Researching terminology for use in an upcoming postgrad essay, I discovered (to my amazement) that the term ‘cuntic’ does not appear in any (non-pornographic) context as an alternative to ‘phallic’. Why? The only thread I picked up was originated by Lancer45 in May 2000, on this website; so here I am, asking why ‘cuntic’ is not an acceptable woman-oriented equivalent for the term ‘phallic’ - and hoping for some serious discussion.
Going to google and typing “female eq” it autofilled it with “female equivalent of phallic”. Turns out the word you’re looking for is yonic.
If you do a Google Image search for ‘yonic art’ you’ll find what you’re looking for.
ETA, I’m a bit surprised the word doesn’t show up on Georgia O’Keefe’s Wiki page.
ETA2. If your question about why cuntic isn’t an acceptable word is a serious question, I think the best answer is going to be because cunt isn’t really an acceptable word. That’s like asking why you can’t call women ‘bitches’ in your psychology dissertation.
Reported for forum change.
Also, “phallus” is not considered dirty/foul/swearing/insulting language, “cunt” is.
Also, from what I’ve (just now) read, phallus can be used for both males and females since it (technically) can be defined as the clitoris as well, but I think that would just confuse people. Use ‘yonic’ and let them look it up.
And why is ‘cunt’ an ‘offensive’ term? Please see my amended post - there’s no other word that adequately describes the entire female sexual organ - external and internal combined. ‘Yonic’? Refers to a principle, rather than a bodily organ, which ‘phallic’, in referring to the male sexual principle, avoids, because the term has common currency in reference to the physical dimensions of said principle. I’m a female postgrad, and the term ‘cunt’ doesn’t offend me. Please provide a less emotive response. I appreciate that using the word ‘cunt’ as a pejorative is offensive, but why equate it with other pejorative terms (e.g. ‘bitch’) when it’s actually a descriptive word?
“Vulvic?”
The male equivalent to ‘yonic’ is ‘lingic’. How often do you see that used in academic discourse?
Unfortunately that’s like saying “I don’t find the phrase ‘bite me, jerk’ to be offensive therefore I shouldn’t have received a detention for saying it to the teacher.” Just because something doesn’t offend you doesn’t mean no one else is allowed to be offended by it…cunt is one of those words.
Can I get a cite on lingic?
Hey, Ferret Herder, ‘vulvic’ is a good word - just rather physiologically specific. It doesn’t include the womb or the clitoris. I’m writing on sexual imagery used by nineteenth-century authors - they’re alluding to the entirety of the female sexual organ.
Joey P: ‘Lingic’ as pertaining to ‘lingum’, as ‘yonic’ pertains to ‘yoni’.
Cunti- and phalli- are not equivalent prefixes, so I wouldn’t expect you could substitute one for the other.
The best I can offer is the female equivalent of hard-on would be wide-on.
Musicat: you’re absolutely right! Just shows the inadequacy of our language to describe female bodily existence and experience.
With regard prefixes - I would welcome any reasonable ‘equivalent prefix’ for ‘phallic’.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt and moving to General Questions … where I’ll be asking the moderators to keep a close eye on this.
The clitoris is most certainly located in the vulva.
The word you’re looking for is vaginal (though yonic is a less common synonym). Notice the parallel definition to phallic. Cuntic isn’t a word.
I guess the answer to the OP’s question “why ‘cuntic’ is not an acceptable woman-oriented equivalent for the term ‘phallic’” would be there’s no need to make up a new word derived from a word widely considered offensive when two perfectly, non-offensive ones exist.
To expand on what kenetic said, lingam & yoni are Sanskrit (India), vulva & phallus are Greek (I think). Cunt &* Cock* are slang.
Well, thanks for your interesting feedback, all. I appear to have offended some, which wasn’t my intention, and I apologise if that’s the case. I think discussion about terminology is still one that merits attention, but I will look elsewhere for discourse of a less reactionary character.
Apart from Musicat, who seems quite rational.