Why don't they know the names of women's body parts?

Yes, I would say it is appropriate to feel it is private and not meant to be gawked at in public. I like your copywrite, privacy rights until death idea.

@SummerFeverVenice So it is appropriate for me to feel I shdn't be seeing this. Interesting thought: do we treat her/their desire for privacy rather as we do copyright? I.e. Once you've died, you lose control.

@Gagagardener
Thank you. Yes, it was a private painting she had agreed to do for her lover and with her identity protected. The two men (lover and artist) did take the secret to their graves and beyond.

@SummerFeverVenice Your explanation of the painting is very interesting. But it was private, for a particular man to look at, painted at a time when attitudes to all sorts of things were different. (Including luxuriant pubic hair!)

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Google search term The Origin of the World painting, click image tab, second and third images have no impediment.

I don’t have an opinion other that I can’t find a bloody image of the actual painting without someone’s head, red writing or another woman with her legs open at the fore front of the image….i would like to see a good image of the painting after the lovely explanation of why there’s no face

You’re not reading the answers, I don’t know why.

There is a difference between using a pet name for your genitalia, and using the wrong scientific name. Words carry meaning in materially real sense, if you use the wrong scientific term, your meaning is not successfully communicated to the audience. Using a pet name isn’t a problem and is not what the thread is about.

The art in question doesn’t use any terms, correct or otherwise, it is a painting.

The point of contention was how it was described by the article.

I understand there were numerous complaints regarding the inaccurate terminology (one of which was mine) hence the correction.

I emailed and complained - I do it all the time 😂I am sure they have a little file on me.

I doubt more than one man in ten could say what a cervix is with any accuracy.

Ffs, do you lot never tire of playing the victim card?

The discussion is about the Guardian's choice of words when reporting on the art.

Not the art itself (or what any individual woman chooses to name her vulva).

Do feminists have to respond meekly when someone attacks them, in case they're then accused of 'talking down'?

As has been said on this thread several times, you do you.

Talking down to other women because you think you are evervso superior and dont like what they say and have different opinions is the opposite of feminism.
I actually do call my own bodyparts the correct terms but if i want to call it a foof I jolly well will without another woman judging me and other women
Why should art use the correct terms? Art should provoke. Thats generally the purpose

Oh sorry, my mistake I was thinking colour photos. It was more classy to commission a painting- no chance of copies leaking and no chance of finding any prints that DID reveal her identity.

You shouldn’t feel bad. @Gagagardener ’s post is from modern point of view fully grounded in a post #metoo world. The painting is a product of the times- it’s a private picture meant to be known about only by two lovers (the artist kept it secret who she was as they were required to do).

I love the painting too.

oh dear, my comment was about the fact that you seemed to be missing the point entirely and I suspected that was deliberate. There is a world of difference between giving your body parts a childish euphemism in private and naming body parts properly in things that matter, like art and medical literature for gods sake. A vulva is external and a vagina is internal and that’s significant and it’s something that everyone should know. I would suggest that people who can’t deal with the proper grown up names for women’s body parts give feminism a bad name.

@duc748 you’d think so, right? If you run that article through Google translate you can see the High Court did eventually decide just that. But a lower court thought it had found a technicality on which to let yet another sex offender off.

Why? I can call my body parts whatever i like. Who are you to dictate to another woman how they should speak?. Women like you give feminists a bad name

This was back in the day when you couldn’t take a photo of your lover to look at and remember (or wank to), so you had to commission a painting of your mistress.

You certainly could by 1866, and plenty of Victorian men with money did have pornographic photographs. Courbet's colour is better though.

Oh just stop. You appear to be deliberately obtuse, it looks silly, we’re not five.

Sorry to be vulgar, but surely all it needs is an examination, and "He put it in there"? Seems incredible that strict terminology was necessary.