Who Wants To Be A Piece Of Tail?
Want a piece of that?
• Piece of tail
• Piece of ass
• Piece of “that”
That’s how a sexually attractive woman might be described.
Well, “attractive woman” is an overstatement. Attractive body part, maybe.
The whole woman isn’t wanted. Just a piece of her.
Sometimes I wonder if words like these play a role in western women’s widespread sexual dysfunction (nearly half of us).
Because feeling like a piece of meat is disturbing.
And how about these words: Wanna have sex? I mean, wanna:
Screw, f-, bang, nail, ram, smash, smack that, beat those, cut, boning, git-in-em-guts.
That’s a list of words my students made for “sex” in street parlance.
And who gets screwed and f’d?
Words get into the subconscious, telling us about ourselves and the world. Words act like covert propaganda in that way.
Language directs thought, and more positive sexual language just might create a more sex-positive world for women.
Related Posts on BroadBlogs
- Sex: Who Gets Screwed?
- Gender-Swapping Grammar Lessons
- Words: Sticks and Stones? Or Shaping How We See Ourselves?
Share this:
Posted on March 25, 2015, in feminism, objectification, psychology, sex and sexuality, sexism, women and tagged feminism, language, objectification, psychology, sex, sexism, sexuality, women. Bookmark the permalink. 39 Comments.
BroadBlogs 
Language is one of the most basic systems of representation (Alcoff et al, 26). We live in a male dominated society. Language towards women is negative such as insults like calling someone a “pussy” (Alcoff et al, 27). Being called a “pussy” means that person is weak and another word for vagina. Changes in language evolve through the social change, but the representation of women being weak and under control of the man has been consistent.
The bible said a female was made from a male. Moreover, God and Jesus being a man displays how patriarchal our society is then and now. The urban slang and words are insulting to women, whether they realize it or not.
We live in a culture where women have to be pretty and skinny. Women yearn after men and men degrade women. I think it is interesting that the social stigma has a positive representation of when a guy sleeps with girls. The man is labeled a player. However, when a woman sleeps with guys, she is called a slut. The woman also feels dirty or guilty for having sex after.
Language displays a negative emotion in women and positive emotion in men. Language furthers the stigmas in our culture regarding sexuality. When people talk, the stigma continues, like a domino effect. Women as a “tail” means men choose who they would like to have sex with. This explains how women are to be dominated like animals by men.
Hunter College. Women’s Studies Collective (Ed.). (2005). Women’s realities, women’s choices: an introduction to women’s studies. Oxford University Press, USA.
Thanks for the references.
Powerful and too often said without any real understanding to the damage ~ great post.
Thank you!
Yes, sometimes a girl is viewed just as an object, get bad comments , she is often asked later to have sex not because she is nice or the guy is in love but, because of her sexy body which is considered to be a piece of meat or delicious looking cake to be eaten.
With all due respect, do not women also seek out men with great bodies for sex too? How is this any different?
I am neither saying such is right nor wrong. But, can we at least be fair and honest about this?
The owner of this blog did a piece recently about whether holding hands was viewed as more intimate than sexual intercourse. The majority of women said YES; that holding hands was more intimate.
So, how is it that you complain about a man desiring to have sex with a woman because she has a fantastic body? I just don’t get it.
Just thought I’d mention that while the majority of comments from women may have agreed that holding hands was more intimate, that didn’t necessarily mean that they we’re perfectly fine with having casual sex, themselves. Heta was one of the women who said she thought holding hands was more intimate. And she may be fine with casual sex, I don’t know. But I realized that something was missing in the distinction I was making. Maybe an important distinction is this: it’s not which is more intimate, but which you are more comfortable with.
So on some level I can see how people could say, from just observing the world, that there are people who will have casual sex without feeling any intimacy or even any caring for the person they are with. On the other hand, if you are holding hands with someone, you probably at least care about them. And therefore, you would say that holding hands is more intimate. But not necessarily that you would be more comfortable having casual sex with someone who didn’t know or care about you.
“Because feeling like a piece of meat is disturbing.”
Absolutely. And, yet when insulting words are thrown towards women, nobody actually protests….
Young guys here also use such words and, think it to be great fun. *sigh*
So sad that no one protests, often here either.
PETA, as always, is brilliant with their advertising campaigns and so is your post; i really like how you used this PETA add to get your point across that:
“The whole woman isn’t wanted. Just a piece of her..” I like the post very much. Thanks.
I meant “ad”.
Your welcome.
