Psychology of insults [NSFW - Language]

[Tridimity]

This ought not to warrant the status of 'topic' since it is a mere observational bugbear of mine. Has anyone else noticed that most of the obscene terms intended as insults do not actually make much sense as derogatory terms? This is especially true when the labels of genitalia are hijacked as slang terms and directed as an insult. In any other context, the reference to a functional part of the reproductive anatomy essential for perpetuation of the species - even in relation to oneself - would not be considered offensive. Probably the reason that people feel offense is because of the implicit intention of the insulter - to hurt the feelings of the insulted - and because of the unspoken consensus regarding the meaning of the term. For example, the term may mean, 'one who acts without restraint and pursues only self-interest; inconsiderate'. So why not just call somebody 'inconsiderate' instead of hijacking terminology reserved for functional anatomy?

[ajb]

I do find calling someone a "lady's part" odd as most of us guys quite like lady's parts ;-)

[Phi for All]

I was going to start this topic a month ago, thanks for bringing it up.

 

Especially in the US, where many folks have an aversion to anyone enjoying sex, I find it perverse that we should use genitalia and sexual references as derogatory insults. Fuck me? Yes, please! How is that supposed to be insulting unless the one uttering it thinks copulation is a horrible thing?

 

It's probably safe to say it's male generated. Why else would "pussy" be considered weak when having "balls" makes you tough? The exact opposite is true. As supportive evidence, I propose a test where a man kicks a woman between the legs and the woman does the same to the man.

 

It could be that this is an attempt to get very personal with the person you're insulting, but I think it's very unhealthy. Sex shouldn't have all this negative baggage. I think it's an unconscious but puritanical attempt to put women down and demean the act of sex.

[John Cuthber]

I was always puzzled by the idea that calling someone a wanker is perceived as an insult when it's very likely to be a statement of fact.

[ajb]

I was always puzzled by the idea that calling someone a wanker is perceived as an insult when it's very likely to be a statement of fact.

 

Takes one to know one John!

[Strange]

Especially in the US, where many folks have an aversion to anyone enjoying sex, I find it perverse that we should use genitalia and sexual references as derogatory insults.

I don't think it is an aversion to enjoying sex as a dislike of public displays/discussion. This makes the words taboo and that is why they are used as swearwords.

 

In the past (and in some other cultures) most swearwords were religious in nature (because it was taboo to defame god). That is why they are called curses or swear words.

 

Once taboo words become swearwords then they lose both their original meaning (no one who says "fuck me!" as an exclamation is expecting it to be treated as an invitation) and, to some extent, their original grammatical function. Hence they come to be used as insults rather than straightforward nouns or verbs.

 

If we didn't have any taboo words, we would soon invent some. It appears to be an essential psychological and linguistic need.

[Phi for All]

I don't think it is an aversion to enjoying sex as a dislike of public displays/discussion. This makes the words taboo and that is why they are used as swearwords.

 

I'll be clearer then. I think much of the religious right in the US has an unhealthy attitude towards sexual relationships, especially ones they can't control, or that run contrary to the way they interpret their religious documents. I think they quite literally see sexual enjoyment as a sin (sometimes, even if they're married). I could see where this might lead some to start using sexual terminology as a form of hate speech.

 

If we didn't have any taboo words, we would soon invent some. It appears to be an essential psychological and linguistic need.

 

Fantastic! Let's do that instead of ruining (NOT "fucking up") something that shouldn't be so negative.

[iNow]

I tend to agree with Phi, but I would supplement it by recognizing these terms tend to originate in adolescents. The actions and words are taboo in our culture (sex, poop, private body parts, etc.), they are not discussed, they are "adult." Children have a natural curiosity about them precisely because they've been told to avoid them... the words have been made off-limits... the words are a forbidden fruit... and so children as they explore and push the boundaries of social mores tend to find ways to explore the words in other contexts.

 

Think of a 3 or 4 year old who giggles and can't stop laughing giddily because someone said "poo poo head" or "he said butt!! hahabwahaha!!" Yes, they are natural parts of our biology and physiology, but they are generally terms and phrases considered "inappropriate" for children. I think it's precisely because children are told not to use those words or reference those parts of our anatomy that these words take on greater significance in the mind of the child. They become like Voldemort in Harry Potter, the one who shall not be named... stronger precisely because we cannot say it.

 

Carrying this thought forward, I posit that when we as children insult someone or try to assert our own dominance in social situations, we want our words to be as powerful and impactful as possible... What better way to do it than by using the words with the most power... Words everyone knows should not be used at all?

