledge, were most likely to refer to specific parts of female genitalia (e.g., button [clitoris], bush [pubic hair], camel's hoof [vulva], flaps [labia], and hole [vagina]). In this paper, we present a preliminary analysis of these data.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results confirmed our impression that terms for female genitalia frequently lack a precise referent. First, across all terms an average of 3.9 different meanings were given per term. For only 15 of the terms (30%) did 75% or more respondents agree on a particular meaning, while only two words (4%) showed complete agreement by respondents: beard (meaning pubic hair--although one participant designated it woman's carpet(10)), and clit (meaning clitoris). Second, respondents offered a range of meanings for standard slang terms: for example, pussy (vulva, vagina, pubic hair, clitoris, genital organ), twat (vulva, vagina, hymen), fanny (vulva, vagina, clitoris and vagina, pubic hair, cunt), minge (vulva, vagina, labia, pubic hair), and cunt (vulva, vagina). Third, respondents also disagreed about the meanings of some terms we thought were quite specific. For example, muff (which we both thought was pubic hair) was understood by some respondents to mean pubic hair but by others to mean vulva, vagina, or bottom area; Bermuda triangle was understood by some to mean public hair, but by others to mean vagina, vulva, or labia.

Other evidence for imprecision came from the proportion of respondents who indicated that they had "just guessed" what a particular FGT referred to (M = 41%, range 0%-100%). If meaning were fixed or certain, respondents would be expected to know what a term meant if they had heard it. Moreover, even when participants did not guess the meaning of a term (i.e., were either quite sure or very sure), they still frequently disagreed. For instance, in relation to the term fanny, the 12 very sure answers were divided between vagina (6 responses, 1 of which included hole, and 1 of which included bum),(11) vulva (4), clitoris (1, with vagina) and cunt (l). The seven respondents who were quite sure they knew what fanny meant were divided between vulva (4) and vagina (3). Using bearded clam as another example, three respondents were very sure they knew what it referred to: one chose vagina, one chose pubic hair and one chose clitoris. Eight were quite sure about their answers: three indicated pubic hair, two indicated vulva, one the whole genital area, one pudenda, and the other indicated vagina. Looking at the standard slang term pussy, of seven respondents who were very sure of its particular meaning: six said vagina (one added pubic hair), and the other said the whole thing. However, of the 15 respondents who were quite sure of its meaning, 5 indicated vulva (one added pubic hair), 5 indicated pubic hair, 4 indicated vagina (1 added surrounding area), and 1 indicated clitoris. Even though some participants appear to be certain of a particular meaning (e.g., vagina), others are not, or are certain of a different meaning. Clearly, what people are quite sure or very sure female genital slang terms refer to can differ quite dramatically.

The apparent interchangeability of the terms vulva and vagina (or vulva and another part of the female genitalia) was widespread, and might reflect the metonymic relationship between vagina and vulva noted by previous authors (e.g., Allan, 1990; Ash, 1980a, 1980b): while vulva is seldom spoken, vagina comes to stand for it. (Note that in Study One, vagina was generated by 162 respondents, vulva by 4.) As Allan (1990) commented, "I use the term vagina with its' normal meaning in our community, namely to denote `the female genitalia' or `cunt'" (p. 192, emphasis added). Gifts (or boys; Karpf, 1991) are rarely taught the anatomical terms which differentiate parts of female genitalia (e.g., the clitoris, the inner and outer labia)--the word vagina covers the whole area (Gartrell & Mosbacher, 1984; Lerner, 1976). Despite having been given a labeled anatomical drawing, our respondents might have been uncertain about what vagina and vulva actually were, and how they differed from each other. Similarly, the apparently widespread "lay" use of vagina as female genitals might have overridden the anatomically specific meaning we were trying to access (which was suggested by definitions like outside of vagina for muff). This raises the question of "what do you call the vagina, if vagina means `the female genitalia'?" Similarly, what is wrong with the term vulva? Why does it continue to be so unspeakable? Ash (1980b) identifies the vulva as a psycholinguistic problem and suggests that lack of use results from it being seen as a "nothing" organ. While vagina has effectively moved from a medical to a lay register (although with an apparent partial change in denotation), vulva appears to remain virtually solely within a medical register. Even there, lack of general understanding limits its use. As McWilliam & O'Donnell (1998) report their case-study Lucy commenting, "`I never [say] ... can I just have a look at your vulva. You know you just don't hear it, but that's what you're wanting to look at'" (p. 96).