I think that is how a lot of men see women. All they see is the parts of a women that get their attention. To me all men see base on the picture is breast, ribs, and rump. Which is why the picture makes it perfect for how they see women. There is no human connection whatsoever. This proves men need to change their way of thinking towards women. Instead men need to be encourage to treat women with respect, loyalty, and kindness. Also instead show pictures that women are human beings that like to read, talk to people, and do everyday activities.
Well luckily not all guys are this way. But the words are certainly out there to be internalized by both women and men.
When I was teaching high school, I heard all the words between changes of classes. My first hearing “He’s a dork!” from one of my students really surprised me. Then I would hear a good Yiddish from a girl, like “What a putz!” (I had to correct that one: girls could not be/should not be called a putz or a dork. Yet I have heard “C**t! called to a male.) And then, “He’s such a dildo!” Certainly a reference to a sometimes-pleasurable appliance that should not get a bad rap. What to do! How about “Making the beast with two backs”? That’s different. Anyhow, thanks for the posting and the comments–and that picture of Pamela Anderson. She’s a real… “filly”? People have meanings for words. And I found a women’s store: The Filly Flair boutique. Oh, my. What’s a guy/gal to do? “Stop that fooling around back there,” she said to the kids in the back seat of the car. Then all grown up: “Hey. Wanna fool around?” :o)
Yeah, there are plenty of insults to go around. I’ll have to write about this sometime but insults for women often take something that is a high status for them and demeaning it, Like madam, mistress, queen, princess, Lady (Of the night). Otherwise, I don’t know if we have words that harm men’s sexuality as much. As you say, against the dork you have the cunt (which women are much more likely than men to be called — but I expect that men would consider it an even bigger insult, because you’re also labeling him female) — and as I wrote someplace else:
Because female sexuality is deemed dirtier, more evil and more unspeakable, insulting slang for the vagina packs a bigger punch than slang for a penis.
Call a man a dick, and you’ve called him an idiot. Dictionary definition of dork: a whale’s penis. So a dork is a giant penis – an even bigger idiot.(?)
But a cunt cuts deeper, moving into deeper disgrace.
This makes me think of the book the Sexual Politics of Meat- explaining the link between ecofeminism and veganism, the objectification of women the objectification of meat. (I’m a meat eater- but there are some undeniable links. such a good reminder that words we use have power and reverberate into the subconscious and the collective so thank you.
Interesting. I’ll have to check out that book. (I’m a meat eater too, but I’ve been growing less and less comfortable with it.)
ok and as far as the sexual objectification parts goes. Yeah, it’s interesting how much people don’t realize or have been accustomed to women being treated as just body parts. But what really adds to it unfortunately is how women are portrayed in the media whether magazines, tv, movies or music videos. But while they all do it to some extent, what got my attention is how especially sexualized and objectified women are in music videos and for main stream music performances. Women are used not like people but pretty accessories it seems. But what I really don’t get is that black men fight against stereotypes and culture, and how they are represented. You’d think with all that, black men and culture would do anything but show themselves in a negative light. Forget the guns, and violence that’s usually depicted in rap and r & b, but sexuality. You’d think if you’re seen as not classy, that you’d go against that and portray music in a more classy, less degrading way. But while music in some form, can objectify women to some extent.
The most sexuaizing and blatant objectifying of women and their bodies I see if from rap or r & b music. That genre is the worst. POp and club music is not good either, though a lot of club music has minorities or many or most singers or rappers to club music is kind of blended with a rap beat and with singers or rappers who are minorities like Pit Bull who is hispanic and black rappers and singers. And when the singer is white or rapper is white, it’s to that genre, you know rap, which is still a black musical genre is in white people singing and rapping to the black genre. So why is this? Not only is it redundant and it takes away artistic originality upon and artists and creativity, which I’d think a top rapper or singer would want to separate from the rest. But the objectifying is so blatant in rap music compared to other forms. I don’t know what the change is or why, because it wasn’t always that way. It was in reverse, like in the 80s with glam rock and 80s rock with bands like Motley Crue, Def Leppard, Guns n roses, Aerosmith, Warrant, Van Halen, they all objectifyed and sexualised women blatantly. Many showing women stripping or strippers in music videos and others references like the “cherry pie song” by Warrant.
But then once the end of glam rock ended from the surge of grunge in the 90s, a new leaf turned over and once rap come upon in the mid 90s and later, then it was rap music and r and b that have since then taken the blatant sexualizing schtick over. So it was white music in the 80s and but then onward black culture carrying the sexualizing. The one thing I have to say this is even with the sexuaizng in the 80s from rock, there were many songs from the same bands that didn;t have sex or bodies to it and it was mixed, Nowadays it really seems like most rap has sexuakizing and women in skimpy clothes no matter the song or even if it has nothing to do with the lyrics or song in rap music videos and just there for eye candy to the rappers. Actually the good thing about grunge is that it brought on a new wave and different type of music, but because of the more serious theme, what I’ve noticed is that gruge rockers rarely had sexualizing to their music videos or the songs were about that. Like Nirvana and Pearl Jame, their songs weren’t about that and rarely had tits and ass to their music videos as their songs were deep social songs or personal songs.
