when "intercourse" got funny

[Arnold M. Zwicky]

On Sep 27, 2006, at 8:21 AM, John Baker wrote:

>         I think we have to start with the non-innocent meaning of
> "intercourse."  "Sexual intercourse" (or "carnal intercourse,"
> etc.) has
> referred to coitus for a long time, but it became the dominant polite
> reference in the later years of the 19th century, and it seems to have
> been during this period that coitus became the default meaning of
> "intercourse" without an adjective.

i was just about to post on this very point.  the early OED cites of
"intercourse" in the sexual sense are in scholarly, medical, or legal
contexts (and are modified, by "illicit", "promiscuous", and
"fleshly"); "erection" and "ejaculation" are similarly context-
restricted.

the turning point is when these words enter into general use as
polite references to sexual matters.    once that happens, the sexual
meanings will tend to drive out the non-sexual ones, and then the
words are set up for double meanings, and humor, except in special
contexts.

the movement of sexual terms from scholarly/medical/legal use to
general polite use seems to have been  widespread in the late 19th/
early 20th century: "masturbation", "penis", "testicles", "vagina",
and a number of others seemed to have made the move.  is this a sign
of a greater willingness to talk about sexual topics in polite company?

arnold (zwicky at csli.stanford.edu)

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org