Skanks

Laurence Horn laurence.horn at YALE.EDU
Wed Feb 19 14:48:05 UTC 2003


At 4:22 PM -0800 2/18/03, Anne Gilbert wrote:
>Laurence and Jesse:
>
>>  >No, that term (of unknown origin) dates back at least to the
>>  >early 1960s.
>>  And as far as whatever it means, my favorite gloss comes from one of
>>  the editions of the UCLA Slang Dictionary that Pam Munro edits:
>>
>>  SKANK:  a female slut
>
>I never heard of a "skank" as a "slut".  Back in the "good ol' days",  a
>slut was, well, a slut(usually referring to a woman who had "too many"
>partners, "too many" not being defined in any way).  But I have seen
>evidence of modern teens using "skanky" meaning engaging in a large number
>of sesual relationships.  Does this *only* apply to females?  I didn't get
>the impression that it did.
>Anne G

Evidently at UCLA "slut" has become sex-neutral, and there have been
a number of instances I recall (I still notice them) in the popular
media (movies, magazines, "Friends", etc.) in which men are describes
as, or more usually called, sluts for being promiscuous (another term
that was applied exclusively to women/girls back in the day but has
now gone co-ed)--"Why, you slut!" (often used ironically).

I don't have enough first-hand knowledge of the application of either
"skank" or "skanky" to know if it's universally female-only; I was
just struck by the fact that (at least among UCLA students) when one
sexually pejorative term applying only to women is generalized,
another one is born.  (The usual prediction would be that even if
"skanky" can be applied to men in some circumstances, only a woman
can be "a skank".  But it might be interesting to see if these
words--even the noun-- can apply to men within the gay community.  I
suspect that this was a factor in the growing sex-neutrality of
"slut".)

Larry



More information about the Ads-l mailing list