 

I think that's the foundation of this issue. The basic approach and syntax of the insult begins in childhood, children choose the insult that is going to result in the strongest reaction and so use words and descriptors that are out-of-bounds or inappropriate, and then the concepts used to fill in those blanks merely evolve as we grow into adults. We use new words and new ways to insult, but are essentially following the same basic pattern and syntax as we did in pre-pubescent years... and if you disagree, you're just a booger face who smells like caca!

[Tridimity]

I do find calling someone a "lady's part" odd as most of us guys quite like lady's parts ;-)

 

Exactly

 

I was going to start this topic a month ago, thanks for bringing it up.

 

Especially in the US, where many folks have an aversion to anyone enjoying sex, I find it perverse that we should use genitalia and sexual references as derogatory insults. Fuck me? Yes, please! How is that supposed to be insulting unless the one uttering it thinks copulation is a horrible thing?

 

It's probably safe to say it's male generated. Why else would "pussy" be considered weak when having "balls" makes you tough? The exact opposite is true. As supportive evidence, I propose a test where a man kicks a woman between the legs and the woman does the same to the man.

 

It could be that this is an attempt to get very personal with the person you're insulting, but I think it's very unhealthy. Sex shouldn't have all this negative baggage. I think it's an unconscious but puritanical attempt to put women down and demean the act of sex.

 

Agreed, the side-effect is to demonise the act of sexual intercourse. Why can people not just accept the fact it happens and is natural and necessary? Perhaps it is a religious hangover here in the UK and in the US. Perhaps if we stop indoctrinating subsequent generations of children and stifling their curiosity on this matter then the subject would no longer be taboo; the cycle of unwarranted societal-induced shame could be broken once and for all.

 

I was always puzzled by the idea that calling someone a wanker is perceived as an insult when it's very likely to be a statement of fact.

 

According to one study, ~90% of people reported that they have masturbated. So unless the insulter is one of the 1-in-10 who abstain, then frankly they are a hypocrite. In a world of finite resources and increasing population levels, the individual who uses this as an outlet may be more responsible than the person who brings into the world more offspring than can be maintained by them as parents, or by the world at large.

 

 

Takes one to know one John!

 

 

I don't think it is an aversion to enjoying sex as a dislike of public displays/discussion. This makes the words taboo and that is why they are used as swearwords.

 

In the past (and in some other cultures) most swearwords were religious in nature (because it was taboo to defame god). That is why they are called curses or swear words.

 

Once taboo words become swearwords then they lose both their original meaning (no one who says "fuck me!" as an exclamation is expecting it to be treated as an invitation) and, to some extent, their original grammatical function. Hence they come to be used as insults rather than straightforward nouns or verbs.

 

If we didn't have any taboo words, we would soon invent some. It appears to be an essential psychological and linguistic need.

 

Yes, there is probably a degree of religious hangover going on.

 

I tend to agree with Phi, but I would supplement it by recognizing these terms tend to originate in adolescents. The actions and words are taboo in our culture (sex, poop, private body parts, etc.), they are not discussed, they are "adult." Children have a natural curiosity about them precisely because they've been told to avoid them... the words have been made off-limits... the words are a forbidden fruit... and so children as they explore and push the boundaries of social mores tend to find ways to explore the words in other contexts.

 

Think of a 3 or 4 year old who giggles and can't stop laughing giddily because someone said "poo poo head" or "he said butt!! hahabwahaha!!" Yes, they are natural parts of our biology and physiology, but they are generally terms and phrases considered "inappropriate" for children. I think it's precisely because children are told not to use those words or reference those parts of our anatomy that these words take on greater significance in the mind of the child. They become like Voldemort in Harry Potter, the one who shall not be named... stronger precisely because we cannot say it.

 

Carrying this thought forward, I posit that when we as children insult someone or try to assert our own dominance in social situations, we want our words to be as powerful and impactful as possible... What better way to do it than by using the words with the most power... Words everyone knows should not be used at all?

 

I think that's the foundation of this issue. The basic approach and syntax of the insult begins in childhood, children choose the insult that is going to result in the strongest reaction and so use words and descriptors that are out-of-bounds or inappropriate, and then the concepts used to fill in those blanks merely evolve as we grow into adults. We use new words and new ways to insult, but are essentially following the same basic pattern and syntax as we did in pre-pubescent years... and if you disagree, you're just a booger face who smells like caca!

 

True. In order to liberate the terms from their negative connotations, perhaps the anatomical labels should not be out-of-bounds. Then perhaps insults could become more intelligent; people could say what they mean rather than hiding behind a non-communicative blanket insult. Maybe insults could evolve to become neutral instruments for feedback on behaviour.

[iNow]

According to one study, ~90% of people reported that they have masturbated. So unless the insulter is one of the 1-in-10 who abstain, then frankly they are a hypocrite.

