It’s raining men


Sado-masochism (BDSM) practices involve a variety of erotic practices often involving role-playing, bondage, dominance and submission between two or more sexual parties. BDSM is built on the enjoyment of extreme intercourse activities, often inflicting pain or humiliation, which participants derive sexual pleasure from (Damm, Dentato & Busch, 2017). There is the presence of a power structure between participants, where one acts as the dominant role while the other, the submissive role, indicating respectively the controlling or receptive participants. A safe-word is agreed between parties beforehand, usually for the submissive role to indicate the wish to stop an action due to reasons such as unbearable pain.

In the light of this, taking into account Julie and Mike is involved in BDSM sexting, the safe-word would then serve the purpose of indicating their preference or disfavor for a certain sexual act, which he or she is likely to withdraw from in actual BDSM practice. A likely emoji to be used as a safe word between this context would be that of the pill (?) emoji. The explicit hand (✋) and crying (?) emojis would not be ideal to serve as a safe word as BDSM is built on the enjoyment of pain and discomfort. Hence such signs would not be interpreted as disfavor of a certain sexual advancement. In this context, ‘no’ does not simply mean ‘no’, while ‘yes’ continues to exert the meaning of consent. Other emojis indicating explicit portrayal of emotions or BDSM related equipment would also flout with the reason that it indicates enjoyment and pleasure in the world of BDSM.

A safe-word would therefore usually involve a generic symbol, for instance the pill emoji, which does not symbolise anything with regards to the BDSM context.


UrbanDictionary’s top 1 and 3 definitions of ‘Locker Room Talk’ seems to describe the activity as largely held between men which involves offensive and degrading comments toward members of out-group. Definition 2 ropes in the idea that females are in fact capable of engaging in Locker Room Talk around sexually charged topics, and that such conversations are being viewed as inappropriate in public domains, which can only be held privately.

These, however, do not fully capture the what the term is. According to an example provided in Chapter 2 of Language and Sexuality by Cameron & Kulick (2003), such sexual exchanges are common within public domains as well, for instance when hostesses engage in sex-talk as part of their jobs in hostess clubs. These verbal exchanges serve social and interpersonal functions between the clients, to establish informal and non-hierarchical environments between interlocutors – what appears to be homosocial talk, which mainly allows men to bond over. The hostesses then, are mainly objects for the men to talk about and agree on. This also illustrates some form of gender imbalance, as such conversations usually entail the degrading and objectification of the female subjects. This then serves as another function for the males to exert heteromasculinity by displaying traits of dominance and power over the female subjects.

In the first definition, it states that “[Locker room talk] Exists solely for the purpose of male comedy and is not meant to be taken seriously”. This downplays the seriousness of certain issues presented in such verbal exchanges as harmless (which often involve the objectification and downgrading of females), providing perhaps an excuse and leeway to justify those who engage in such exchanges and harbour sexist and chauvinistic ideologies.

Also see Robin Lakoff’s take on Trump’s ‘Locker Room Talk’ debate here, where she deconstructs the idea of ‘Locker Room Banter’. Citing,

“First, the actual utterance did not take place in a locker room, but out of doors in a place accessible to the public. So at the very least, we would have to understand “locker room” as somehow metaphorical or, to use Trump’s own favorite weasel word, “sarcastic.”

She argues that the actual conversation that happened did not in fact take place in a locker room, or a place that metaphorically represented a locker room. In addition, she adds on to argue that the construction of the term demonstrates Trump’s misogynistic attitudes towards females, in that they

“exist purely for Trump’s personal gratification and/or denigration.”

and the fact that many are picking up the term indicates a shared consensus that such conversations are merely ‘harmless banter’ amongst men. She also urged readers to think about the consequences if Trump’s locker room talk had brought in racial and religious issues instead, if such a conversation would still be acceptable as harmless ‘locker room banter’.


Cameron, D., & Kulick, D. (2003). Language and sexuality (pp. 25-29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Damm, C., Dentato, M., & Busch, N. (2017). Unravelling intersecting identities: understanding the lives of people who practice BDSM. Psychology & Sexuality9(1), 21-37.