Female genital slang, then, does not appear to have precise or consistent meanings--it was frequently either not perceived as referring to specific parts (just to the whole thing) or, if some more precise meaning was attributed, then different genital parts were understood. This lack of precision and consistency makes it more difficult for women to verbally communicate with sexual partners about the location of sensations, to name what they are feeling, and to explore the range of sensations possible in different locations.(12) In relation to anatomical terminology, Lerner (1976) warned that "the failure [by parents] to explicitly acknowledge and label the girl's external genitals, especially the clitoris, cannot help but have pathogenic consequences" (p. 275). In a 1991 article in New Woman titled "And What Do Little Girls Have?" she referred to this practice as "psychic genital mutilation" (cited in Blank, 1995, pages not numbered). Brumberg (1997) suggests that the use of anatomical terminology over euphemism connotes a lack of shame that must be psychologically beneficial for girls in adolescence, while Ash (1980a) points to the importance of correct genital naming for sex and sexual knowledge. Lack of precision in naming genitalia may be problematic for girls and women learning to understand and appreciate their genitalia and their sexuality (Lerner, 1976; see also Gartrell & Mosbacher, 1984), and may impede discussion of sexual practices (see Cornog, 1986). Without focusing on notions of pathology, we have a concern about the effects of slang on women's experience of their genitalia and their sexuality. A language that does not enable women to talk about the different parts of the genitalia, or to conceptualize the genitalia as constructed of various parts, might perpetuate the absence of women's genitalia from their conceptualized body.

Issues around language, naming, and communication also potentially affect women's genito-urinary medical interactions and experiences of childbirth. Anatomical terminology and slang exist in competing registers, and offer different possibilities for communication in such contexts (see McWilliam & O'Donnell, 1998, p. 96, for comments on language from a health worker's perspective; see also Ammerman, Perelli, Adler, & Irwin, 1992). The lack, or imprecision, of language reinforces both the passivity and powerlessness of the female patient within this context, and the power of the doctor to name and define (or not) the female body and genitalia. It can also affect women's ability to communicate about their bodies and sexuality in research settings (e.g., see Bell & Apfel, 1995; Holland, Ramazanoglu, Sharpe, & Thomson, 1994).

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we have outlined sex differences in the generation of slang terms for the genitalia, explored the semantic categories evident in such slang, and examined nonspecificity as a feature of FGTs.

In Study One, respondents generated significantly more slang terms for male than for female genitalia, and men produced significantly more terms than women, both for their own and for female genitalia--although in real terms the only notable difference was between men producing MGTs and women producing FGTs. This confirms previous findings in which men have competed to provide greater numbers of terms (Cameron, 1992), and may reflect men's purported greater ease in talking about genitalia and sexual issues (at least in the jocular language of slang). Jackson (1999) notes a recent British project which found that among girls, "even when sexual knowledge is shared it is often piece-meal and shrouded with innuendo" (p. 35).