You mean 1-in-10 who CLAIM that they abstain. I'm guessing the ACTUAL number of people who truly don't masturbate is significantly lower... but maybe I'm just a cynic, or projecting? Edited September 8, 2013 by iNow

[Deidre]

Sometimes, words can hurt...but probably depends on WHO is trying to hurt you. If a guy driving down the street, cuts me off and gives me the finger, who cares. But, if my boyfriend were to yell 'you're such a bitch,' that would be hurtful. (and I would break up with him...I don't tolerate name calling, and verbal abuse)

 

So to me, it depends on who is doing the insulting that matters more than the insult itself. I don't name call people so it's not something I understand when I see others doing it.

 

Online insulting is a whole other story. lol Have seen it in particular on math and science forums, and it's typically used by people who don't have sound logic or arguments, as in real life, they resort to name calling, etc...

[Phi for All]

I was always puzzled by the idea that calling someone a wanker is perceived as an insult when it's very likely to be a statement of fact.

 

Same with "fucker". "You called me a what?! Oh, too true, well said, thank you!"

 

"Jerking off" is the American term for wanking, and it's abused as an insult too. It's been hijacked(!) to also mean wasting your time, being unproductive. Less of a hate message, but it still shows contempt for a sexual act.

[Deidre]

To call someone a jerk off is kind of weird, though. The insulter has essentially taken a verb and turned it into a noun, on top of it not making much sense to begin with!

 

Something I've never understood...is when someone says ''fuck me,'' to themselves, instead of exclaiming ''oh shit!'' It's often uttered when someone is upset, or something unexpectedly upsetting has happened.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Deidre

[Strange]

I'll be clearer then. I think much of the religious right in the US has an unhealthy attitude towards sexual relationships, especially ones they can't control, or that run contrary to the way they interpret their religious documents. I think they quite literally see sexual enjoyment as a sin (sometimes, even if they're married). I could see where this might lead some to start using sexual terminology as a form of hate speech.

 

I'm not sure it can be attributed to the religious right in the US. The change from swearwords being based on blasphemy to sexual words is common to most of the English speaking world. It is more likely due to more relaxed attitudes to religion that means that the old curses are no longer considered taboo.

 

It doesn't really matter what the subject is; if there are taboo words in a language, then they will be used as expletives. If it was taboo in a society to talk about mortality, for example, then "death!" might be the equivalent of "fuck!".

[iNow]

It's also about shame and being dirty. Shit is dirty. We hide when we defecate. Masturbation is considered shameful and embarrassing. That's why they're used as insults. We are seeking to shame the other person... to make them dirty. Words like fuck and other similar sexual words have been made dirty by the puritanical and the religious. If you can shame someone for a perfectly natural biological urge then you can control them more easily.

[ajb]

Same with "fucker".

Yes, I like to participate when I get chance...

[doG]

I usually just call them a 'tard' It usually draws a query as to what I mean so I get the chance to tell them they were never smart enough after being born stupid to get re-tarded....

[Villain]

 

I'll be clearer then. I think much of the religious right in the US has an unhealthy attitude towards sexual relationships, especially ones they can't control, or that run contrary to the way they interpret their religious documents. I think they quite literally see sexual enjoyment as a sin (sometimes, even if they're married). I could see where this might lead some to start using sexual terminology as a form of hate speech.

 

 

Is this meant as a joke?

[Phi for All]

 

Is this meant as a joke?

 

It wasn't meant to confuse anyone, but obviously failed.

[Villain]

 

It wasn't meant to confuse anyone, but obviously failed.

 

It just seemed so ridiculous to suggest that a portion of the current US population invented the use of sexual swear words.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Villain

[Deidre]

It wasn't meant to confuse anyone, but obviously failed.

First part is accurate about religion making some people view sex as sinful.

But, the advent of mud slinging "dirty words" could be from a number of areas and for a number of reasons.

[Phi for All]

 

It just seemed so ridiculous to suggest that a portion of the current US population invented the use of sexual swear words.

 

I see your confusion. It is ridiculous to conflate "I could see where this might lead some to start using sexual terminology as a form of hate speech" with "a portion of the current US population invented the use of sexual swear words". Good job catching your own strawman argument.

 

It's not about inventing them, it's about perpetuating their use. And I think the religious right in the US, perhaps the most extreme ones that make the news by shooting abortion doctors or condemning homosexuals or preaching abstinence in the face of reality, are actively perpetuating the use of derogatory sexual slurs. They don't approve of the way a great deal of people enjoy sex, so making it dirty and hateful seems like exercising their morality to them. And they never see this as imposing their will on others because God is behind it so it MUST be His will too!