Lakoff, R. (2018). Locker Room Banter 101 | Robin Lakoff. Retrieved 10 April 2018, from

Urban Dictionary: safeword. (2018). Urban Dictionary. Retrieved 10 April 2018, from

Queeriosity doesn’t kill the cat

Ever wondered why people speak the way they do? Well that’s because our language use is affected by a myriad of factors. Research in sociolinguistics has shown that language use is an ‘act of identity’, in which people convey what kind of person they are (Bucholtz & Hall, 2004). Differences in regional provenance, social class, and ethnicity can create distinction in how we create and produce language, just as speaker gender and sexual identity. For instance, we know that women tend to inhabit different social spaces and exist in different social roles as compared to men. Different genders have been traditionally assigned culturally oriented roles to play, and therefore possess different social standing, rights and obligations. These sociocultural factors influence and shape one’s identity, and invoke differences in language use. If one’s gender is able to play such a huge part in language differences, then certainly, sexuality should matter too.

Traditionally, the linguistic labelling and classification of sexual identities produced two opposing categories: the ‘normal’ – heterosexuals, and the ‘deviant’ – homosexuals, until the emergence of the term ‘queer’ sparked numerous debates and theorisations in the field of sociolinguistic. It demonstrated a labelling strategy in a deliberate attempt to embrace all kinds of ‘deviant’ identities that challenged heteronormativity. Originally a derogatory term for homosexuals, the term ‘queer’ is now used as an umbrella term for all non-heterosexual identities such as transvestites and other transgendered people, including those with ‘deviant’ desires such as sadomasochists or fetishists (Cameron & Kulick, 2003).

Today, ‘queer’ is also used interchangeably with ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’. The near-equivalence of the terms suggest that although ‘queer’ has not succeeded in relegating the existing classification system, the acknowledgement and arguments presented in Queer Theory and activism surrounding the terms has definitely advanced the debate of identity, sexuality and language. The reclamation of the term ‘queer’ also demonstrates a strong resistance to heteronormativity, signaling a set of cultural-political positions critically engaged with identity policies presented by the gay and lesbian movements between the 1980s and 1990s (Cameron & Kulick, 2003).

Guided by the ideas of various distinguished scholars such as Michel Foucault, Judith Butler and Eve Sedgwick, Queer Theory takes on a different approach from conventional theorisations of language and identity, by rejecting traditional categories of gender and sexuality and challenging heteronormativity. The Queer approach embraces all non-straight identities that previous gay and lesbian activists had overlooked.

Queer theorists ask questions like:

“What is normal?”
“Why is that normal?”
“Who is not normal or being subject to oppression due to these norms?”

The queer approach deems all categories of identity as problematic, as they serve to regulate and exclude people who do not fit into normative expectations (Motschenbacher & Stegu, 2013). It challenges the earlier essentialist approaches of traditional feminist, gay and lesbian activists, and argues that the analysis of sexuality is largely regulated by hegemonic heterosexuality, and thereby constructing non-normative sexualities by these structures (Bucholtz & Hall, 2004). It sets to deconstruct the processes that shape certain sexual identities and practices as normal while reproducing the others as ‘deviant’ (Milani, 2016).

Queer Linguistics then, emerged as an approach to language and sexuality under the influence and contribution of three main theories – queer, sociocultural linguistic and feminist (Bucholtz & Hall, 2004). For the purpose of this blog post, I will only focus on Queer Theory, although it is worthy to note that these theories intertwine in their concepts and contribution to Queer Linguistics as a field of study.

Queer Linguistics is not only restricted to the study of language and linguistic practices of homosexuals (gay men and lesbian women). Rather, it is an analytic linguistic study of how certain ideologies, discursive acts and cultural practices promote and shape heteronormativity and gender binarism as normative constructs (Nelson, 1999). As a relatively new field of inquiry, Queer Theory has had strong influence and contributions to the larger field of language and sexuality research. In recent years, there has been a steady increase in publications on Queer Linguistics research activity, ranging from monographs to edited volumes and journal articles (e.g., Cameron & Kulick, 2003; Leap and Boellstorff, 2004; Bucholtz and Hall, 2004). Furthermore, the annual Lavender Languages and Linguistics Conference held at the American University, Washington DC serves as an esteemed platform for international Queer Linguistic research (Motschenbacher & Stegu, 2013). We can see that the influence and contributions of Queer Theory and Queer Linguistics has spread far and beyond in the research of language and sexuality.