Content analysis of the terms generated also confirms previous work (Richter, 1987; also Green, 1999) on the categories found in FGTs and MGTs. Compared with male genitalia, female genitalia were significantly more likely to be described euphemistically, or to be referred to with terms connoting space, receptacle, abjection, hair, animals, and money. The persistence of these associations with female genitalia over centuries of slang usage is also evidenced by the etymological origin of many other slang terms. For example, the origins of many terms represent the female genitalia as receptacles. A beaver was a hat made from felted beaver fur: "a hat is a concave object into which a man puts his head; and the glans penis . is often referred to as its head" (Allan & Burridge, 1991, p. 111). Growler used to mean a large bucket or pitcher used to carry liquid (Partridge, 1982); twat may be derived from twatchel which meant passage (Richter, 1987); and pussy apparently derived not from a small furry animal, but from the old Norse puss, meaning a pouch or purse (Allan & Burridge, 1991). Recent coinages generated by our respondents which invoked modern technology to encode the same ancient idea of female genitalia as receptacle included disk drive and input device. Similarly, many slang terms which do not today have monetary meanings originally carried financial connotations: both gee and lettuce initially meant money (Wentworth & Flexner, 1975) and lulu meant "any item that may be listed in an official expense account and that is regarded as in lieu of money payment as part of a salary. (from `Lieu')" (Wentworth & Flexner, 1975, p. 328).

We have not examined any comprehensive studies of slang terms for the female genitalia in other languages, but it may be that similar themes recur. For example, the conceptual absence embodied in terms like private parts or privates is represented in the Dutch schmaadelen (shameful parts), the Indonesian kemaluan (shame, embarrassment), and the Latin Pudendum ("that of which one ought to be ashamed") (Allan, 1990, p. 164). An article in Maledicta on "Japanese Sexual Maledicta" suggests that financial implications (and those of receptacle) are embodied in the Japanese isoginachaku, a sea purse, a type of sea anemone which "has the senses `round coin purse (which when squeezed, opens the slit)' and `vagina'" (Solt, 1982, cited in Allan & Burridge, 1991, p. 111). Research would be needed to ascertain whether such themes are consistently present the way they appear to be in English slang.

The development of new slang terms, whether in seventeenth century Britain or in the UK today, seems to draw on and encode similar tropes of female genitalia. Despite the inventiveness of slang, and the "creative play with language" (Cameron, 1992, p. 372) which is evident, the conceptual frameworks it draws on and the meanings it thus implicitly or explicitly reproduces appear to be robust and resistant to change. New slang terms appear to fit within the same categories, rather than radically challenging them. If we take slang categories as providing a conceptual framework for making sense of female (and male) genitalia, for at least partially producing the object that they describe, then the questions we need to ask are what categories appear to make sense, what becomes relevant in these terms, and what do they implicitly tell us. Receptacle slang, for example, constructs the female genitalia as a place for the penis, mirroring a much more widespread sociocultural representation of female genitals as receptacle (see Braun & Wilkinson, 2001), and while these terms might have different connotations for the individual user in specific contexts, they also carry category-bound assumptions. We are not suggesting that people necessarily consciously intend to invoke these implicit meanings with slang, but these assumptions are worthy of examination. Looking at one does not preclude an analysis of the other. So while Cornog (1986) suggests play and eroticism as one function of genital pet names, and while this is undoubtedly the case, other meanings can be simultaneously invoked.

So what does our collection of FGTs tell us about the way women's genitals are constructed in contemporary British society? Some terms we would classify as neutral, if not actually positive, do exist, and common categories like hair seem to be primarily euphemistic rather than directly derogatory. The use of personification terms might suggest women are claiming their genitals through naming them. (Note, however, that much of the personification category reflected the widespread use of the term fanny). However, such terms have not displaced other terms such as gash and cunt that feminists have critiqued in the past. On the basis of our data, it seems that women's genitalia continue to be represented in a more derogatory way than are men's, and FGTs that convey disgust (abjection terms) are more likely to be produced by men. There were few MGTs, produced by either men or women, that conveyed disgust in the same way. The absence of arguably more positive categories in FGTs compared to MGTs, like leisure or sporting equipment, for example, or musical instruments, suggest that women's genitalia can (still) only be conceptualized in certain ways.

