Missing Discourse For Intercourse

Enveloping? Other synonyms my thesaurus has for that are: encompass, cocoon (ooh!), sheathe (and of course "vagina" is from Latin for sheath).

Mmm, encompass has some nice evocative qualities! Thanks, Z. --fl]

I think it's interesting how we don't think of female-sounding "yin" words as being active, even when they are.

It's seems here that you're trying to find a word that is somehow as strongly male-sounding (re: yang) as "fuck," when in fact, the words you listed in your post (with the exception of invaginate - that's just plain bad!), are just as active even though we judge them as being yin - a word/concept which has found its way into common English usage to refer to that which is "female/passive" (talk about a mind fuck!).

Anyway, here are a few more examples of active yin words - words that initiate action, but carry a general identification with "female/passive" in both meaning and sound:

devour
dissolve
overcome
overwhelm
enclose
encase
drink in

All of these words could be used to accurately describe what Z did to her man after she hardened his cock, but I'm afraid they don't satisfy the (your?) need to find a word that conveys the hard yang-ness of "fuck."

But then, "fucking" her partner is not exactly what Z did, is it? Because she's not a man - even though she did feel like one, "with all the appropriate disclaimers." [Poor Z, I hope you don't mind being the class example on Professor Figleaf's blog!]

Granted, this is a dilema :)
It's hard to find a one-syllable, consonant heavy word (such as "fuck") that conveys what it means to actively take a cock inside one's self.

However, I would like to offer this little gem for your consideration: enfuck. It has the engulfing meaning power of yin mixed with the satisfying active-sounding consonant-slam of "fuck." AND it creates a really mindfucky (in a good way) yin-ish yang-ish word to boot!

Seriously, though, maybe it's not so much that the language is a problem here (though I think it is in many ways), but rather our understanding of the aggressive nature of "active" yin (or the yielding nature of passive yang, for that matter), along with our inability to properly label those concepts. And no, I don't think either is a contradiction in terms :)

At any rate, I wish you luck with your word sleuthing, Figleaf!

[Well, except that I completely reject the idea that yin or yang are gendered and consider the very notion a catastrophic error I agree with a lot of what you say, Elizavetta. :-) Seriously, the two genders might be all manner of things but they are not opposites in the way, say, heat and cold are. (For that matter even heat and cold aren't *opposites.*) Instead the two genders overlap enormously. Except where social constructs similar to yins and yangs culturally proscribe overlapping behavior by, say, *prescribing* distinguishing behavior. But I *did* say I mostly agreed with you and I do. I'm not so crazy about "sheath" because a sheath is an accessory to a sword. (I stumbled across that, and I think posted about it, while researching the origin of "vagina" sometime last year.) But I really like encase, and overwhelm, and most of your other nominations. Oh, and I just remembered that last spring I nominated the sculptural term "invest". None of those words are as abrupt as "fuck." Put it down to my yang-ishness that to avoid confusion with other words and to bring back a little of that Anglo-Saxon/Shakespeare flavor I might shorten the words to case, whelm, vest, and close. But I'd be perfectly happy with "I hardened him, then encased him, and then dissolved us clean away!" The main thing, though, isn't what words we use (and what fun would it be anyway if we had only one?!?!) What's important intead is that we have lots of *ideas that need words for them.* And that's still the big eclipsed area in our sexual landscape. That the words we're looking for don't already slip comfortably off the tongue demonstrates what's missing. Pardon my brief yin/yang rant and thanks so much for jumping in with some really wise thoughts and warm suggestions. --fl]

[Oh dear, in my little frenzy last night I forgot to mention that it's not the strength of the words that makes it hard -- for instance in the language of romance novels we can easily imagine all the soft, indirect words that mean what a man does -- if you look long enough I'm sure someone has said "her heart grew to bursting as he wafted into her aching shadows..." but I'm equally confident you'll find very few constructions (especially in romances!) where his heart begins to pound as she similarly euphemisms him. I hope I'm making sense. Thanks, Elizavetta. --fll]

I usually use "take" (often with modifying clause "into my cunt/pussy"). I guess people sometimes talk about women "taking" men's cocks in the way that someone would "take" a beating, but I think of it more as demanding and "taking" something I want. I like the suggestions "cocoon" (cocoon a cock!), and "devour" (nice concept in general). My partner is very fond of "squeeze", but I think that's what happens after the initial taking/cocooning/devouring.

[Oh I like "squeezed." And I'm seriously warming to "cocoon" for the way it echos "cock." Take would take me a little longer but (as the branding people claim, and linguistic theory would agree) if people just start talking about the concept while using the words and the connotations, and eventually the denotations will form. Doh! And by that I mean they'll form in our minds since there's not much ambiguity in yours. Thanks, P. --fl]

Here's a few thoughts:

"Clasp" (which also has the image of when lovers clasp themselves to one another during the act f fucking)

"Begird" (or just "gird") - we all know "girded his loins" as his action, when he's getting ready for something, but how about "she girded his loins with her body"?

How about "Corral"? "She corralled his cock"? Possibly unsatisfactory because of the possible connotation of "taming", but in the right context (e.g. a D/s relationship), that connotation would be extremely hawt!

Possibly, putting the word "cunt" in front of some other familiar words might be good:

cunt-wrap; cunt-hug; cunt-seize; cunt-swallow etc.

(or even "she cuntgirded him"?)

It's a little bit unsatisfactory because why should we need the qualifier "cunt" there in the first place?

Still, lots of lovely ideas and terms to roll around the tongue, thanks for this post!

