# son sexe (to refer to her genitals)



## imatraducer

An anthropology book I am translating refers to a practice of a certain king who "..soulevant le vetement de sa femme il regardait *son sexe*" 

I am having trouble finding a good english translation for "son sexe" that is neither silly sounding (her nether regions), too anatomic (her vagina sounds clinical and out of place), nor too vulgar. Any ideas?


----------



## RuK

it's a tough one. You've either got to go for "vagina" or "genitals", which are rather clinical, or you get silly (pussy) or vulgar (cunt). I don't see many other options. (I don't suppose "triangle of pubic hair" would be acceptable?)


----------



## wildan1

it's not prettier, but it is less graphic-- _crotch_


----------



## pheelineerie

"lifting her skirt to look underneath" ? 

For all the flexibility of the English language, it sure is awkward with certain subjects, isn't it?


----------



## wildan1

pheelineerie said:


> "lifting her skirt to look underneath" ?


 
...seems a little too careful--from that sentence who would know if she were wearing something else under the skirt or not?


----------



## imatraducer

Thanks for you replies--I think I will either use genitals (this is social science, after all) or the less direct "underneath." 

pheelineerie--I blame the puritans for our inability to express this in non-clinical terms! I think we should do as the French do...


----------



## Montaigne

If the context is strictly "anthropoligical" I'd suggest "genitals" which is the most matter of fact and less crude than "vagina".
You might also consider the fuzzier (not the hair, the view!) "intimacy".
But the french "sexe" is straigtforward,isn't it?


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

Underneath? Are you sure you can't name a cat a cat ("appeler un chat un chat", I don't know the right translation, sorry (*)) in English? Sor far I thought genitals did the job.

(*) Ok, I've checked, it's: "to call a spade a spade".


----------



## emma42

You can say "Looked at her sex" in English.  Or, what about "private parts"?


----------



## archijacq

genitalia (referring to external parts)


----------



## Amityville

emma42 said:


> You can say "Looked at her sex"


 
I've been thinking that from the first post onwards, can't see a problem


----------



## wildan1

_looked at her sex_ would refer to considering (looking at) her gender (i.e., is she male or female?). It has nothing to do with the physical parts -- an old word that is fairly puritanical is simply "her privates"


----------



## emma42

Sorry, wildan, but one can use "sex" to mean "genitals".  I have seen it in literature.


----------



## pheelineerie

Seems like it's an AE/BE difference. I wouldn't say _sex_ to refer to genitals, ever.


----------



## RuK

pheelineerie said:


> Seems like it's an AE/BE difference. I wouldn't say _sex_ to refer to genitals, ever.



I'm mostly BE, and it doesn't come naturally to me either. To look at her sex - I see someone peering at a newborn baby to figure out that she's a girl.


----------



## pheelineerie

American Heritage Dictionary - *sex*


The property or quality by which organisms are classified as female or male on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions.
Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, of this classification.

Females or males considered as a group.
The condition or character of being female or male; the physiological, functional, and psychological differences that distinguish the female and the male. See Usage Note at gender.
The sexual urge or instinct as it manifests itself in behavior.
Sexual intercourse.
*The genitals.*
See number 6. I stand corrected! I've still never heard it used like that, though. Also, the American Heritage dictionary was the only one on dictionary.com to list this definition, so we can safely say it's not very common.


----------



## emma42

I do concede that it's not a common usage.  The usage was not listed in my Chambers English Dictionary, but it was in Merriam Webster.


----------



## Amityville

pheelineerie said:


> so we can safely say it's not very common.




Well, you AE-ers can. So far, in the BE camp we are 2-1 in favour of sex.


----------



## wildan1

Well if you are translating for an academic anthropological audience, I would suggest your readership will be global. Using "lift up her skirt to see her sex" will be at best unclear. To an AE reader, it could mean the king wasn't sure the (supposed) woman was _really a _female.

so maybe _genitals _would be the best term. (These poor women we are arguing about!)