As Study Two showed, slang terms for women's genitalia are also problematic in that they are often extremely imprecise and lack agreed meanings. We found that respondents disagreed about the specific meaning of even the most common slang terms. However, slang is not necessarily imprecise. In Roger's Profanisaurus (1998), terms for women's genitals are rivaled, both in number and specificity, by words which distinguish between different kinds of excreta: It carefully differentiates between turds of different consistency (cable laying and bovril bullets vs. crop spraying and bum gravy), size (from small pebbles through larger brown trouts and chocolate sharks to enormous groaners or U-blockers), relative buoyancy (floaters, chocolate icebergs, depth charge, and clarts), and between the turtle's head (the initial protrusion of a stool) and the tail ender. Such slang provides a very detailed and specific vocabulary for talking about excreta.

The lack of precision, and the failure to name the specific parts of the female genitalia in slang implies a corresponding lack of interest in, or attention to, the details of those genitalia, their functions and sensations. The absence of linguistic differentiation suggests an absence of conceptual differentiation: It invokes (hetero)sexual encounters predicated upon female genitalia as simply a hole to be filled. Neither women (heterosexual or lesbian), nor men who sleep with women, have apparently found it necessary to develop a precise and specific language with which to describe and discuss female genital sensations during sex or childbirth, or in health care contexts. Whatever slang terms women might use to refer to their genitals, it appears to primarily only offer general meanings.

These two studies provide evidence for a wide range of semantic categories in FGTs and MGTs, and for the lack of specificity in FGTs, but they are not without limitations. In Study One, our data were gathered using a questionnaire with a limited number of spaces, and we might, inadvertently, have limited the number of responses people gave, although participants were instructed on the questionnaire to continue overleaf if they knew more terms. More importantly, our data do not tell us anything about slang in use, or about people's evaluations of slang. Both of these would provide fruitful areas for future genital slang research. Which words people use, and why, and in what contexts, is amenable to study both via questionnaire (it would extend work done already; Sanders & Robinson, 1979; Simkins & Rinck, 1982) and, more relevantly, via either naturally occurring conversation or with focus groups or interviews. The gynecological or obstetrical context would be a particularly important one in which to explore this. An interesting area for examining specificity of slang in more detail would be to look at the use of genital slang between sexual partners (heterosexuals, lesbians, gay men) to examine whether a specific vocabulary (even if idiosyncratic) is used. The clitoris in slang also warrants further attention. Finally, further study could examine the question of specificity in MGTs. Many seem to refer to the (anatomical) penis or testicles, but this could be ascertained for certain, and it would be interesting to see whether the vagina/vulva conflation is mirrored in MGTs. Does penis in lay use map only onto the anatomical penis, or is it conceptually broader, including testicles?

In summary, the prevalence of terms for women's genitalia that can be classified as derogatory or dismissive, or terms which are nonspecific and vague, continues, reflecting and perpetuating a cultural context in which women's genitalia are either conceptually absent or perceived negatively (Braun & Wilkinson, 2001). On the basis of these data, we have to conclude that slang does not (yet) provide a vocabulary which offers women a positive and enabling view of our genitals, and which allows us to communicate adequately about our genital sensations and experiences with sexual partners, friends, family, and health care providers.

(1) Kapsalis (1997) refers to this situation as one in which the vagina is simultaneously rendered "sacred" and "profane"--as something taboo, private, not talked about; and as something public, displayed in gynaecology and pornography. It is worth considering this apparently inconsistent tension--private and public, simultaneously-and the effects that it has on women's sexuality and oppression. (Men's genitals are presumably also both sacred and profane [e.g., see Bordo, 1999], although not in entirely the same way as women's genitals.)

(2) What slang actually is, is hard to define (de Klerk, 1990; McArthur, 1992), and the term is used in a variety of ways. In this paper, we use it to refer to terms not accepted as good and formal English (Hummon, 1994), and as such, include speech terms characterized as informal, euphemism, swear words and taboo terms, as well as what Cornog (1981) identifies as pet names.

(3) Two additional columns were provided to the right of the FGT column and the right of the MGT column. These were labelled like and use, and participants were instructed to tick or cross each column if they particularly liked/disliked a term, or used/did not use a term, respectively. However, responses in these columns were very inconsistent and infrequent, and did not generate enough data to be usable.

