(no subject)
*Note the gravity of this first "essay’s" topic.(However, I would like to add that, though the title is mainly jocular in tone, it could become a serious topic of discussion. I am talking about slurs here - they ought not be taken too lightly.)
I’ve put this question to many a person during my last couple of weeks at school; now, I’ll put it to YOU - what is worse, being called a “ho” or a “skank”? (In this context, I treat the word “skank” as an insult, not the form of dance popularized by the form of music known as “ska.”)
I have already determined to my satisfaction that “slut” is a far worse insult than either “ho” or “skank” - I say this is so because of the strength of the word, the sound it makes, the harsh roll of the tongue in forming the word. However, the severity of “ho” and “skank” has yet to be determined.
Wikipedia defines “ho” as “a slang contraction of whore.” Now, when either “ho” or “skank” is used to insult somebody, usually female, it derides the victim for her sexual forwardness. It is also used to insult her form of dress, which tends to leave little to the imagination - also related to her sexual being. A “whore” is another term for “prostitute” - long story short, someone who receives payment for sex. Now, I deem this as slightly less insulting as “slut” - at least a whore is paid for her behavior. I realize that very few people wish to be associated with those who sell their bodies, but at least whores struggle to survive by the only means available to them. Sluts, as I see it, just put out. Period. So - since “ho” is a contraction of “whore,” does that make it less slanderous than “skank”? I see skanks as women whose main form of attire is their birthday suit, with perhaps a few strategically placed cloths to avoid arrest for public nudity. Wikipedia, however, offers such a better definition that I feel the need to post it in its entirety for your learning experience: “In American slang, 'skank' is an adjective referring to one who is undesirable for unacceptable behavior. Most often this behavior relates to drug use, sexual practices, and/or personal hygene and style. Originally associated with a bad smell and/or scummy or dirty surface, it has come to refer to someone who is either or both physically repugnant for their filth and morally or socially repugnant for their behavior and demeanor, most often sexually. Prostitutes are often associated with the term though in reference to a usually non-whoring person. It is pejorative.
Examples of use include, "Yo dawg, that bitch be all skanked up and shizz" "You skank!" "She is such a skank."
The term has also, more recently, come to refer to a particular kind of female behavior, common in the United States, characterized by wanton selfishness, repeated self-deterimental behavior, promiscuity (whether or not sex is involved) characterized by revolving door dating practices, and repeated passing over of decent men for varieties of losers. A tramp stamp is also commonly seen.
To be skanked or to skank someone; to be ripped off or rip someone off. Often a term expressed in relation to drugs.
In Britain, the meaning is rather different, referring to someone who is tight with their money. Thus a teenager complaining 'my mum is a scank' has rather different meanings on either side of the Atlantic Ocean.”
Note the wonderful examples this handy on-line source gives. I don’t know why I don’t utilize this tool more often, but that is easily remedied.
So, back to my question - what is worse, being classified as something that is slang for another insult, or viewed as promiscuous and smelly? I find that I cannot take a stance in this debate - both are insulting.
However, this segues into a more worrisome question - how common are either of these terms that they can be found in a dictionary (an on-line dictionary, but a source most likely used more often than Webster’s lexicon)? Is it not sad that both of these snubs are defined by a popular source of information? I don’t know about you, but I find that rather disheartening.
Even more disheartening, however, is how men are most insulted when libeled with a word of female roots. When men exhibit weak, “womanly” behavior, their peers dub them “pussies” - and no, not as in “kitties.” Why? Why is it so insulting to be a woman?
I can’t find the answers. Can you?
As always,
Hanna
Poll Insults
I’ve put this question to many a person during my last couple of weeks at school; now, I’ll put it to YOU - what is worse, being called a “ho” or a “skank”? (In this context, I treat the word “skank” as an insult, not the form of dance popularized by the form of music known as “ska.”)
I have already determined to my satisfaction that “slut” is a far worse insult than either “ho” or “skank” - I say this is so because of the strength of the word, the sound it makes, the harsh roll of the tongue in forming the word. However, the severity of “ho” and “skank” has yet to be determined.
Wikipedia defines “ho” as “a slang contraction of whore.” Now, when either “ho” or “skank” is used to insult somebody, usually female, it derides the victim for her sexual forwardness. It is also used to insult her form of dress, which tends to leave little to the imagination - also related to her sexual being. A “whore” is another term for “prostitute” - long story short, someone who receives payment for sex. Now, I deem this as slightly less insulting as “slut” - at least a whore is paid for her behavior. I realize that very few people wish to be associated with those who sell their bodies, but at least whores struggle to survive by the only means available to them. Sluts, as I see it, just put out. Period. So - since “ho” is a contraction of “whore,” does that make it less slanderous than “skank”? I see skanks as women whose main form of attire is their birthday suit, with perhaps a few strategically placed cloths to avoid arrest for public nudity. Wikipedia, however, offers such a better definition that I feel the need to post it in its entirety for your learning experience: “In American slang, 'skank' is an adjective referring to one who is undesirable for unacceptable behavior. Most often this behavior relates to drug use, sexual practices, and/or personal hygene and style. Originally associated with a bad smell and/or scummy or dirty surface, it has come to refer to someone who is either or both physically repugnant for their filth and morally or socially repugnant for their behavior and demeanor, most often sexually. Prostitutes are often associated with the term though in reference to a usually non-whoring person. It is pejorative.
Examples of use include, "Yo dawg, that bitch be all skanked up and shizz" "You skank!" "She is such a skank."
The term has also, more recently, come to refer to a particular kind of female behavior, common in the United States, characterized by wanton selfishness, repeated self-deterimental behavior, promiscuity (whether or not sex is involved) characterized by revolving door dating practices, and repeated passing over of decent men for varieties of losers. A tramp stamp is also commonly seen.
To be skanked or to skank someone; to be ripped off or rip someone off. Often a term expressed in relation to drugs.
In Britain, the meaning is rather different, referring to someone who is tight with their money. Thus a teenager complaining 'my mum is a scank' has rather different meanings on either side of the Atlantic Ocean.”
Note the wonderful examples this handy on-line source gives. I don’t know why I don’t utilize this tool more often, but that is easily remedied.
So, back to my question - what is worse, being classified as something that is slang for another insult, or viewed as promiscuous and smelly? I find that I cannot take a stance in this debate - both are insulting.
However, this segues into a more worrisome question - how common are either of these terms that they can be found in a dictionary (an on-line dictionary, but a source most likely used more often than Webster’s lexicon)? Is it not sad that both of these snubs are defined by a popular source of information? I don’t know about you, but I find that rather disheartening.
Even more disheartening, however, is how men are most insulted when libeled with a word of female roots. When men exhibit weak, “womanly” behavior, their peers dub them “pussies” - and no, not as in “kitties.” Why? Why is it so insulting to be a woman?
I can’t find the answers. Can you?
As always,
Hanna
Poll Insults