----------



## Cath.S.

emma42 said:


> You can say "Looked at *her sex*" in English. Or, what about "private parts"?


I'm glad you mentioned it, Emma, that's the way I would have translated it in the first place but I was beginning to feel really silly.


----------



## GavinW

Amityville said:


> Well, you AE-ers can. So far, in the BE camp we are 2-1 in favour of sex.


 
Make that 3 to 1.


----------



## pheelineerie

Amityville said:


> Well, you AE-ers can. So far, in the BE camp we are 2-1 in favour of sex.


 
Well I never!!


----------



## wildan1

What was that London hit years ago, "No Sex Please, We're British!" ?!


----------



## emma42

Egueule, you must never feel silly.

Wildan, if the readership is to be academic, then I maintain that "sex" is best (to coin a phrase!)  Surely there can be no misunderstanding in "lifted up her skirt to _look at _her sex"?


----------



## Cath.S.

Not only the 
American Heritage
*6.* The genitals

but also:

M-W:
4*:* genitalia

MSN Encarta:
4. anatomy  ( literary ) 
Same as  genitals

Infoplease:
*5. *genitalia.


----------



## Cath.S.

My sex waits for me / Like a mongrel waits / Downwind on a tight-rope leash 
Source (see _à propos de Ultravox_)

My Sex is a song John Foxx wrote in the late 1970's, I find it beautiful and I thought I'd share. 

Also, just a quick note about _vagina_:
The woman whose _vagina_ shows when she lifts her skirt ought to be rushed to the nearest hospital!


----------



## wildan1

emma42 said:


> Egueule, you must never feel silly.
> 
> Wildan, if the readership is to be academic, then I maintain that "sex" is best (to coin a phrase!) Surely there can be no misunderstanding in "lifted up her skirt to _look at _her sex"?


 
I have to stick to my point--I don't think most AE speakers would be clear what was meant if you use _sex_ here. It suggests determining gender rather than...the specifics of plumbing!


----------



## emma42

Fair enough, wildan.  No "sex" for you, then.


----------



## Cath.S.

Since it seems to be a matter of AE vs. BE, I'd say that the translation then depends on  Iatraducer's target readership.

Her sex = (please, they're) British
Her genitalia = American

What do Canadians, Australians and other English speakers have toi say, btw?


----------



## timboleicester

imatraducer said:


> An anthropology book I am translating refers to a practice of a certain king who "..soulevant le vetement de sa femme il regardait *son sexe*"
> 
> I am having trouble finding a good english translation for "son sexe" that is neither silly sounding (her nether regions), too anatomic (her vagina sounds clinical and out of place), nor too vulgar. Any ideas?


 
try "*Pudenda"*


----------



## emma42

That crossed my mind, timbo (hey up, me duck), but it's so much more medical than "son sexe", n'est-ce pas?


----------



## timboleicester

emma42 said:


> That crossed my mind, timbo (hey up, me duck), but it's so much more medical than "son sexe", n'est-ce pas?


 
no not medical at all rather elegant and classical if such a thing can be....


----------



## emma42

Yes, possibly "elegant and classical", but is it an apt translation of "son sexe"?  The question is one of translation, not rewriting.  

Others might agree with you.  We are being _extremely _picky in this thread, which is great, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## fireandstone

I think the implied meaning here is "to determine her sex" as in "is this person male or female?". I would say that's the most graceful English translation and still gets the meaning across (as long as he was actually trying to make sure she was a she and not simply trying to sneak a peek.)


----------



## timboleicester

emma42 said:


> Yes, possibly "elegant and classical", but is it an apt translation of "son sexe"? The question is one of translation, not rewriting.
> 
> Others might agree with you. We are being _extremely _picky in this thread, which is great, as far as I'm concerned.


 
Well as someone once said "traducteur, menteur" TS Elliot? Rewriting is still translation I would hasard. It has been translated as far as I can see but has it retained the meaning? Does it sound natural? This calls for rewriting.