(4) Many of the tests for sex differences in the generation of slang were not statistically significant, and throughout this paper, we only report the significant findings. It is also worth noting that while there were some significant sex differences in the generation of FGTs and MGTs within a category, the magnitude of these differences was negligible in many instances (see Table 5), and points, perhaps, to an increase in the awareness of slang terms among women.

(5) All percentages have been rounded to the nearest 0.5%.

(6) While space might appear to be common-sense meaning that reflects reality--the vagina is a hole (to be filled), an idea similarly invoked in the "gaping" vagina evident in medical texts (Downer, 1980)--an aim of this paper is to identify, and thus problematise, metaphors which are so culturally embedded as to seem natural and possibly incontestable. In so doing, we are not claiming that people consciously invoke these meanings.

(7) However, it is also worth noting that in contemporary British and North American culture hairiness is highly undesirable on women: we are expected to remove any sight of it from much of our bodies (Basow & Braman, 1998; Greer, 1999; Kitzinger & Willmott, in press).

(8) The terms dick and willy comprised 426 of the 498 MGTs. The term fanny, while now rarely used as a woman's name in the UK, has been included in this category, and comprised 214 of the 233 FGTs.

(9) In Britain, a kebab primarily refers to (pulverised) meat sliced from a large spit (as opposed to grilled chunks of skewered meat) and placed in pita bread with salad and dressings.

(10) Despite being asked to provide an anatomical definition, slang terms were used on a number of other occasions to define the slang term given--for instance, fadge and bush were defined as fanny, hole was defined as cunt, and tuppence was defined as twat--from which no conclusions can be drawn. Some participants also used terms like entire vagina (defining beaver) or outer part of vagina (defining flaps), which suggest a conflation of the anatomical vagina and vulva.

(11) Where more than one term was given, the first term was taken as the main definition, and a note kept of additional definitions.

(12) Bright (1997) notes a stark contrast: "`I never met a man who told me he didn't know how to come, or didn't know where his penis was.' That pretty much sums up the dilemma of women's sexual responsiveness. Lots of women have never even said the word `clitoris,' or touched their clit, and don't really have a good idea about their genitals at all" (p. 138).

The research reported here formed part of Virginia Braun's PhD, supervised (in part) by Celia Kitzinger, conducted at Loughborough University, and funded by the Association of Commonwealth Universities. We would like to thank Victoria Clarke, Antoinette Hardy, Dennis Howitt, Pirjo Nikander, Sue Wilkinson, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments of an earlier version of this paper.

REFERENCES

Adams, C. J. (1990). The sexual politics of meat. Cambridge, England: Polity.

Allan, K. (1990). Some English terms of insult invoking sex organs: Evidence of a pragmatic driver for semantics. In S. L. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization (pp. 159-194). London: Routledge.

Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (1991). Euphemism & dysphemism: Language used as a shield and a weapon. New York: Oxford University Press.

Aman, R., & Friends. (1981). What is this thing called, love? More genital pet names. Maledicta, 5, 41-44.

Aman, R., & Sardo, G. (1982). Canadian sexual terms. Maledicta, 6, 21-28.

Ammerman, S. D., Perelli, E., Adler, N., & Irwin, C. E. (1992). Do adolescents understand what physicians say about sexuality and health? Clinical Pediatrics, 31, 590-595.

Ash, M. (1980a). The misnamed female sex organ. In M. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), Women's sexual development: Explorations of inner space (pp. 171-179). New York: Plenum Press.

Ash, M. (1980b). The vulva: A psycholinguistic problem. Maledicta, 4, 213-219.

Basow, S. A., & Braman, A. C. (1998). Women and body hair: Social perceptions and attitudes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 637-645.

Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1985). Dangers of the vagina. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 58, 351-356.

Bell, S. E., & Apfel, R. J. (1995). Looking at bodies: Insights and inquiries about DES-related cancer. Qualitative Sociology, 18, 3-19.

Blank, J. (Ed.). (1995). Femalia. San Francisco: Down There Press.