I saw Charlie Rose interview Jay-Z and ask why there was so much objectification and misogyny of women in rap music. Jay-Z said that it came from a place of disempowerment and insecurity. You have young black men who grow up in the ghetto and who are told — as all men are — that they are supposed to be powerful and — well, you’ve heard of male superiority. So they buy into that. But growing up in the ghetto they feel neither. Jay-Z said that when he first started rapping he put down women, too, in an attempt to raise himself up. But he doesn’t do it anymore. And he suspects that as these rappers become successful and get over there sense of disempowerment and insecurity, that they will stop behaving that way, too. And due to a history of racism that exists still today, blacks are more likely than others to be disempowered and demeaned. That said, 80% of sales of this music is to white guys. But the thing is, White guys are also told that they are supposed to be powerful and — like I said, “male superiority” — but many don’t feel that way in their real life. So the same music appeals to them for the same basic reason.
I don’t buy that. More black people listen to rap music than white people. Plenty of white people listen to rap, but more white people listen to pop, rock, club music and country music. If 80% of the sales of rap music is to white people, then that leaves 20% of black people listening to rap music. So what is the rest of the black population listening to? Rock, pop? I highly doubt that.
And the success of rappers hasn’t seemed to stop them from objectifying women. Look at Lil Wayne, Rick Ross, TI and top main stream rappers who still objectify women in all or most of their music videos?
I didn’t say that 80% of white men listen to rap. Or that 80% of what white men listen to is rap. Rather, if you look at all sales of rap music, 80% is purchased by white males. That’s partly because there are way more white than black males in our population.
“I don’t buy that. More black people listen to rap music than white people.”
Bob,
Again, you are totally ill informed. The majority of hip hop music is purchased by Whites, period. End of story.
That does not mean the majority of whites buy hip hop music. Clearly the genre is not that big……However, whites DO account for the majority of hip hop music sales. Fact not fiction.
There is no way the hip hop music industry could be a large (sales) based solely off of a population base of around 10%. Use your common sense. Oh I forgot. People don’t do that anymore.
“It’s weird, sexual aggression can obviously be worrisome for girls when it’s coming from guys,…..”
This is simply not true Bob. Women find sexually aggressive far more attractive and desirable than men who are not so. Just so long as we are not threatening…..
What I see today is women increasingly behaving and acting like men. This includes language, drinking, sex, etc….
I think you are a bit confused. Women do like men who are assertive. But not men who are sexually aggressive. unless you are talking about fiction. If you mean watching a movie or reading a novel, then yeah, that can be pretty sexy. But with the same woman in a real-life situation, no. Then it’s more likely to be be scary.
Ok. So you are making a distinction between men who are sexually assertive as opposed to sexually aggressive. Can you give me an example please? Of the two. I always saw them as one and the same.. Thanks
Most women like a man who is assertive. In that confidence is attractive and someone who acts assertively seems confident. And it works for both sexes. Most men find confident women attractive too, and women who act assertively come across as confident.
But sexual aggression? Sure, women line up to read or see shades of gray, Which has sexual aggression in it. But that’s not all women. And it’s not with men they don’t know or trust. And as I wrote in another blog post, a lot of women fantasize about this sort of thing but don’t want to actually do any of it. In Daniel Bergner’s book, “What do women want?” He talks about all the fantasizing about sexual aggression, but he doesn’t talk much about women in real life. One of the few real-life examples he gives is a woman whose friends try to make one of her “Sexually aggressive” fantasies come true. And the woman got the heck out of there in the real life situation.
“There is no way the hip hop music industry could be a large (sales) based solely off of a population base of around 10%. Use your common sense. Oh I forgot. People don’t do that anymore.”
ok huggy, well yeah more will be bought from white men, based on the much greater population of white people. I was aware that white people greatly outnumber black people in america as far as population. But I don’t see how this shows how white men are the one’s influenced therefore targeted by rap music. If it is, it’s not based on the reason being that rap is preferred or the favorite among white people and it more so due to simply marketers simply going after the pool with the greatest population (white men, 90% of america populaiton right?).