----------



## timboleicester

fireandstone said:


> I think the implied meaning here is "to determine her sex" as in "is this person male or female?". I would say *that's the most graceful English translation* and still gets the meaning across (as long as he was actually trying to make sure she was a she and not simply trying to sneak a peek.)


 
What are you referring to? To what are you referring? Which translation?


----------



## emma42

Timbo, read Post #1.

Fireandstone, the king is lifting the skirt of his wife.  He presumably already knows that she is a woman.


----------



## Cath.S.

timboleicester said:


> Well as someone once said "traducteur, menteur" TS Elliot? Rewriting is still translation I would hasard. It has been translated as far as I can see but has it retained the meaning? Does it sound natural? This calls for rewriting.


The phrase you're referring to is in fact Italian, I don't know its author though:
_traduttore, traditore_ (= "translator, traitor" but of course it sounds better in the original language).


----------



## emma42

Sorry, Tim, I didn't see your "translator, liar" post.  I wondered why you were asking "which translation?"

I completely disagree. Translation is not rewriting, it is translation.  That translation may be impossible sometimes does not render rewriting translation.

This may be a question of semantics, rather than real disagreement.

But we are now well off-topic.


----------



## Aupick

timboleicester said:


> try "*Pudenda"*


Agh! But this word's so Victorian. I know just enough Latin to know that it means "that which we should be ashamed of" (or something along those lines). I can't wait for it to drop out of the language.


----------



## Cath.S.

Aupick said:


> Agh! But this word's so Victorian. I know just enough Latin to know that it means "that which we should be ashamed of" (or something along those lines). I can't wait for it to drop out of the language.


Aupick, I share your feeling, especially since pudenda would be in fact the exact translation of a phrase that we don't use anymore in French, and I'm glad we don't:

_les parties honteuses (= le sexe)_


----------



## imatraducer

Wow, thank you all for this stimulating discussion and all of your suggestions! The text actually refers to incestuous practice among royalty--the king's "wife" is also his sister and this gesture, of lifting her skirt to look at her ____, sanctions his union with her.
The audience (of the book, not this act) is first American, but the author hopes that publishing it in English will bring a more global audience. 

I'm still tempted to use "genitals" but would rather not use genitalia if possible.


----------



## emma42

All things considered, I would use "private parts".


----------



## balaam

I second this opinion


----------



## timboleicester

egueule said:


> Aupick, I share your feeling, especially since pudenda would be in fact the exact translation of a phrase that we don't use anymore in French, and I'm glad we don't:
> 
> _les parties honteuses (= le sexe)_


 
I think of the German for "pubic hair" which translates "shame hair" this is still the way they say it. Because (pudenda) it doesn't sound shocking I can't wait for it to be used more often and not disappear from the language.


----------



## Cath.S.

timboleicester said:


> I think of the German for "pubic hair" which translates "shame hair" this is still the way they say it. Because (pudenda) it doesn't sound shocking I can't wait for it to be used more often and not disappear from the language.


Well that word has always shocked_ me_, for one, because I find the idea that sex is shameful totally mediaeval and scary. As I already wrote, we used to use phrases like _les parties honteuses_, no one - not even Catholic priests, I think - would use such terms today, and I have no doubt some Germans question the use of _Schamhaar _and replace it with another, slightly more morally neutral term, like _Intimbehaarung _(= "_private, intimate hair" = "poils intimes"_) which is already used by many.

But never mind moral standpoints,and never mind German as we are here discussing the translation of a French word. The truth is that _sexe_ comes from _sexus_ that is itself akin to _sectus_ (past participle of secare, to separate) and has nothing to do with _shame_, but with _separation _(of both genders), which is an altogether different concept.


