To think that vagina is not the only word for it?

[superstarheartbreaker]

Dd and I call it a noo noo or foo foo. She is 4. Lots of people say that vagina is the only acceptable term but it sounds so clinical. At this age I think noo noo is fine...and cute.I dont even call it a vagina.

'n' aswell

teddy bear - fairy - what's the difference?

A fairy is a little creature with wings that flits around outside, maybe in a woodland. That is what it is. That is what most adults will understand by it, in my area anyway. So a child using it will be misunderstood.

Can anyone tell me WHY they would give a child a word that they know loads of other people will simply not understand.

there are loads of commonly used euphemisms which would do the job just as well and remove room for misunderstanding.

re love in the spirit of equality I will probably be using mrs pee pee and privates. Instilling they are a part of her body that is private and not to be touched or hurt by anyone. - keeping it simple until she is older to learn about its other uses

But we have a language wide and broad and descriptive enough to communicate easily without having to depend on context and nuance the whole time.

I gave two examples upthread of how using a word that means something else could result in confusion both ways around.

And no-one has told me WHY you would give a child a word that you know many people will not understand, when there are a host of words that people will understand. What is the point of choosing the non-understood one?

andsmile yes and people will understand those.

There are words on this thread that lots of people have said they have not come across before to mean girls privates. I don't understand why someone would choose one of those rather than a more common one.

And I wish we had a word like willy, I really do.

Frankly if an adult doesn't pick up on whatever a 'cookies jar' 'mini' or 'foofoo' in the context where a child may be disclosing something then they are probably to stupid to follow any sensible safeguarding procedure anyway.

But derek without the additional cues, they wouldn't.

And most people aren't on the lookout for things meaning anything sinister unless they have reason to / there are pretty big cues.

A child saying someone was playing with their fairy (I know I keep coming back to that) would not set off any alarms in most people around here because fairy does simply not mean that. It just doesn't. Same as teddy bear doesn't, dr pepper doesn't, flower doesn't.

And the nonsense ones are just as bad. So I've found out today DD has called her toy what apparently some people will take to mean as vulva. Well I'm not going to tell her to change it, but it does leave room open for some people thinking there is something off in the family. Maybe they already do? I don't know. But how the hell was I supposed to know that a word DD made up as far as I was concerned was code for a girls' privates for some people.

Noo Noo, Foo Foo, Minnie, Fairy, Flower, Twinkle, Cuckoo are cringeworthy and before MN I would not have had the foggiest idea of what they were.

Do you see no benefit at all to people teaching their children words that are widely understood Derek?

I mean, that's what it boils down to, and I don't understand why, given the choice between a widely understood word and one that is not, you would choose the one that is not.

I really don't get it. I want my children to be understood when they talk, do you see what I mean at all?

I'm a mother of 2 ..who still uses the word hoo-haa...and proud

I have never heard fairy used in that way!

And surely if children are brought up with the correct terms from birth then it will just be another word for a body part? It as adults that we seen to bizarrely think that the word vulva is somehow dirty or should not be spoken by a child.

But we have a language wide and broad and descriptive enough to communicate easily without having to depend on context and nuance the whole time. great in one whole sentence just discount whole levels of communication.

The fact is non verbal communication exists.

This link does not mentionuse of names:

www.nspcc.org.uk/help-and-advice/for-parents/keeping-your-child-safe/the-underwear-rule/the-underwear-rule_wda97016.html

Of course non-verbal communication exists! I have never said it doesn't!

However to pretend that words are unimportant as people will communicate what they mean non-verbally is, I don't even know what it is. Silly?

I can't just start using random words in conversation and expect people to follow what I'm on about. Why make people work so hard? And of course they might get it wrong, some people are terrible at "reading" non-verbal cues.

Why not just use one of the host of perfectly good words / phrases that are clearly understood by the population?

Just, why not?

bigblack is that them weird things on the 'In the Night Garden'

I think educating your child about boundaries and telling trusted people about anyone who crosses those boundaries whatever label is used is more important

andsmile

Can you explain why it is reasonable for a person to teach their daughter the term "hoo haa" (from the poster a little upthread) which I would hazard a guess most people wouldn't know, rather than privates, or fanny, or vulva, or front bottom, or any of the other widely recognised terms?

Why do you think people decide to do that? Can you explain the purpose as I don't get it at all.

No they are ha-hoos on ITNG.

It's not either or though andsmile.

how about educating children about boundaries and giving them words for areas of their bodies that others will easily understand.

No you can't love giraffes because you are an adult and it is expected that you have a certain commant of language at your disposal.

I think we use these words because they are childlike, not sexual, cute and well cute sounds nicer than medical terminology. i think it is as simple as that.

My choice Mr Pee Pee was practical for me as it was what I specificaly chose to help me as part of potty training. Just the same as now DD know when people are having a wee/poo on toilet as it is a bhevaiour we need to learn.

The use of cue non sexual names probably does harp back to times when women needed to be seen as 'decent' and non sexual.

What we need is a common "friendly" non-sexual word like willy.

I really wish we had one, it's ridiculous that there isn't. And I am sure that you are right that it stems from women's genitals being considered dirty / unmentionable / rude etc.

I do agree there is a gap, Ive been trying to think of one...

Fanny but that was also an actual name and used to refer to bottom in US. Personally I think it sounds horrible anyway.

I dont know.

I think the fact that there isn't one, shows how little attitudes have changed underneath it all.