# Verbs for 'to fuck' (!!): originally only used with men as agens?



## Imants

Hello.

First, please excuse me for the vulgarity of the theme. But this is a question that I've been asking myself for a while.

Is the use of the verb *fuck* for the receiving act by a woman a recent phenomenon (perhaps through pornography)? Or has it always meant both the giving and the receiving act?

The reason I ask is because the first time I came across the sentence "she fucked him" it sounded strange to me, because I had always thought that _*fuck*_ referred to the giving act.

The same goes for the sentence "he fucked him" referring to a homosexual act. I'd automatically assume that the former was the active one.

Thank you and once again, please excuse the vulgarity. I just thought this would be the right place to ask this.

Kind regards


PS: I'm aware that in an intercourse, both parties give and receive. I just use the terms "giving" and "receiving" here since I didn't find any better way to explain what I mean.


----------



## Arrius

Either sex can be the subject of this verb as well as the object, and it is even used as a reflexive verb, mainly metaphorically: "*You can go .... yourself*!  After all, in the sentence *they were ....ing in the bedroom*, both parties form the subject, and always did.


----------



## Outsider

It's an interesting question. I noticed that the Latin words for various forms of sex were either active or passive; the two roles were usually not interchangeable. In Portuguese, I feel that this dichotomy has faded somewhat. "She fucked him" still sounds strange, but "She fucked with him" is possible (if perhaps substandard), and "They [He + She] fucked" is OK. A very curious change is that while in Latin the agent of "getting a blojob" was the man who was fellated, in Portuguese the agent is the fellator (in other words, we tend to say the equivalent of "_giving_ a blowjob").

I hope this comparison does not take the discussion off track. The point I am trying to make is that perhaps active and passive roles were more sharply distinguished in ancient languages like Latin and (perhaps?) Old English, which could be a reflection of societies where men had greater dominion over women. I'm guessing this is what Imants has in mind.


----------



## CapnPrep

The OED does mention this tendency:


> In these senses ['to have sexual intercourse (with)'] typically, esp. in early use, with a man as the subject of the verb.


The earliest attestations provided where a woman is clearly the subject are from 1749 and 1865:*a1749* A. ROBERTSON _Poems_ (?1751) 256 But she gave Proof that she could f—k.
*1865* ‘PHILOCOMUS’ _Love Feast_ VI. 60, I [_sc._ a woman] was by a woman fuck'd.​


----------



## elirlandes

I think that the question has good merit. Outsider would seem to be on the right track when referring to the agent... I suppose that until more recent times it was just assumed that the man was the one actively doing the fucking, whereas the woman was just the passive agent, being fucked. In this modern world, clearly women are taking up responsability for many elements of life []...
That said, to my ear it seems less natural to talk about "a woman fucking a man" then "a man fucking a woman".


----------



## Miguel Antonio

For what etymology is worth, is it true that the word originated in the acronym of *F*ornication *U*nder *C*onsent of the *K*ing, or is this yet another urban myth?


----------



## sokol

Miguel Antonio said:


> For what etymology is worth, is it true that the word originated in the acronym of *F*ornication *U*nder *C*onsent of the *K*ing, or is this yet another urban myth?


An urban myth it is, see for the etymology of fuck which goes back to "fukkit", so the acronym wouldn't work with that. 

But back to topic: yes, Outsider's reasoning is quite to the point. In German, even in our enlightened modern times it still sounds somewhat unusual to attribute the active role to the woman when you use any of the words for "fuck" we have (it works okay nowadays with "ficken" - probably due to English influence - but not so well with many other words).


----------



## Frank78

Would it sounds that weird in English if she´s on top and I´d say "She fucks me"?

At least in German that´s quite a normal expression. The one who´s active "fucks"
Although it can be ambigious if "She fucks him" (I won´t go into more detail here, that´s up to you)


----------



## sokol

Frank78 said:


> At least in German that´s quite a normal expression. The one who´s active "fucks"


It is of course possible and has become normal to say "Sie fickt ihn" (but I don't agree with your explanation of the one being on top being agens: a boy may still say "ich habe sie gefickt" if she was on top, the use of active or passive does not indicate at all who was on top, not by itself).
But insert another verb - "bumsen" or any other one you know - and it becomes very unusual: "Sie bumst ihn"  - not really.


----------



## Frank78

sokol said:


> It is of course possible and has become normal to say "Sie fickt ihn" (but I don't agree with your explanation of the one being on top being agens: a boy may still say "ich habe sie gefickt" if she was on top, the use of active or passive does not indicate at all who was on top, not by itself).



Isn´t it strange if you lay still on your back and she rides you to say "I fucked her"/"Ich habe sie gefickt"?
"Fuck"/"Ficken"  does indicate being somehow active.


----------



## sokol

Frank78 said:


> Isn´t it strange if you lay still on your back and she rides you to say "I fucked her"/"Ich habe sie gefickt"?
> "Fuck"/"Ficken"  does indicate being somehow active.


