Just posted on my X blog: “Today’s remarkable underwear”, with more ways of referring to a man’s genitals. In a description of Pulse mesh underwear:
A perfect men’s underwear pick for those who like to show off the goods.
Then in a description of Male Power’s Super Sock:
It’s not a jock (there are no legstraps), it’s not a thong (there is no butt strap), just a waistband and pouch that holds your boys.
And, most indirectly of all, in a description of the Good Devil Suspend Pouch:
A perfect pouch that covers the essential areas and holds everything in place …
In earlier postings on this blog (“Genital junk”, here, and “Package deal”, here), we’ve seen:
deal, package, junk, unit, stuff, family jewels, tenders, equipment
(For the family jewels illustrated, see here.) And now goods. Boys has come up before, in an “Xmas package” posting, with the ad copy:
your boys are protected from rubbing against the zipper [in the Junk Underpants Paradox Trunk]
about which I said:
Note also boys ‘balls, testicles’ in the copy. (Guys is similarly used.)
But it’s not entirely clear to me in this ad copy or in the Super Sock copy that boys there refers only to the testicles; it might cover three boys (including the penis).
Of course, there’s also crotch to refer to the genital area and basket to refer to the genitals, especially as viewed in outline through clothes. (Note also moose knuckle for a hi-def basket.)
All of this package vocabulary can be used with the definite article the (with the possessor of the package to be determined from context or understood to be men in general) or with an explicit possessive determiner: the goods, his goods.
(The exceptionally modest the essential areas and everything — a man’s thing plus its companions — work only given a lot of context. The second doesn’t allow determiners, though the first does, but I’m not sure that things like This pouch covers my essential areas work for me.)
Bonus: a continuation of my inventory of sexy stuff on my X blog (here), bringing things up to date since May 14:
5/17/11: The lure of lace (link): lace underwear for men
5/17/11: Cumshots (link): to accompany “?Portmanteau” on this blog (here)
5/20/11: Pornographers in a holiday mood (link): porn in a military setting for Armed Forces Day
5/20/11: Crotch, or basket, shots (link): two moose-knuckle photos
6/1/11: Pouchwear (link): underwear with snap pouches, for displaying your basket
6/12/11: Fat and upcurved (link): Czech pornstar Viktor Jones displaying his equipment
And now today’s posting.
June 14, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
Arne Adolfsen on Facebook, with the package term sack:
June 15, 2011 at 6:37 am |
And Season Taylor on Facebook, with your business, as in “what is the point if your business keeps falling out of there?”
June 15, 2011 at 8:00 am |
I’ve recently read a whole sociolinguistics paper about words for penis. Do you have any plans to turn these observations into a linguistics paper? You seem to have catalogued a number of language and gender/sexuality/ideology/social-stuff-more-generally topics quite extensively on your blog, and I could see them becoming some really fun papers. Not that they’re not good blog posts, of course. (Apologies if that’s an unwelcome question).
–IP
June 15, 2011 at 8:37 am |
What’s the sociolinguistics paper? I seem to have missed it.
As for publishing my stuff in papers (or giving papers on it at conferences), I’ve had a very bad track record over the last ten years and have pretty much given up, in favor of using my blogs.
June 15, 2011 at 10:03 am |
I guess that’s a loss for the rest of us, but fair enough. The paper I was thinking of is:
Cameron, Deborah. 1992. “Naming of Parts: Gender, Culture, and Terms for the Penis Among American College Students”. American Speech, Vol. 67, No. 4. pp. 367-382.
It’s also anthologised in Cameron’s “On Language and Sexual Politics”, which has a short intro about the paper.
–IP
June 15, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
Ah, I now remember this paper. But it is from 20 years ago. Now to re-consult it.
June 16, 2011 at 10:51 am |
Ah well, some of us were too busy with school 20 years ago to be reading linguistics papers. Anyway, would be interested to read your thoughts on it.
–IP
December 19, 2011 at 10:58 am |
[…] to euphemistic deal, package, junk, unit, stuff, family jewels, tenders, equipment, and goods (see here, with links to earlier […]