There are two central areas of interest for discourse analysts of Queer Linguistics, one of which is heteronormativity. Through the linguistic analyses of mechanisms, Queer Linguistics look at how discursive acts and cultural practices construe heterosexuality as the norm. It does not see identity as a stable, pre-discursive given, but rather, it sees identity as performed – that is, speakers are thought to construct identities through their language use (Motschenbacher & Stegu, 2013). Queer Linguistics thus sparked a paradigm shift in viewing the relationship between language and sexuality – instead of seeing identity as the source of particular forms of language, to seeing identity as an effect of linguistic practices (Cameron & Kulick, 2003).

One of the fundamental ideas of Queer Theory and Linguistics is gender performativity. According to Butler (1990), gender is performative – as a result of the repetition of semiotic and linguistic practices by individuals and their community, which translate into culturally accepted and reinforced practices and norms. And while gender norms are often associated with sexual norms, the performance of gender undoubtedly influences sexuality as well. Much of Queer Linguistics research question the authenticity of these performatives. Identity politics that developed in 1970s and 1980s such as the Women and Gay Liberationist rhetoric emphasised on the ‘authentic’ expression of identity through shared practices of a community (Cameron & Kulick, 2003). The conversation around heteronormativity and performativity sparked a debate on the whether there is a distinctive and ‘authentic’ language spoken for the expression of group identity, and thus, the quest to define what has been called ‘Homosexual Language’ (also referred to as the Lavender Lexicon), ‘Gayspeak’ or ‘Queerspeak’. This led to an ongoing debate on the ‘homosexual language’ label, which assumes gays and lesbians belong to homogenous communities with a shared own culture, identity, and language (Cameron & Kulick, 2003). This, however, is an inaccurate portrayal that one’s identity shapes their language use. On the idea of performativity, the agency lies within individuals, whom may choose to speak in certain ways to enact certain identities. For instance, drag queens identify as males but engage in gender ‘crossing’, adopting linguistic features generally associated with females (Cameron & Kulick, 2003), demonstrating that language does not shape an individual’s identity, but a mere manifestation of the identity individuals wish to portray.

On the topic of the debate on the ‘authenticity’ of homosexual language, another area of interest is on gender and sexual binarism, which is critical on the construction of gender (male versus female) and sexual (homosexual versus heterosexual) binaries as a natural phenomenon, without the consideration of contextual, cultural and historical variability (Motschenbacher & Stegu, 2013). The Queer approach seeks to debunk this strict binary categorisation of gender and sexuality, for it fails to include identities that fall out of the spectrum. For instance, drawing parallels on the example above, gays and lesbians do not fall into homogenous communities with shared practices. Hence, it would be fallacious to assume and define identities according to a single sexual category (homosexual), just as it would be to consider all females the same and in contrast to males – what about the transgendered community?

Queer theorists also question the naturalness and universality of gender and sexuality binarisms. Historically, these binaries didn’t exist before the 19th century. During ancient Greek and Roman times, the sexual binary of heterosexuality and homosexuality was unknown, and the discursive construction of sexualities differed strongly from contemporary times (Cameron & Kulick, 2003). It is arguable that by contrasting the binary categories, we are only further polarising the categories which leads to the stigmatisation of people who deviate from normative requirements (Motschenbacher & Stegu, 2013).

Through the lens of Queer Theoretical framework and ideologies, the direction of studies on language and sexuality has evolved from the mere study of gay and lesbian vernaculars to the critical analyses of discursive processes through which hegemonic heterosexual and homosexual identities are constructed or excluded by different theoretical and methodological approaches. With the burgeoning Queer Linguistic scholarship, the Queer approach signified an important step in the inclusion of not only the LGBTQ community, but also a more accurate representation of the normative communities in linguistic research, by reshaping how traditional linguists approached the topic of ‘identity’ and shedding light on the seemingly harmless but toxic consequences of thinking from a heteronormative and gender and sexual binary standpoint.


Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2004). Theorizing identity in language and sexuality research. Language in Society, 33(04), 469–515.

Butler, Judith (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.

Cameron, D., & Kulick, D. (2003). Language and sexuality (pp. 25-29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leap, W., & Boellstorff, T. (2004). Speaking in queer tongues. Urbana, Ill.: Univ. of Illinois Press.

Milani, T. (2016). Language and Sexuality. Oxford Handbooks Online.

Motschenbacher, H., & Stegu, M. (2013). Queer Linguistic approaches to discourse. Discourse & Society, 24(5), 519-535.

Nelson, C. (1999) Sexual identities in ESL: Queer theory and classroom inquiry. TESOL Quarterly 33(3): 371–391.

