The one thing that is known for sure -- verses of this chantey were "indecent" back in sailing days. The issue of what exactly all those verses were (typically) has been complicated by several layers of change, incl:
censorship (self-imposed and publisher-imposed) of original singers.
bowdlerization by revival performers.
re-imagined obscenity (e.g. Lighter's insight into Oscar Brand), sometimes as a reaction to the previous clean-up).

The performer today is put in a somewhat awkward position. Should s/he wish to perform a "clean" version, s/he'll be criticised for being inauthentic. If performing a "dirty" version, s/he'll be likely to include several re-imagined verses -- which an audience might accept as "authentic," but which she'll know are not! Lastly, the most "authentic" thing to do is make up ones own verses, but if she does this, she's no longer protected by folk-singing Clause #245.6 : "Don't blame me; the lyrics are traditional" Instead s/he has now shown her own "dirty mind" to the world!! :)

I think this speaks to the sort of "willful vagueness" that is almost always necessary, in some degree, for a "folk music" performance to satisfy audiences and performers' expectations of authenticity. Which is why I am most satisfied when the ideas of "traditional" and "historical" are not conflated.

mini rant out of nowhere.

Gibb