If you think “bootylicious” isn’t really a word, just look it up in the Oxford Dictionary. It’s there but the funny thing is…the meaning is wrong. According to Oxford, bootylicious means “sexually attractive.” I beg to differ. “Bootylicious” means the girl’s got an attractive butt. It could be big…or round…or smooth…or jiggly…or whatever. But the word is descriptive of a specific body part. You wouldn’t say a girl with a big chest and a small booty was “bootylicious” even if you found her sexual attractive.
How could the good people at Oxford blow that? Oh well. I guess they’re even lamer than I am! But then again…if you look up “ratchet,” I bet the definition will be “a tool.” What does Oxford know anyway?
One thing I did notice in Destiny’s Child’s video though: Those girls are not bootylicious. None of them has anything in the rear – or the front for that matter. They’re all arms and legs. Those girls look like track stars…and not the ones you used to see at “The Point.” And speaking of “The Point”…anybody remember those good old days?
I was not a consumer there. But late one night back when I was a cabby, a guy flagged me down from Midtown asking to go to the Hunts Point Market. He was one of the guys who worked with fruit – at the market. Man, did I get an eyeful or what? Now that was a place to find a bootylicious babe! Or a breast-a-licious babe. Or just a naked babe! Half those girls wore almost nothing at all! And the proliferation! Hunts Point made Manhattan’s 11th Avenue in the 30’s and 40’s look minor league. Too many trollops…too little time!
Years later I came to find out that The Point was a union shop of sorts. If you wanted to work the main stroll, a girl had to have a pimp. If she chose to be an indy, Miss Honey would have to stroll on the fringes away from the madding crowd. Go figure! Who’d have thought The Point was a study in labor relations?
Moving on…I just finished Andy Rooney’s book of 154 hare-brained essays. In it he complains about editors and specifically – copy editors. Anybody who’s ever written a published article knows what he’s talking about as all authors think what they submit is perfect. But here’s the funny part: Andy admits that his copy editor found two instances in which Andy used the word “principal” instead of “principle.” Ironic that he should mention that because among many typos in his book, I found one instance in which he uses “here” instead of “hear”…and another where “their” appears instead of “there.”
It seems Andy’s copy editor isn’t much better than he is! Of course, I have my own share of errors so I shouldn’t talk. But then again…I don’t have a copy editor. But if I did, I’d expect him (or her) to find those types of errors. And actually, I find an error or two in almost every book I read nowadays. Maybe I missed my calling and should have been a proofreader. Whatever…I’m tickled that even after a manuscript passes through at least two additional hands that books can still go to print with errors. But what’s the difference? Nobody buys books anymore. So why would a Publisher pay anybody more than a few bucks to proofread the text? And that’s why so many new books have typos and errors.
Anyway…back to the point! Oxford got it wrong. Bootylicious means an attractive booty. A girl could be entirely otherwise unattractive. But if she has a nice booty…she’s bootylicious!