Please Excuse the Euphemism: The Oldest Profession

Entries from A Dictionary of Catch Phrases: American and British, from the Sixteenth Century to the Present Day by Eric Partridge, a book I received as a gift when I was ten years old:

she would sell her hole for half a dollar is a contemptuous ref. to a girl lacking in self-respect: C20.

she's been fucked more times than she's had hot dinners or she's had more fucks than you've had hot dinners. A low, proletarian c.p. of late C19-20. The male counterpart is I've had more women than you've had hot dinners, q.v.

she's good (or very good) to the poor has, since c.1910, been a prostitutes' 'catty' c.p., applied to one who cuts her price, and thus lets the sisterhood down.

she's sitting on a goldmine. A 'men only' c.p., usu. applied to an attractive, demure girl apparently unaware of her own charms. 'The ref. is to prostitution, of course. Services', certainly during my own time (1953-74), and probably long before' (P.B., 1977). It was current during WW2, but often referring to part-time prostitutes or to 'enthusiastic amateurs', as the phrase went.

rough as bags and twice as dirty (or nasty). An Australian soldiers' c.p. of 1915-18, it was applied to the prostitutes frequenting the neighborhood of Horseferry Road, London, where the AIF headquarters occupied a building. Cf the Aus. simile (as) rough as bags and the Eng. (as) rough as a sandbag, uncouth.

And my all-time favorite...

she has (or she's got) round heels is, in Canada, directed at a very accommodating female, her heels being so round that a mere nudge will put her on her back.

I don't know how "catchy" these phrases are in this day and age --can you imagine Christian Siriano from Project Runway calling someone a "round heels" instead of "a hot, tranny mess"?--but they are certainly some saucy alternatives to boring old slut and ho. Personally, if someone was going to call me a derogatory name I'd appreciate if they put a little thought into it.

Sexy Hook-Ups: An Appreciation

Do you ever just know you're going to hate something, like as a child when you first encountered something innocuous and possibly delicious like a mushroom and blithely decided "Nope, I don't like the cut of your jib" and proceeded to live a fungi-free life thenceforth even though you never actually deigned to try them to see if they tasted just as disgusting as they looked?

Well, I was like this with Andrew Bujalski's 2003 film Mutual Appreciation. It's one of those films referred to as "mumblecore" which, for the uninitiated, is a recently conceived genre characterized by super low production costs, use of non-professional actors and largely improvised scripts. Despite the undying praise given from all the scenester kids I know, the tenets of Mumblecore seemed to me like a recipe for a shit sandwich. I mean, god forbid you might want to try a little hard when making a feature-length movie that you want people to actually watch. No, that would be so uncool.

And yet, to my intense surprise, I actually liked Mutual Appreciation. It was charming and funny, with all the elements that I had been so dubious of coalescing into a totally watchable and strangely relateable film. Strangely relateable because a host of the scenes depicted had such a familiar ring to them, like I had been to that same bad party or had that same awkward conversation with a boyfriend. I mean, I've definitely gone to a shindig where I found myself surrounded by unfamiliar people and then was goaded into doing something ridiculous, like when the main character of MA is talked into donning a dress and putting on makeup after he drunkenly crashes a party that his friends were supposed to attend, but bailed.

It shouldn't be a such a shock that a film geared toward the aimless mid-twenties set struck such a cord with me, as I am an aimless mid-twenty, but movies rarely get things right. Example: the first kiss. In any typical Hollywood romantic comedy (or drama or action flick, etc.) the first kiss between the main character and his love interest is always built up to such a heightened degree that when the guy finally grabs the girl and smooshes his face into hers the release you get while you are watching is almost orgasmic. Think about that scene in It's a Wonderful Life where the initial make out session between James Stewart and Donna Reed seems almost brutal because they want it so badly. There is a sense of victory about this moment, cathartic and lovely as Ms. Reed literally wilts from the effort.

Is this sexy? Yes. Is this realistic? Not a chance. I've had a lot of first kisses in my day and not one of them has been this explosive and urgent. I have never been taken, as it were. And this is not a bad thing. People just don't hook-up like they do in the movies. In my experience it has always been a delicate game of pussy-footing around, rather than some dynamic gesture that knocks your socks off. A more believable sequence of events: You are having a conversation on a couch. You laugh and touch his arm. He goes to get another drink and when he comes back he sits a little closer to you. You cross your legs and your knee grazes his. He doesn't pull away. At that moment you know you are in. You lean a little closer and his arm touches yours. He lightly strokes your arm with his index finger. Only after this mannered game of testing the waters is complete, then you kiss.

It might not be as dramatic as the Hollywood way but it certainly does the job.