[And the great thing is *any* term would begin to sound familiar in common usage. Words like "girded" and your other choices make clear who's doing what without having to make the do-er back into a recipient. "I girded him" is great because it stands alone. To say "I put him" wouldn't be so hot because gramatically there sort of needs to be a where you put him and then you're back to "I put him *into me*" which carries too many connotations of helping *him* do what tradition (and too much language) says is *his* act. (And yes, I'm straining right at the limits of my grip on syntax and grammar.) Thanks, SE. --fl]

You really do make me laugh. I just really enjoy your sense of humor a great deal. Thanks for this post. It was one of the great giggles of the day.

[Thanks, Greenwoman! --fl]

I've written a post in response to this and the previous one, and the comments here have provided more fodder for thought: I too like cocoon, although it seems to me to have very passive connotations, and enfuck.

[Yeah, it's not the "macho" quality of the word that matters to me, it's the direct/non-derived, and non-passivity. And it's really, *really* tricky. And pervasive. For instance the word "pour" sort of implies a passive vessle somewhere that will receive what's poured. So what would be the active form of "being poured into?" The tricky part is, I'm pretty sure, there just *isn't* one! So off the top of my head you 'd need a different word from a totally different word set and say something like "guzzled." The benefit of a word like that is that everything you need to know is found in the simple sentence "I guzzled last night" whereas a word like "cocoon" (which I still like for it's alterative potential) still sort of depends on or implies a thing cocooned. You might be able to get away with "I cocooned last night" but my ear expects "I cocooned [someone or something] last night." Both of those words (one for pouring, the other for [intercoursing]) do have the virtue of standing on their own. You don't have to say "I guzzled *him into me* last night," or "I cocooned him *into me* last night" to communicate the complete act. Thanks, Z. --fl]

I can see why anyone might like cocoon - it does sound right. But have you ever seen one? Yikes!

[Well, if they're spun-thread caterpillar cocoons they're kind of cute and fuzzy, but in American English, at least, the word is more often used for its connotations of warmth and enclosure. My other concern, though, is its also used as a political term for the behavior of people in economic uncertainty -- rather than going out and socialize, travel, see shows and movies, take classes, or otherwise interact with the world they stay home and "cocoon" with take out food and rented videos. Still, those are small problems for determined branding experts who relish the challenge of spinning silk cocoons out of sows ears. :-) Thanks, A! --fl]

What's wrong with "invaginate"? How is it a "technical misuse"? It's got the right prefix and suffix.

[I balked at it because it's most common use is to describe the way embryonic bundles of animal cells fold in on one side to make that little bean-shape that turns into a fetus. On the other hand after checking around some of the secondary meanings are not just to fold inward but to enfold or ensheath. So that would be ok. Still, I think even if more people knew about the secondary definitions "invaginate" would have too many medical/biological overtones, sort of like saying "empenis" for what men do. But! The great thing is *I'm not the one to judge!* If it's language that speaks to you, and names a thing either you or your partner does that nobody else has had a name for before then I need to shut my mouth and let others play through. So hey, thank you, Jha. --fl]

"Invaginate" means "insert into a sheath". That's what the man would be doing, not the woman. Though it doesn't mean that words can't change. Some words are technically misused all the time. However, turning it into a virtual opposite meaning is probably hard to do.

Side node: My recaptcha says "President Edwards". Not that there's much chance of that now (one of the US presidental candidates for those who don't know), but no, really, it does.

[See, that's what I get for having too many biology friends. Thanks for the backup definition, Nightfall. I do still have that problem with sheath always having a context in reference to that which is sheathed, but as I just mentioned to Jha, not everybody knows about that and if people can give it the meaning we're looking for then the sound that comes out of our mouths when we say it isn't all that important. Thanks! --fl]

Why not turn the noun into a verb; I've heard "dick" used that way. As in "a good hard dicking". It might not catch on though.

[Cool because it's a great turnaround. And maybe it's not that outrageous. I hung out with a friend and her lacrosse team at a tournament When they finally lost the officials gave their opposing team t-shirts about half these totally tough-assed teammates started joking mock-resentfully over and over about how "and... we? We didn't get dick." It'd certainly shove it out of the category of male-only acts. Thanks, Esme. --fl]

The type of action we want to describe is an embrace of sorts isn't it? Verbs which involve vessels, closing or covering might be apt. One can scoop an object up, cup it, clothe it, wrap, coat, embrace, swaddle, snorgle, encompass, incorporate, subsume...

[Sure! Seems to me that any synonym for embrace ought to work. Thanks, Esme. --fl]

Very interesting stuff. I like coat and encompass, wrap and subsume.
Come see us again, Fig. We are back!

[Yeah, those work! Thanks, Goose, I'll be over in a minute. --fl]

I think, then, that the problem isn't the language, but the perception of the reader. I try to say what I mean all the time, but people still misunderstand, because they just think a different way.

So, yeah, I think no matter HOW one puts it, most guys are still going to construe it as *his* agency. It's just permeating from everywhere else.

I think the word "embrace" is a great romantic way of putting it. Just sayin'.

[Yeah, what I'm trying to dig into is *exactly* the perception of the reader, or listener -- specifically the male reader but really *everybody* who thinks of heterosexual sex exclusively in terms of something men do *to* women. Thanks, Jha. --fl]

I always liked using 'bury' to describe the art of using your partner's shaft. But it can be hard to describe in a satisfactory fashion too. *sigh*

["To bury" is a cool twist, Quilzas. --fl]