1947 citing in Archie Comic of "butthole." What did it mean?

[Victor Steinbok]

It's more complicated yet. As Alton Brown loves pointing out, a pork
butt is not the rear of the carcass, but the upper shoulder, roughly
corresponding to blade chuck in cows (blade & chuck in British
cuts)--it's the butt end of the fore-ham, with the other end being the
shank. Nor is rump the hindquarter on a cow, but rather its back. On a
pig, the hindquarter cut is the leg or leg ham; on a cow, it's the
round; on a lamb or mutton, it's the leg; on a rabbit, it's just
hindquarter. To the best of my knowledge, none of these have ever been
referred to as "butt". Butt is not a currently recognized cut of beef
either in US or in British or Australian processing system. If it were,
it most likely would have been the part of other cuts that's closest to
the skin and is thus covered by a substantial layer of fat, such as the
rump cover. Rump had been taboo in US meat cuts unlit the early 2000s.
Now it's become ubiquitous, as the industry is rebranding a large number
of inferior cuts (e.g., "chuck tenders") in an attempt to extract
premium prices from them. But "butt" is still only reserved for pork
shoulder.

     VS-)

On 5/10/2012 9:34 AM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> Here's what's problematic about the OED def.:
>
> As Wilson observes, it defines "butt" as 'a buttock.'  Certainly this is
> one meaning (I've heard "the left [or right] butt"), but  even more
> certainly it is less frequent than 'the buttocks.'
>
> Second, it isn't clear at all whether the c1450 ex. refers to the human
> anatomy or to a loin of meat (I assume the latter, but I can't tell).  If
> it's a loin, there's no evidence of application to the buttocks till five
> centuries later. That seems to me inadequate. HDAS has a couple before
> 1859, but not before 1720, a three-century gap.
>
> If "butt" originally referred solely to beef and pork, its later
> application to humans is rhetorically marked to the point of slanginess
> (IMO).
>
> Though moot today, the U.S. label _colloq._ was prob. less accurate than
> the _Century's_ label _Vulgar_.  At least, the experience of seventy
> years  later (including its absence from newspapers) strongly suggests
> this.
>
> JL

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