So it’s more so based simply on that, because of population than preference. I think you’re missing the point though, because the reason I wrote that was, because the argument of more white men buying rap records than black men, but it’s on the simply basis that far more white men out numbering black men. So even 50% of the white male population buying rap records would still outnumber 90% of the black population in america. The way it was written by georgia was like rap music produces and creates the music and sexual objectification for white men or white men are eating it up since more of the sales of the cds are from white men buying them.
That;s misleading, because of population, and not necessarily by influence. If that was the case then there’d be a a difference in sales between white men buying rock, country and other forms for music compared to rap. So I do have common sense, just people like you having a hard to getting the point or what I meant with it. And if we were to go with how many records or sales from black men as far as buying rap or r and b, vs rock, country and other music. I’m pretty sure the greater portion of music bought would be definitely more so in favor of rap and r and b. So that proves my point and the influence is greater upon black men than white men, therefore the sales of white men doesn’t mean shit. The percentage difference shows the proof in the pudding on who eats it up and mostly influenced by rap music.
Well that’s the thing, a man being sexually aggressive will most often be seen as threatening or “creepy”. So no, women don’t like sexually aggressive men. Sexually assertive is another story. A man that is assertive can take a chance but not be too strong about it and confident. An aggressive man can come on too strong or will seem that way due to his desperation or because he is so driven by his lust. An assertive man can be calm and cool, therefore not threatening. There is a difference.
There’s a few things I can add. Before the sexualizing, objectifying body parts thing, I’m going to talk about the language aspect that you wrote near the end of your blog.
“Screw, f-, bang, nail, ram, smash, smack that, beat those, cut, boning, git-in-em-guts”
I know girls or women and have heard girls use the words screw, fuck, and bang in reference to sex. And even girls used the word fuck and bang as in the girls fucking or banging a guy, so it’s not one sided. Yeah, obviously screw and the other words are used by guys more often because of anatomy reasons and well how guys can talk. Though I’ve never heard cut or git in em guts. Maybe it’s because I’m a guy and I doubt I’m much different from others guys.
And maybe it’s because I don’t have to worry about being demeaned or sexually harassed, or violence that I can shrug this off, if things were in reverse. Possibly the same reason why the same guys who feel girls being raped is horrible and the crime should be a very strong punishment. Are the same guys who could tease a 12 year old boy having sexual relations with an adult teacher and a thatta boy or you should be happy. Or the same guy who wouldn’t mind being raped by a woman or it could be a turn on. But it’s probably due to the protection men feel from being bigger, stronger and not having to fear of rape like women do. Because women don’t commit such crimes or it’s extremely rare. It’s interesting though, even though such language might be offensive, it’s interesting with context how such language women don’t like, is the same language that might turn them on or use in the throes of passion during sex. Go figure.
Anyway what I was getting at is that the same language women find offensive, if reversed could be a turn on for me or other men ha. It might make look like slutty, but not necessarily, but sexually aggressive. “Fuck the shit out of him, bang him, beat the dick up, etc aggressive references in reverse towards men, would be different, knowing the horndogs men can be, it wouldn;t offend guys, but probably would like it. It’s weird, sexual aggression can obviously be worrisome for girls when it’s coming from guys, but maybe because women are so often passive and guys so horny, it’s not offensive if reversed and if something was hypothetically flipped. It would be a change of pace, but probably get an an eye brow raise and kind of a turn on for men. It just goes to show how it’s not really the language but who it’s from that’s the problem.
Well, there are a few things. As you say, since men don’t have to face this sort of thing in real life – either symbolically or for real – it can thing like less of a big deal to them. Plus, guys aren’t subjected to systematically being demeaned. So a guy could hear all this in a different way, I suppose.
Bravo. All of those terms describe something that someone does ‘to’ another person, not ‘with.’ And, in most cases, it’s also a term used for doing (or having) bad things done.
Thanks for pointing that out. Hardley mutual, is it?
Then there is “I want to “plow that” from dusk to dawn. I actually know at least two women who like that sort of talk, but I think most women do not.
Too, there are words embedded in our psyche right out of the dictionary: “Dark/Black = evil, mysterious, harmful, sinister, etc” which, of course, augments poorly educated, “white” folk’s fear of dark/black tented people.
Yeah, our language can systematically to mean one group in a variety of ways, whether they are the less powerful side in terms of sex, race, sexual orientation…
“And who gets screwed and f’d?
Words get into the subconscious, telling us about ourselves and the world.”
This has always seemed the most damaging element of sexual slang to me: who does, vs who gets done…
Yes, our ordinary language can feel victimizing.
Even more basic: without room for agency. Which can contribute both to feeling victimized — and to actually *being* victimized.
Oh yes. Thanks for pointing that out.