Talk:choad

Return to "choad" page.

leave it hereEdit

this is a good addition to the dictionary, leave it here

A Choad is a derogatory term/insult, to mean having a penis that is wider than it is long. It is a birth defect and is extremely rare.

Apparently this was deleted, gunning the supportable senses and leaving it to someone to anonymously re-enter it with the dubious sense. Brings to mind another Hindic word: samsara -dmh 07:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know Hindi, but I am learning and I do have the Oxford Hindi-English dictionary. It does list the infinitive verb that would be transliterated as chōdnā as the verb form of the f-word. The verb stem would be chōd, but that wouldn't really be a noun. The closest noun form they list is chōdū, which can mean a lascivious man. So the connection with the english word choad is plausible, though not confirmed. Choad in english is used as I've heard it more as a slang word for dork, loser, etc, and could have just been someone's funny idea of calling someone a f***er in a language they wouldn't know, though that's not really the correct way to make a noun out of an infinitive in Hindi. I also don't know if it is in wide enough usage to warrant inclusion. - Taxman 16:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
That, and the recurring usage of terms like bokachoda on some of the alt. groups from the region makes for pretty solid circumstantial evidence. I included these somewhere in the flame war over this entry. Unfortunately, that flame war spilled over several pages and the useful information has clearly been tidied away, paving the way for yet another round.
Naturally we list the etymology as disputed because this is vulgar slang, not a "respectable" term. It is therefore held to a ridiculously higher standard than 99% of the entries here. -dmh 08:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You will find that there actually are very few exceptions ("clearly widespread use") are made in the RFV process these days. It should be held to a much more stringent standard than we currently use - but the comparison you assert simply is not true. Almost everything going through RFV gets the full treatment. --Connel MacKenzie 08:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but words like this are far more likely to get RFV'd. Further, it's almost a dead certainty that a vulgarity will get gunned repeatedly on the way, losing useful evidence. Such is the case with choda, which is the likely route from Hindu into English in this case. Then there's the material from the flame war with Ec over this one, which is spread across several pages and doubtless archived away. But google bokachoda. The etymology will be pretty clear, especially from comments that chutia is a variant in Hindu or Bengali. -dmh 08:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A Choad is a derogatory term/insult. In the United States, it is often used to describe having a penis that is wider than it is long. This is a real birth defect related to Hypospadias and is extremely rare. The rest of the world seem to uniformly recognize it as the area between the rectum and scrotum, once believed to be a muscle. —This comment was unsigned.

Questionable citationsEdit

I fail to see the value of usenet citations. If we can't get a better source, we should just leave them out. Anyone can type anything in usenet, so it's status as a useful source is highly suspect. - Taxman 19:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Taxman, we report the use of a word; primary sources gleaned from the internet are excellent citations for Wiktionary. I understand that would not be acceptable for Wikipedia, but we have very different goals here than Wikipedia. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I reallize the goals are different, but there is the same need for having reliable sources. Otherwise the project degenerates into complete uselessness. Using something like usenet where again, anyone can type anything in, offers no value as a reference. - Taxman 17:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There are 49k of google groups hits, 121K of google web hits & 180 google print hits. I can provide print cites if you want but as it is primarily used as a slang word I felt it more appropriate to attest it from written conversations i.e. usenet.MGSpiller 19:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It certainly wouldn't hurt to have print cites with the word used in running text. Three quotations isn't a magical limit. For practicality though no additional usenet references for the first two definitions, as they may not be considered independent. Sources for the second already makes me cringe, but they are from different spheres I guess, and 7 years apart. Davilla 03:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Three citations is the magical limit for passing RFV, for each sense. So far, all citations support the second meaning; the ones listed for the first obviously do not support that meaning, likewise the one for the third meaning. Considering that this entry was a repeat target for vandals, I don't think 1, 3 or 4 are worth considering at all - but who knows what citations are out there. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant there's no magical upper bound, i.e. the more the better. Davilla 17:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The print cites would be much more valuable in my opinion. Please add those. - Taxman 17:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

From RfVMGSpiller 02:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

OK on further investigation of the print hits Google revises it's estimate down on each subsequent page & none provide suitable running text quotes. Quelle dommage. :-( MGSpiller 22:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

My take on usenet is that you need to be more careful, and ideally use more citations than with, say, the New York Times. That doesn't make it useless and it doesn't lead to degeneracy. It does lead to words like choad/chode being included more quickly, which is, of course, a Good Thing. -dmh 08:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional definitionsEdit

  • I've restored this as it is acceptable for purposes of discussion. DAVilla 11:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely chode=bit between the scrotum & anus, choad=a penis that is wider than it is long? —This unsigned comment was added by 144.124.16.33 (talkcontribs).

Literally wider than it is long? No, I wouldn't say that's likely. However, if you can unearth any evidence that a choad in the sense of penis is stalky or the like, please provide it. Remember we need to see actual use, not secondary definitions like Urban Dictionary (or even Webster for that matter), and that your sources must be durably archived, eliminating most forums, BBS, IM for instance. DAVilla 19:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The definition that was always thrown around in school was a "penis whose girth is bigger than its length", so a penis whose circumference was 6 inches and length was 5 inches would be a choad. While this may not be an official definition of the word, it certainly seems to be a commonly accepted slang term. -- Macaddct1984 19:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The stated definition is not correct because it is not descriptive enough.

I have heard the word 'chode' used as the strip of skin between the spider web and the scrotum, as well as a penis that has a gerth larger than the penis is long. These are widely accepted definitions heard from many US States.

The real discussion should be over which definition gets to be first, second, and third.

However, the south park definition is a valid alternate.

Can you find any evidence for it though? Primary source, not secondary, and durably archived. DAVilla 06:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


Here are a few references...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=choad

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20000531

http://www.slangcity.com/ask_ac_archive/chode.htm

Those are secondary sources. Do not add the definition back in without real, published citations from reputable independent authors spanning a year. --Connel MacKenzie 05:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


I've seen the term "choad" used several times during MTV's Beavis and Butthead episodes in the 90's.

Neologism?Edit

There are a few different definitions for neologism, one of them being a new word, and another being a word made up by schizophrenics that only they themselves understand.  This word is neither.  It's not in a "major dictionary" as the notice says, but I didn't know that mattered on Wiktionary.  This word is known to every junior high school male in the English-speaking world, and has been for a long time.  The citations and examples on the article page seem fine.  Why the big discussion?  Can we take down this odd neologism banner? — V-ball 19:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

FeedbackEdit

TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Feedback.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


Um, for a bit more precision, I had been led to understand that the length/girth ratio being less than 1.0 was part of the definition. I.e. a short thick one.

It’s like fishermen and the one that got away. Dimensions are eyeballed and exaggerated, nothing precision. Most people don’t bother with a tape measure or a yard stick. —Stephen 01:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


A choad or chode is a weened but still immature male swine. If a choad is slaughtered, its meat is most delicious and is often called suckling pig, which it really isn't. If it is not castrated, it will become a boar, difficult to manage but necessary for breeding. If it is castrated, its tender cuts can be butchered and its hams, shanks, and knuckles cured or pickled. It's curious to me that so few people know this meaning of the word. It is still in common use in rural Scotland and it appears in American Revolution and Civil War quartermasters' records.

Last modified on 12 November 2011, at 11:36