mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (07/04/85)
[][][] From: quint@topaz.ARPA (Amqueue) [in net.women] > What makes you think that girls don't have strong physical reactions to the > sight of aesthetically pleasing men? Girls get horny too, and just because ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ > dont have an obvious visible physical reaction doesnt mean we dont have the > same desires. [ Does anybody mind if I say `women' rather than `girls'? ] Well I hope we do all know that women become sexually stimulated, aroused, desirous, lustful, etc., just the same as men. (Perhaps not just the same: maybe > sometimes and < sometimes, depending on life cycle and so forth.) But what about the word `horny' itself? Do you feel some sort of incongruity when applying it to women, or hearing it so applied? I certainly did on first hearing (not too many years ago either), though I've gotten used to it. The feeling of incongruity was because, when it was applied just to men, I thought of it as a live metaphor with a simple physical basis -- of course there was already an extension of meaning, since it didn't have to mean actually having an erection. (To be completely honest with you, when I first learned the word, the horn that I took to be the metaphoric base was something like a trumpet. I gather that it's more generally uderstood as some kind of animal's horn.) When applied to women, the basis for the metaphor just isn't there (as Amqueue herself points out). [We pause here for the physiology mavens to point out to me that the female genitalia also includes erectile tissue. Yes, sure; but not in a way that provides an obvious physical basis for the metaphor.] When the application of the word to women was new to me and surprising, I briefly thought that speakers who had this extended use might have adopted a new metaphor. It would have been something like `horny' in the sense of having a scaly or dry-flaky covering all over one's skin, which needs to be rubbed off every once in a while. Hmm. This soon looked far- fetched, and since then I've assumed that speakers with this extended usage simply take it as an arbitrary sign expressing `sexually stimulated' without going through a metaphor. Then, have those speakers also lost the awareness of the metaphor when the word is applied to men? Maybe these guesses can be supplemented with some data. If you can introspect on your own use and understanding of the locution, I would appreciate your sending me by e-mail your responses to the questionnaire below. I will summarize the results and post them to this newsgroup. If I quote your discussion in the summary, I will make it anonymous unless you indicate that it may be attributed. Your own guesses and analyses about what most people must be doing with this word are certainly welcome. But please try to answer the questions in terms of your own individual awareness when using or hearing it, and try to shield these answers from being influenced by your general analysis. There are seven multiple-choice questions, and one item requesting your sex and age. 1) When you use or hear the word `horny' as applied to a man, what do you take to be the main element of its (literal, referential) meaning? a) Physiological: has an erection. b) Mental: is sexually stimulated, aroused. c) Behavioral: is sexually aggressive or assertive, "on the make". d) Other, namely ______. 2) When you use or hear the word `horny' as applied to a woman, what do you take to be the main element of its (literal, referential) meaning? a) Physiological: genitals engrossed, secretions. b) Mental: is sexually stimulated, aroused. c) Behavioral: is sexually aggressive or assertive, "on the make". d) Other, namely ______. 3) In application to a man, how is the word linked for you to its referential meaning? a) Via a LIVE metaphor, i.e., you are frequently conscious of its being a metasphor. b) Via an intermediate metaphor: on reflection you are entirely aware that it had a metaphorical origin for you, but in use you are rarely conscious of that metaphorical status. c) Via a FROZEN metaphor: on reflection you are partially or tentatively aware that it had a metaphorical origin for you, but in use you are never conscious of that metaphorical status. d) As an arbitrary sign: you don't consider it metaphorical (or didn't before this discussion). 4) In application to a woman, how is the word linked for you to its referential meaning? a) Indirectly, as an extension of its application to men. b) Directly applicable to women, as a live metaphor. c) Directly applicable to women, as an intermediate metaphor. d) Directly applicable to women, as a frozen metaphor. e) Directly applicable to women, as an arbitrary sign. 5) If you considered it at all metaphorical for questions 3 or 4, what is the metaphorical base? a) Animal's horn. shape. b) Musical or hunting horn, shape. c) Musical or hunting horn, sound. d) Other metaphor, namely _________. e) Not applicable: no metaphor. 6) How ordinary or 'natural' do you consider its application to women? (Treat these choices as a scale.) a) Quite odd: you never use it that way yourself, and each time you hear it so used, you consider it an ad hoc extension of the meaning or a mild joke. b) Rather odd. c) Slightly odd. d) Not "odd" at all, but you do use it more readily in application to men than in application to women. d) Entirely ordinary: you use it equally readily in application to either sex. 7) If there has been a change in how ordinary or how odd you consider its application to women, approximately when did most of that change take place? a) Before 1970. b) 1970-75. c) 1975-80. d) 1980-85. e) No change: it's always been about as normal as it is for you now. f) No change: it's always been about as unusual as it is for you now. 8) Please provide your sex and year of birth. A word of caution. I've never done this before, and don't know for sure what I'm letting myself in for. I'll *try* to send individual thanks for responses. I'll *try* to collect and summarize them promptly. But I don't really know that much about how things propagate through the net and what the turnaround time would be. (I'm still surprised at seeing a response before seeing the original posting.) I'll just wait and see when the responses seem to trail off. Feel free to be as voluble as you wish if you append comments or analysis, or if you explain an answer of 'other' on some of the questions. But on the questions themselves please be concise; even a list of numbers and letters would do fine -- in any case, there's no need to quote the questions back to me in full. And if you don't have comments or analyses, don't feel excluded from simply returning your answers. Regards to all, -- -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar