Ways of Denoting Genitalia in the Pornographic Narrative and Their Role in Constructing Images of Sexual Interaction Participants


Zaytseva, Olga V.


Kutafin Moscow State Law University, 9 Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya Ul., 125993, Moscow, Russia


This article presents an attempt to classify the possible ways of nomination and designation of genitalia in the Russian language. The theoretical basis of our study is Allan & Burridge (1988), related to the study of orthophemisms, dysphemisms and euphemisms, as well as Cornog (1986), Goldman (1990), Cameron (1992), Braun & Kitzinger (2001) classifications of genital terms. The material for the study was 120 fragments of sexual interaction from pornographic texts describing consensual and non-consensual sexual interaction. Based on the lexico-semantic analysis, four ways of nominating genitalia were identified: orthophemistic, euphemistic, dysphemistic and metaphorical. During the study it was established that euphemistic, dysphemistic and metaphorical ways are involved in the construction of images of the sexual interaction characters mainly from the position of their conformity/nonconformity with the dominant body canon in the culture.


gender linguistics; sex and gender; pornographic discourse; sexual identity; genital terms

Publication Date

December 30, 2020


Volume 7, Issue 2

Citation information

Zaytseva, Olga V. 2020. “Ways of Denoting Genitalia in the Pornographic Narrative and Their Role in Constructing Images of Sexual Interaction Participants.” Language. Text. Society 7 (2). https://ltsj.online/2020-07-2-zaytseva.


author = {Zaytseva, Olga V.},
title = {Ways of Denoting Genitalia in the Pornographic Narrative and Their Role in Constructing Images of Sexual Interaction Participants},
journal = {Language. Text. Society},
year = {2020},
issn = {2687-0487},
number = {2},
volume = {7},
url = {https://ltsj.online/2020-07-2-zaytseva},


Allan, Keith, and Kate Burridge. 1998. “Euphemism, dysphemism, and cross-varietal synonymy.” La Trobe Working Papers in Linguistics 1 (1): 1–17.

Almoayidi, Khedir A. 2018. “Euphemism as a Communicative Tool: A Descriptive Study of Hijazi and Southern Region Dialects Spoken in Saudi Arabia.” Open Journal of Modern Linguistics 08 (01): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2018.81001.

Bey, Sharif. 2011. “Naked Bodies and Nasty Pictures: Decoding Sex Scripts in Preadolescence, Re-Examining Normative Nudity through Art Education.” Studies in Art Education 52 (3): 196–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2011.11518835.

Braun, Virginia, and Celia Kitzinger. 2001. “‘Snatch,’ ‘Hole,’ or ‘Honey‐pot’? Semantic Categories and the Problem of Nonspecificity in Female Genital Slang.” The Journal of Sex Research 38 (2): 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490109552082.

Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: some universals in language usage. Studies in interactional sociolinguistics 4. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire] ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Burgers, Christian, Elly A. Konijn, and Gerard J. Steen. 2016. “Figurative Framing: Shaping Public Discourse Through Metaphor, Hyperbole, and Irony: Figurative Framing.” Communication Theory 26 (4): 410–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12096.

Cameron, Deborah. 1992. “Naming of Parts: Gender, Culture, and Terms for the Penis among American College Students.” American Speech 67 (4): 367-382. https://doi.org/10.2307/455846.

Cornog, Martha. 1986. “Naming Sexual Body Parts: Preliminary Patterns and Implications.” Journal of Sex Research 22 (3): 393–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498609551318.

De Klerk, Vivian. 1992. “How Taboo Are Taboo Words for Girls?.” Language in Society 21 (2): 277–89. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500015293.

DeLuca, Kevin Michael. 1999. “Unruly Arguments: The Body Rhetoric of Earth First!, Act Up, and Queer Nation.” Argumentation and Advocacy 36 (1): 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1999.11951634.

Duda, Bożena. 2011. “Euphemisms and dysphemism: in search of a boundary line.” Círculo de lingüística aplicada a la comunicación 45 (0): 3–19. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_CLAC.2011.v45.1.

Fernández Fontecha, Almudena, and Rosa María Jiménez Catalán. 2003. “Semantic Derogation in Animal Metaphor: A Contrastive-Cognitive Analysis of Two Male/Female Examples in English and Spanish.” Journal of Pragmatics 35 (5): 771–797. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00127-3.

Fischer, Gloria J. 1989. “Sex Words Used by Partners in a Relationship.” Journal of Sex Education and Therapy 15 (1): 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/01614576.1989.11074944.

Gilgun, Jane F., and Sol Gordon. 1985. “Sex Education and the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse.” Journal of Sex Education and Therapy 11 (1): 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/01614576.1985.11074821.

Goldman, Juliette. 1990. “The Importance of an Adequate Sexual Vocabulary for Children.” Australian Journal of Marriage and Family 11 (3): 136–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034652X.1990.11004418.

Hartnell, Jack. 2019. “Goloe Srednevekov’e. Zhizn’, smert’ i iskusstvo v Srednie veka” [Medieval Bodies. Life, Death, and Art in the Middle Ages]. Moscow: AST. (in Russian)

Kon, Igor’ Semenovich. 2002. “Muzhskoe telo kak eroticheskii ob”ekt” [The male body as an erotic object]. In O muzhe(N)stvenosti, 43-78. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. (in Russian)

Lakoff, George, and Zoltán Kövecses. 1987. “The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English.” In Cultural Models in Language and Thought, edited by D. Holland and N. Quinn, 195–221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607660.009.

Osgood, Charles Egerton, George J. Suci, and Percy H. Tannenbaum. 1957. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Penelope, Julia. 1990. Speaking freely: unlearning the lies of the fathers’ tongues. The Athene series. New York: Pergamon Press.

Strozier, Robert. 1966. “The Euphemism.” Language Learning 16 (1-2): 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1966.tb00809.x.