Bordo, S. (1999). The male body: A new look at men in public and in private. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Boston Women's Health Book Collective. (1992). The new our bodies ourselves. New York: Touchstone.

Boynton, P. (1999). "Is that supposed to be sexy?" Women discuss women in `Top Shelf' magazines. Journal of Applied Social and Community Psychology, 9, 449-461.

Braun, V. (1998). Doing `ignorance' and `expertise' in the Silly Willy extract. Unpublished manuscript.

Braun, V. (1999). Breaking a taboo? Talking (and laughing) about the vagina. Feminism & Psychology, 9, 367-372.

Braun, V., & Kitzinger, C. (2001). Telling it straight? Dictionary definitions of women's genitals. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5, 214-232.

Braun, V., & Wilkinson, S. (2001). Socio-cultural representations of the vagina. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 19, 17-32.

Bright, S. (1997). The sexual state of the union. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Brumberg, J. J. (1997). The body project: An intimate history of American girls. New York: Vintage Books.

Bulletin. (1994, June 27). The Guardian, G2, p. 10.

Cameron, D. (1992). Naming of parts: Gender, culture, and terms for the penis among American college students. American Speech, 67, 367-382.

Cohen, M. (1978). The mysterious origins of the word "clitoris." In T. P. Lowry (Ed.), The classic clitoris: Historic contributions to scientific sexuality (pp. 5-9). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Coombs, R. H., Chopra, S., Schenk, D. R., & Yutan, E. (1993). Medical slang and its functions. Social Science & Medicine, 26, 987-998.

Cornog, M. (1981). Tom, Dick and Hairy: Notes on genital pet names. Maledicta, 5, 31-40.

Cornog, M. (1986). Naming sexual body parts: Preliminary patterns and implications. The Journal of Sex Research, 22, 393-398.

Crawford, M. (1995). Talking difference. London: Sage.

Downer, C. (1980). Self-help for women. In M. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), Women's sexual development: Explorations of inner space (pp. 255-271). New York: Plenum Press.

Garber, M. (1993). Spare parts: The surgical construction of gender. In H. Abelove, M. A. Barale, & D. M. Halperin (Eds.), The lesbian and gay studies reader (pp. 321-336). New York: Routledge.

Gartrell, N., & Mosbacher, D. (1984). Sex differences in the naming of children's genitalia. Sex Roles, 10, 869-876.

Gibbs, R. W., & Nagaoka, A. (1985). Getting the hang of American slang: Studies on understanding and remembering slang metaphors. Language and Speech, 28, 177-194.

Gordon, M. (1993). Sexual slang and gender. Women and Language, 16(2), 16-21.

Green, J. (1999). The big book of filth. London: Cassell.

Green, J. (Ed.). (1998). The Cassell dictionary of slang. London: Cassell.

Greer, G. (1970). The female eunuch. London: Paladin.

Greer, G. (1986). Lady, love your cunt. In The mad woman's underclothes: Essays and occasional writings 1968-1985 (pp. 74-77). London: Picador. (Originally published 1971.)

Greer, G. (1999). The whole woman. London: Doubleday.

Grossman, A. L., & Tucker, J. S. (1997). Gender differences and sexism in the knowledge and use of slang. Sex Roles, 37, 101-110.

Held, S. (1980). Another name for "down there." In G. Kaufman & M. K. Blakely (Eds.), Pulling our own strings: Feminist humor and satire (p. 184). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Hill, D. (1998, November 26). Members only. The Guardian, G2, pp. 6-7.

Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, C., Sharpe, S., & Thomson, R. (1994). Power and desire: The embodiment of female sexuality. Feminist Review, 46, 21-38.

Hughes, G. (1988). Words in time: A social history of English vocabulary. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.

Hughes, G. (1991). Swearing: A social history of foul language, oaths and profanity in English. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Hughes, S. E. (1992). Expletives of lower working-class women. Language in Society, 21, 291-303.