*Heavy breathing* *Gasping* *YES!*


In the article Call of the Wild, Language of Love – Sex Noises That Will Drive You (and Him) Wild, author Andrea Boltz draws on how language can serve as a powerful tool for improving sex lives. More specifically, housed under Women’s Health Magazine, the article provides advice for females, on how they can utilise certain aspects of language to enact desire and create intimacy. The author considers nonverbal language just as powerful when it comes to sex. For instance, playing on visual cues such as body language (kinesics) and touch (haptics) are just as capable, or even more effective in contributing to a wholesome sexual experience, as being verbal about it. On a closer look, it is evident that much of the discourse within the article shed light on the differences in mental function and behaviours between heterosexual males and females, and how the readers can work their way around these to achieve better sexual experiences. Besides reviewing on the content presented in the article, I will also consider the author’s language use.

In the light of language use in the bedroom, Boltz raised the importance of the semiotics of desire – the sigh-Q. Drawing parallels to the fake orgasm scene in When Harry met Sally, as mentioned by Cameron and Kulick (2003), both verbal and nonverbal cues like heavy breathing, gasping and moaning are being socially conventionalised and made meaningful by human experience and communication. Boltz suggests that by simply producing these semiotic signs, one is able to communicate the idea that she is enjoying the deed and so will her partner. Quoting her, “Take a breath and feign confidence” and “pretend you’re 10 times bolder than you actually are.”

In another example, Boltz draws on how different sexes differ in their language use during sex – women are more likely to use emotionally laden words while men gravitate towards visual language and explicit talk: e.g., “Yeah you like that, you [completely inappropriate and startling synonym for prostitute]”. The author injects her disapproval for the stereotypical masculine way of speaking, but quickly followed with “… but this may only mean that he has seen one too many pornos and is just parroting the dialogue”. According to Robin Lakoff (1975), men and women indeed subscribe to different styles of speech and harbour different motivations behind their language use. However, by casually sliding a convenient excuse for men’s use of a derogatory term on women, Boltz downplays the seriousness of slut-shaming. According to Jeremy Nicholson, “Languages communicates not only information, but meaning and feelings and symbols of (our) internal realities.” What seems like a mere passing remark may very all be a manifestation of thought into deed.

The article consistently encourages women to break the silence during sex, urging women to step out of their comfort zones to verbalise their desires. Like Boltz’s, contemporary articles regarding heterosexual relationships seem to have evolved as we see a shift from the positioning of females as the subordinate role, to an almost equal portrayal of women and men in the playing field. It is heartening to see that many women are now able to talk about their sexuality and desires freely, more than ever. By opening up an avenue for women to discuss about what-would-have-been-considered-taboo matters, we are slowly removing the stigma that only men are able to portray and talk about their sexual desires.

This is largely owing to the fourth wave of feminism, which placed huge emphasis on the pressing issues of sexual assault and harassment as well as the rape culture. In the past, we used to pathologise female sexual behaviour by posing expectations to how a woman should dress and behave. These expectations and norms of modest female behaviour has been noted in numerous literary and non-literary works, and much of the discourse in articles regarding heterosexual relationships revolved mainly around how women should or can help men get off better. Today, we see a revolution where these traditional pathologies are being reinvented. Females, better late than never, are stepping up in sexual discourse. More tasteful literary about women and sex also surfaced, giving women more confidence to talk and discuss about their wants, needs, and fantasies.

While this sex for dummies guide may be accurate about heterosexual males and females to a certain extent, the author did not consider that in reality, not all readers fit perfectly into this mould. Although not explicitly stated, it is obvious that Boltz’s article is specifically targeted at only heterosexual female readers while conveniently neglecting diversity among women. Like many other articles on Women’s Health Magazine, they failed to address both heterosexuals and homosexuals. This is in itself a long-standing issue of compulsory heterosexuality/heteronormativity. Especially for a magazine like Women’s Health whose “About” page is all about “reaching a new generation of women who don’t like the way most women’s magazines make them feel”, we should stop treating heterosexuality as the norm, and instead, challenge the notions of heteronormativity by embracing diversity starting from language use.



Bartz, A. (2018). Call of the Wild. Women’s Health. Retrieved 1 March 2018, from

Cameron, D., & Kulick, D. (2010). Language and sexuality (pp. 62-92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and Woman’s Place. Language in Society, 2(1), 45-80. Retrieved from