 

I don't want this to devolve into a religious discussion. There are plenty of psychological reasons why certain groups might feel the need to collectively control the way people act and think through the use of language.

[Bill Angel]

Carrying this thought forward, I posit that when we as children insult someone or try to assert our own dominance in social situations, we want our words to be as powerful and impactful as possible... What better way to do it than by using the words with the most power... Words everyone knows should not be used at all? I think that's the foundation of this issue. The basic approach and syntax of the insult begins in childhood, children choose the insult that is going to result in the strongest reaction and so use words and descriptors that are out-of-bounds or inappropriate, and then the concepts used to fill in those blanks merely evolve as we grow into adults. We use new words and new ways to insult, but are essentially following the same basic pattern and syntax as we did in pre-pubescent years... and if you disagree, you're just a booger face who smells like caca!

That's an interesting observation. For my own part I have become baffled at how ubiquitous has become the usage of the term motherf**ker and motherf**king in spoken English. It seems that for certain individuals that I have encountered, one out of every four words that come out of their mouths are variants of that term. It's only one out of four, because they have to leave room in their speech for the insertion of other swear words, like "shit". Edited September 9, 2013 by Bill Angel

[Villain]

 

I see your confusion. It is ridiculous to conflate "I could see where this might lead some to start using sexual terminology as a form of hate speech" with "a portion of the current US population invented the use of sexual swear words". Good job catching your own strawman argument.

 

Oh so you were suggesting that those people start swearing for that reason in particular then? Lucky for them, they manage to avoid the reasons why everyone else starts swearing in order to fulfil this. Sorry for the conflation, I had no idea that you had such an amazing incite into these people. My mistake

[Tridimity]

 

It just seemed so ridiculous to suggest that a portion of the current US population invented the use of sexual swear words.

 

What is it about the concept that you deem outlandish? Nobody is suggesting that there was a formal round table discussion, or that the convention was borne of an exclusively American demographic. The terminology used will reflect the societal values and prejudices prevalent at the time of their invention - in this case, genophobia. Religious institutions tend to promote genophobic attitudes and have been known to do so historically - at a time when sexual swear words were being conceived (take or leave the pun). The religious right is still highly influential in the US. As such, Phi's hypothesis is reasonable.

 

I see your confusion. It is ridiculous to conflate "I could see where this might lead some to start using sexual terminology as a form of hate speech" with "a portion of the current US population invented the use of sexual swear words". Good job catching your own strawman argument.

 

It's not about inventing them, it's about perpetuating their use. And I think the religious right in the US, perhaps the most extreme ones that make the news by shooting abortion doctors or condemning homosexuals or preaching abstinence in the face of reality, are actively perpetuating the use of derogatory sexual slurs. They don't approve of the way a great deal of people enjoy sex, so making it dirty and hateful seems like exercising their morality to them. And they never see this as imposing their will on others because God is behind it so it MUST be His will too!

 

I don't want this to devolve into a religious discussion. There are plenty of psychological reasons why certain groups might feel the need to collectively control the way people act and think through the use of language.

 

 

 

Oh so you were suggesting that those people start swearing for that reason in particular then? Lucky for them, they manage to avoid the reasons why everyone else starts swearing in order to fulfil this. Sorry for the conflation, I had no idea that you had such an amazing incite into these people. My mistake

 

Villain - please read Phi's point above. The suggestion is not that religious institutions conspired to create a dictionary of insults based on sexual references. Nothing exists in isolation; the psychology of the religious individuals will have been a contributing factor - but because historically almost everyone was religious (indeed, it was typically lethal to be otherwise).

 

For example, the term 'slut', as we understand it today, originated in the 15th century, a time of high religiosity:

 

slut [sluht]

noun

1.

an immoral or dissolute woman; prostitute.

2.

Obsolete . a dirty, slovenly woman.

Origin:

1375–1425; late Middle English slutte; compare dial. slut mud, Norwegian (dial.) slutr sleet, impure liquid

Word story

Slut first appeared in the written language in 1402, according to the Oxford English Dictionary , that greatrepository of language information. At that time, slut meant roughly what one sense of slattern meanstoday: a slovenly, untidy woman or girl. It also apparently meant “kitchen maid” (”She is a cheerful slutwho keeps the pots scrubbed and the fires hot.”). By the end of the 15th century the sense “a womangiven to immoral or improper conduct” had come into use, and it is the only meaning in use today.Interestingly, the same second meaning, a promiscuous woman, developed for the term slattern.

 

 

 

Correlation does not necessarily equate to causation - but certainty about causation is not a pre-requisite for a reasonable hypothesis (indeed, there would be no point in the hypothesis if it were).

 

The language associated with insults has not caught up with the sexual revolution.