----------



## timboleicester

egueule said:


> Well that word has always shocked_ me_, for one, because I find the idea that sex is shameful totally mediaeval and scary. As I already wrote, we used to use phrases like _les parties honteuses_, no one - not even Catholic priests, I think - would use such terms today, and I have no doubt some Germans question the use of _Schamhaar _and replace it with another, slightly more morally neutral term, like _Intimbehaarung _(= "_private, intimate hair" = "poils intimes"_) which is already used by many.
> 
> But never mind moral standpoints,and never mind German as we are here discussing the translation of a French word. The truth is that _sexe_ comes from _sexus_ that is itself akin to _sectus_ (past participle of secare, to separate) and has nothing to do with _shame_, but with _separation _(of both genders), which is an altogether different concept.


 
At least pudenda, being victorian is more recent that sex then....I am not sure that sounding so Victorian is a bar to it's use. I have read it in a few novels and I had to ask what it meant. My mother was too busy to answer as she was trying to get the those legs on the piano covered with some heavy drapery......


----------



## Cath.S.

> At least pudenda, being victorian is more recent that sex then


En quoi est-ce un critère ?!? Nous sommes, au XXIe siècle en Occident, bien plus proches de la mentalité de l'empire romain que de celle de l'époque victorienne. Bien entendu, tous les courants sont réversibles en ce domaine. C'est d'ailleurs pour cette raison que je me permets d'insister.


----------



## SoupleCommeLeVent

For a man the closest translation would be "manhood" I think.  Shame there isn`t an exact female equivalent.


----------



## timboleicester

SoupleCommeLeVent said:


> For a man the closest translation would be "manhood" I think. Shame there isn`t an exact female equivalent.


 
Yes it is but I might be tempted to propose "womanhood" and coin a new word.


----------



## Cath.S.

SoupleCommeLeVent said:


> For a man the closest translation would be "manhood" I think. Shame there isn`t an exact female equivalent.


Manhood would translate virilité used in the following sense:
Ensemble des attributs virils, sexe masculin
source

To all

What's the point of looking for a flowery equivalent where the original text uses _the simplest, most neutral word_ available in French?


----------



## Amityville

egueule said:


> What's the point of looking for a flowery equivalent where the original text uses _the simplest, most neutral word_ available in French?


 
Exactly. It's like the thread of the thousand and one nights or the search for the holy grail.

Trying to emulate neutrality I thought of 'coital apparatus', or just 'body' but no,they are periphrastic too. Sadly it seems imatraducer will go for the genitals after all.

(that Italian quote, "to translate is to traduce" in English, I think)


----------



## archijacq

Il est parfaitement exact que le radical latin de pudenda renvoie à l'idée de honte.
Mais il est inexact de considérer que ce mot correspondra nécessairement en français à "parties honteuses". Ce terme est spécifiquement utilisé pour désigner les organes génitaux féminins externes. Je travaille tous les jours sur des ouvrages médicaux où ce terme est employé sans aucune pudibonderie.  Pour vérifier mes dires, il suffit de faire une recherche sur "pudenda + homeopathy".


----------



## Cath.S.

Nous ne recherchons ici ni un mot médical, ni un mot connoté moralement, mais un simple terme qui, à l'instar du mot_ sexe_, sera compris par 100% des lecteurs.

Je pense pour ma part que _genitals_ fait assez bien l'affaire, du moins en ce qui concerne la compréhensibilité et la neutralité.

Ensuite, il serait proprement honteux de faire comme si nous ne connaissions pas l'étymologie de _pudenda_ alors que nous en avons parfaitement conscience. 

_Pudenda_ correspond_ exactement_ à_ parties honteuses_, Archijacq, simplement il exprime cette idée en latin, constituant en quelque sorte l'euphémisme d'un jugement moral.


----------



## Qcumber

imatraducer said:


> An anthropology book I am translating refers to a practice of a certain king who "..soulevant le vetement de sa femme il regardait *son sexe*"
> 
> I am having trouble finding a good english translation for "son sexe" that is neither silly sounding (her nether regions), too anatomic (her vagina sounds clinical and out of place), nor too vulgar. Any ideas?


