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

I’m watching Scrubs right now (a comedy about doctors if you don’t know) and there’s a whole episode about a character’s coy refusal to use ‘medical terms’ like penis and vagina. And then they go right head and get her to use the ‘correct’ term of vagina; when they actually are talking about a vulva.

I shouted at the telly and my husband and teenage son did not get why I was so cross.

Caesarian sections notwithstanding.

I always read it as the Origin because it is both where we all come from and how we all get there.

the absence of head and face and the cutting across her legs, completely depersonalises the woman whose body it is.

Keep in mind this painting was never meant for public viewing.

That is kind of the point as it protects her identity except for the man who commissioned it and the artist. The man who commissioned the painting was the lover of the woman, Constance Queniaux, in the painting. Her lover was Ottoman diplomat Halil Sherif Pasha, and he commissioned the painting for his private collection.

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.

It is a mark of respect to the woman to not include her face or reveal her identity because even private collections can end up sold on and viewed by the public, or another man.

Only prostitutes had their faces on erotic paintings of this era as they were literally advertising.

No one knew who the woman was in the painting until 2018…

In the link address it says vagina painting. I thought someone had done a painting using their vulva until I opened the link!

There's a correction message at the end of the article. They don't change links if they amend headlines.

Interestingly, if you click on the link, the word used is indeed 'vulva'. So 'vagina' does appear to have been used as click bait.

The painting shows the pubic area, with luxuriant dark hair obscuring clitoris and labia; the vagina is totally obscured. Part of the buttocks is visible between the slightly parted legs.

I am uneasy with the way this area of anatomy is foregrounded in the painting, which seems to me to be a male view of female sexuality as simultaneously blatant and passive. It may be part of what was planned as a larger work, but the absence of head and face and the cutting across her legs, completely depersonalises the woman whose body it is. (The title 'L'origine du monde' takes one back to Genesis, and Eve. All is Woman's fault.)

But I wouldn't go into a gallery and vandalise the painting.

Clearly there have been complaints - it's been corrected.

I dunno, OP,,it’s enough to drive you bonkers

You cant even see the vagina! It's more the bottom of a women's body that shows the pubic area (I googled the painting)