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

[theDudesmummy]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/07/gustave-courbet-vagina-painting-vandalised-metoo-graffiti?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

The Origin of the World is not a painting of a vagina!

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)

Exactly! I guess the word "vagina" will generate more clicks on the article than if they correctly described the painting. But it's not right. This sort of thing ends in people thinking that you can "grow a cervix". Because basically the names for all women's body parts are just interchangeable and who cares about the specifics, right?

Ps I love this painting

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

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

Either that or they saw this thread! Well that is good. (Not really much vulva visible either, I'd say, but this is better!).

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.

It was vagina in both the link/headline and the article when I first saw it earlier. That has now been changed.

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

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

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…

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

Caesarian sections notwithstanding.

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.

I shout at whatever means of comms I'm interacting with when people say 'vagina' and even 'vulva' but never ever 'clitoris', like it doesn't exist in the same geographical area😠

I'm not sure I've ever needed to say "clitoris" is general conversation? It's not like people refer to it, specifically, a lot.

I can't get too het up about people outside of medical settings using more colloquial language. Though I think it's better when they don't sound to silly.

it's like imply/infer, isn't it? 😛

I’m not sure what you are inferring?

<ducks and runs>

I used to get really cross at this as a biology teacher. One of Dds friends was round and they were looking at magazines and said ‘oh that’s so gross you can see her vagina’. She realised I was in the room, looked at me, I raised an eyebrow and she corrected it to vulva. I said ‘better’.
It’s a stupid phase that’s been going on for several years. Back in my day there were no words, now they use the wrong one.
I, too, have been known to shout ‘vulva’ at the tv. My family all know the correct terminology 😂.

Me too. The source of all human life is the womb of a mother.

I'm not sure I've ever needed to say "clitoris" is general conversation? It's not like people refer to it, specifically, a lot.

Well no, not general conversation, but who refers to vaginas and vulvas in general conversations? I think what was on my mind [inadequately expressed, I admit] was those people who proudly say they are teaching their children the 'correct' terms for their genitals, the little boys have penises and the little girls have.... vaginas. Why aren't little girls taught that they have clitorises?

Well I guess the penis and vagina are the two essentials for the actual act and so are what are referred to primarily, although they are not analogous organs. Although if people think vulvas are vaginas then that doesn't really stack up.

@SummerFeverVenice thanks so much for that explanation. I was feeling bad about loving the painting after seeing @Gagagardener 's post. I think I love it partly because of the nice full unabashed bush! (I showed to to DH and that's what he liked about it too).

Does it matter?

Vagina is often used inaccurately as are other names

It matters to me, yes, especially with the poor level of understanding that people (including women) seem to have about female anatomy in general, which I believe needs to be challenged as much as possible. (I still can't understand how Lammysaurus imagined someone could grow a cervix, when he had fathered three children).

Someone added this beneath the article: 'The headline and text of this article were amended on 7 May 2024 to correctly refer to the painting being of a woman’s vulva, not vagina as an earlier version said.'

I still can't understand how Lammysaurus imagined someone could grow a cervix, when he had fathered three children.

For me, it's easy to understand. He doesn't know what a cervix is. My father was an educated man, but I doubt he knew. It is entirely possible for a man to get a woman pregnant without knowing any of the names of her body parts. Penises are important, lady parts are not 🙄