Hummon, D. M. (1994). College slang revisited: Language, culture and undergraduate life. Journal of Higher Education, 65, 75-98.

Jackson, S. (1999). Different decade, same shit. Trouble & Strife, 39, 30-40.

Jay, T. B. (1980). Sex roles and dirty word usage: A review of the literature and reply to Haas. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 614-621.

Kanner, L. (1944). A philological note on sex organ nomenclature. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 14, 228-233.

Kapsalis, T. (1997). Public privates: Performing gynecology from both ends of the speculum. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Karpf, A. (1991, December 4). What's in a name? The Guardian, p. 33.

Kitzinger, C., & Willmott, J. (in press). The thief of womanhood: Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome. Social Science & Medicine.

de Klerk, V. (1990). Slang: A male domain? Sex Roles, 22, 589-606.

de Klerk, V. (1992). How taboo are taboo words for girls? Language in Society, 21, 277-289.

Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman's place. New York: Harper & Row.

Lees, S. (1993). Sugar and spice: Sexuality and adolescent girls. London: Penguin.

Lerner, H. E. (1976). Parental mislabeling of female genitals as a determinant of penis envy and learning inhibitions in women. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 24(Suppl.), 269-283.

Loulan, J. (1984). Lesbian sex. San Francisco: Spinsters Ink.

McArthur, A. (Ed.). (1992). The Oxford companion to the English language. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

McClintock, A. (1992). Gonad the barbarian and the Venus flytrap. In L. Segal & M. McIntosh (Eds.), Sex exposed: Sexuality and the pornography debate (pp. 111-131). London: Virago.

McConville, B., & Shearlaw, J. (1984). The slanguage of sex. London: Macdonald & Co.

McWilliam, E., & O'Donnell, S. (1998). Probing protocols: The genital examination as a pedagogical event. Body & Society, 4(3), 85-101.

Mills, J. (1991). Womanwords: A vocabulary of culture and patriarchal society. London: Virago.

Mills, S. (1995). Feminist stylistics. London: Routledge.

Money, J. (1982). To quim and to swive: Linguistic and coital parity, male and female. The Journal of Sex Research, 18, 173-176.

Montagu, A. (1967). The anatomy of swearing. London: Rapp & Whiting.

Moore, K. L. (1992). Clinically oriented anatomy (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.

Murnen, S. K. (in press). Gender and the use of sexually degrading language. Psychology of Women Quarterly.

Partridge, E. (1982). A dictionary of slang and unconventional English (7th ed.). London: Bibliophile Books.

Potts, A. (in press). The man with two brains: Hegemonic masculine subjectivity and the discursive construction of the unreasonable penis-self. Journal of Gender Studies.

Richter, A. (1987). The language of sexuality. London: McFarland & Co.

Roger's Profanisaurus. (1998). London: John Brown Publishing.

Sanders, J. S., & Robinson, W. L. (1979). Talking and not talking about sex: Male and female vocabularies. Journal of Communication, 29, 22-30.

Simkins, L., & Rinck, C. (1982). Male and female sexual vocabulary in different interpersonal contexts. The Journal of Sex Research, 18, 160-172.

Sutton, L. A. (1995). Bitches and skankly hobags: The place of women in contemporary slang. In K. Hall & M. Bucholtz (Eds.), Gender articulated: Language and the socially constructed self (pp. 279-296). New York: Routledge.

Ussher, J. (1989). The psychology of the female body. London: Routledge.

Weatherall, A., & Walton, M. (1999). The metaphorical construction of sexual experience in a speech community of New Zealand university students. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 479-498.

Weijts, W., Houtkoop, H., & Mullen, P. (1993). Talking delicacy: Speaking about sexuality during gynaecological consultations. Sociology of Health and Illness, 15, 295-314.

Wentworth, H., & Flexner, S. B. (Eds.). (1975). Dictionary of American slang (2nd supplemented ed.). New York: Crowell.

Manuscript accepted April 13, 2001

Address correspondence to Virginia Braun, Department of Psychology, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand; e-mail: v. [e-mail].