Did the anthropologist use the term "_sexe_"? This is surprising. In this sort of book, one expects "_organes génitaux_".


----------



## emma42

egueule said:


> Nous ne recherchons ici ni un mot médical, ni un mot connoté moralement, mais un simple terme qui, à l'instar du mot_ sexe_, sera compris par 100% des lecteurs.
> 
> Je pense pour ma part que _genitals_ fait assez bien l'affaire, du moins en ce qui concerne la compréhensibilité et la neutralité.
> 
> Ensuite, il serait proprement honteux de faire comme si nous ne connaissions pas l'étymologie de _pudenda_ alors que nous en avons parfaitement conscience.
> 
> _Pudenda_ correspond_ exactement_ à_ parties honteuses_, Archijacq, simplement il exprime cette idée en latin, constituant en quelque sorte l'euphémisme d'un jugement moral.



Je suis tout à fait d'accord.


----------



## imatraducer

Qcumber said:


> Did the anthropologist use the term "_sexe_"? This is surprising. In this sort of book, one expects "_organes génitaux_".



Yes, it's too long to explain why.

I don't see what's wrong with genitals...it's clear and it's what the author meant, whereas private parts sounds ridiculous to me, especially because il s'agit d'un public display! And "her sex" seems confusing.

Thanks to everyone for your thoughts.


----------



## wildan1

ouf ! never have so many of us argued so much about... so little


----------



## LangueLover

Genitals a good translation..if all else fails

" he lifted up her skirt to view her lady garden" haha


----------



## Kelly B

Her vulva?


----------



## Cath.S.

Kelly B said:


> Her vulva?


Oui, mais comme nous avons la même chose en français, l'auteur aurait dit _sa vulve_, Kelly. J'en profite pour souligner que ce mot français a des avantages, n'étant ni trop scientifique, ni ouvertement paillard, ni inexact.


----------



## francophone

I think it's not appropriate to use looking at her sex in English, in French sexe points at that area and i don't think it's the same in English. I'd say her private area.


----------



## MrMoto

You most certainly can use "sex" in this sense.  It is quaint, but easily understood, and avoids both academic words ("pudenda") and euphemisms ("private parts").

An example from literature:  "Her sex was like a giant hothouse flower ..." (Anaĩs Nin)


----------



## mgarizona

I know this is a very old thread but I just came across it and wanted to add a few comments.

1. egueule's comment in Post 26 (I think) about rushing a woman whose "vagina" shows when you lift her skirt made me laugh harder than I have in a long long time!

2. I would like, as an AE speaker, to defend "sex" as a general, neutral word for genitalia. If you want to address possible confusion about 'determining gender,' simply beef up the verb: " ... lifting up his wife's garment, he gazed upon her sex." I can't see how anyone could be confused by that, even someone who had never previously encountered 'sex' in the sense 'genitals.'

3. If "sex" isn't your thing, I'd suggest "mons." ... Since in this instance it would be "her mons" it would be clear the mons veneris and not the mons pubis is intended.


----------



## petit souris

It's tardy but I'm also looking to translate the same terme into english. What surprised my about this thread overall is the preference (among the AE speakers?) for genitals over vagina. For me, looking at genitals is something one does when one is a doctor or when one is a vet. Whereas vagina is just the counterpart to penis. It strikes me as much less scientific. Not sexy, not degrading, not flowery, not loaded with baggage suggesting shame, just the name of the thing.

But in the end, I add my vote to those supporting 'sex'. It does have its Mills and Boon side (or Anais Nin side), but it also has a non-medical neutrality which aids its universality. As the last speaker said, the only way that one would confuse the looking at her sex with determining her gender would be if the entire phrase was very vague, which in this case it wasn't. Looking at someone's genitals, on the other hand, suggests to me almost nothing but determining gender. I would never say that anyone looked at their lover's/partner's/etc. genitals.

Thanks.


----------