Usually you wouldn't say such a thing in this situation, it would be considered very rude. Or does the younger generation really communicate like this? (I wouldn't know, being ancient myself.)

As far as the topic of this thread is concerned I stick to what I've explained in my post above.


----------



## ireney

I am trying for the past few days to remember the ancient Greek verb for fornification and it just eludes me! Anyway, in modern Greek the verb used (equivalent to " to fuck") is γαμάω- γαμώ (uncontracted and contracted form). Etymologically speaking this verb comes from  "γαμέω, γαμῶ" which meant "I marry" so probably it's a euphimism that came to be considered a rather vulgar word. 
Anyway, etymology aside, it was till recently, as these things are measured, considered almost ridiculous for a woman to use it no matter if she was the active one in the intercourse so, in that sense, it was a "male" verb. 
"Πηδάω" (never contracted with this meaning) whose basic meaning is "I jump"  was used the same way too.


----------



## Arrius

The synonyms _screw, shaft, poke,_ obviously refer to a drill-like appendage (cf the horticultural implement, _seed-drill_) and, consequently, have only the male as their subject.


----------



## Joannes

For the transitive verbs in Dutch where one 'fucks' another (presented as a dynamic activity) , I think for all of them (and I came up with quite some ) it would be more usual to have the man as their subject (agent). If the woman is the subject that would somehow require that she takes up a more 'active' role in the act, so to say. Remarkably, this is not conveyed with a male subject and the verb in a passive voice -- that would suggest the man being penetrated (or more commonly in a figurative use à la 'to find oneself in a very bad situation')

I would also like to point out that these verbs are considered vulgar in Dutch -- and this seems to be the case in other languages as well. I guess because they describe the situation in a very concrete way. It is known that, culturally, men would be more likely (or women less likely) to use this kind of words (although of course we shouldn't disregard context, cultural background (in its most specific senses) and individual characteristics but sex does seem to play a part as well..). However, that can't be a reason why female referents can't normally be used as their subjects, not directly anyway.

Having said that, I would like to mention the (mainly AE) construction *to get laid*. And while I cannot judge whether it would be odd to use it with a female subject, I do think it is mainly used by men, and mostly with a male subject. But *to get laid* is a passive, though one with *get*, which is not unimportant, because it makes the subject a little more active (compare how you feel for someone that *got (himself) robbed* to one that* was robbed*) -- this is probably why it doesn't mean that the man was penetrated (or 'screwed' in a figurative use), but, on the contrary, that men can use this construction if they want to ascribe to themselves some merit in it.  Still, it's a passive, and you would expect it starring another agent (i.e. the woman) -- I may be wrong, but I don't interpret *he got laid* that way. What it is I wanted to say with this? Well, now, isn't that odd?


----------



## OBrasilo

ireney said:


> I am trying for the past few days to remember the ancient Greek verb for fornification and it just eludes me! Anyway, in modern Greek the verb used (equivalent to " to fuck") is γαμάω- γαμώ (uncontracted and contracted form). Etymologically speaking this verb comes from  "γαμέω, γαμῶ" which meant "I marry" so probably it's a euphimism that came to be considered a rather vulgar word.
> Anyway, etymology aside, it was till recently, as these things are measured, considered almost ridiculous for a woman to use it no matter if she was the active one in the intercourse so, in that sense, it was a "male" verb.
> "Πηδάω" (never contracted with this meaning) whose basic meaning is "I jump"  was used the same way too.


Is the Greek _perdaô_ related to the Polish _pierdolić_, also meaning _to fuck_? I don't know, they just sound similar.
Also, the Ancient Greek verb for the fornication is _oiphô_, related to Slavic *_jebati_, Old High German *_eiba_, and Sanskrit _yabhati_.

Anyway, in the Slavic languages, the usage of these verbs varies for language to language.
In Slovenian, you can either _fuck (perfective) someone_ (_pojebati koga_), _fuck (imperfective) someone_ (_jebati koga_), or _fuck (imperfective) with someone_ (_jebati s kom_). Also, more commonly, at least by the youth, you'd use verb with the root _-fuk-_, than _-jeb-_ (of Germanic origins, maybe?), except for people of Croatian, Bosnian, etc. origins, which use more the latter, instead.
So, the first case, _ona ga je pofukala_ (_she fucked him_), would sound awkward in Slovenian, but _on jo je pofukal_ (_he fucked her_), wouldn't sound awkward.
In the secnd case, it's the same, as in the first case. In the third case, however, neither _ona je f__ukala z njim_ and _on je fukal z njo_, sound awkward.

And, in the end, Slovenian has a ready-made euphemism for those roots as well, and it's the _-seks-_ root, so you can _seksati_ and _poseksati_ (yes, both are valid in Slovenian). This root is commonly misspelled with an _x_ by the youth (damn you, English influence). Also _-fučk-_ can be used as an euhpemism (this one is, according to reputable Sloveian dictionaries, of onomatopoeic origins, and originally referred to when you basically whistle without making sounds or only making slight sounds, which sound like _foo_).


----------

