When did being anatomically correct become offensive?

I was sitting in class last week, when our professor shared a great story.  Long story short, he said vagina (he was making an announcement about an on campus presentation of The Vagina Monologues) and about 100 or so people in the audience got offended by the word vagina.  As he spoke, my mind started to spin; why on earth would people find the word so offensive?  Then it dawned on me, that in many communities throughout the United States (and the world I am sure) we are taught from an early age that vagina is a dirty word! The question I had to pose to myself and I pose to all of you is simply WHY? 

So, now I find myself Googling like crazy, trying to find something that might give me a little bit of insight.  I have spent countless hours surfing the web only to find myself more and more irritated by what I am finding; extreme feminism, blaming of conservatives for not wanting to teach age appropriate anatomy, etc…, but no solid answer.   The extremism doesn’t bug me nearly as much as the blame game.    As a conservative and a parent I believe it is my job, not the school systems, to teach my children about their bodies and the anatomically correct terms.  According to what I have found online it is believed that it is my fault the word vagina is seen as dirty because I do not want lawmakers legislating how or when my children are taught?  Not only do I find it irritating, but I find it an insult to my intelligence!

From an early age all of my children have watched the movie Kindergarten Cop and the word vagina is used multiple times, in fact a kindergarten student is the one using it!  Is it a dirty movie? No!  The child is being anatomically correct.  Did questions arise; of course they did, and as parents we answered our children’s questions appropriately for their age. I found it particularly funny to find out that some popular movie editing companies that were in my area a few years back actually edited out the parts of the movie where the word vagina was used appropriately, but left the violence. Isn’t this sending the wrong message?  I believe it is! Because there is nothing wrong or offensive with using a word appropriately!

Back to my professor; in the after-math of what he dubbed vagina-gate, the then President of UVSC (now UVU) asked him to write an apology letter to the community.  My awesome professor, Phil Gordon has graciously allowed me access to this letter and better yet, has allowed me to share with the world his thoughts.  This is magnificent because I cannot find anywhere online (or any books) that have a better explanation of why vagina is not a dirty word!

What’s in a name?

When a rose is not a rose.

            Why does The Vagina Monologues have to have the word vagina in it?  Why did I repeatedly use the word when announcing a production of the play a couple of weeks ago?  Apparently some in the town have been offended by both.  I regret that the play and my words were taken offensively. 

            The intent of the use of that word is not to offend, or to be “dirty,” but to undirty the word, to take it back from the pejorative connotations that equate women’s sexual identity with shamefulness.  This is no trivial matter.  The shame associated with the word is related to the perpetuation of sexual violence against women.  It feeds the hatred of women by making them simultaneously objects of desire and disgust.  It inhibits discussion about sexual violence, and thus the accountability of victimizers and the healing of victims, by making it that much more difficult to talk about sex crimes.

Of course, I understand that it is a provocative word, attached to anxieties, awkwardness, and contempt.  But those attachments are not necessary, automatic, and eternal.  They are cultural.  Saying the word is meant to be an act of cultural intervention.

Repeating it, boldly, flagrantly, sometimes joyfully, sometimes painfully, is to wrestle the meaning of “woman” away from the misogynists.  It is part of the struggle against sexual violence. 

            The social science literature is clear on this matter.  Making women’s sex organs “unmentionable” is obscurantism falsely dignified by the name “modesty,” and it has a range of devastating effects, from the late diagnosis of illness through the inability to experience sexual pleasure to the host of calamitous consequences of hidden violence.  Research shows that children who can correctly identify their sex organs are less likely to be victims of sexual abuse.  In a study I conducted with a colleague at the University of Illinois in the early 1990s, we found that rape victims identified the practice of putting their experience into words and sharing it with others as their primary means of recovery from their attacks. 

            The specific features common to sexual assault: the shock and denial; the pressure to keep silent; the misattribution of responsibility; the maze of fear and shame rape victims are forced to navigate; are all addressed and worked through in the act of talking to supportive people about them.  In telling their stories, victims take control, come out of denial, name their assailants, absolve themselves, heal relationships, begin to trust, and help other victims progress from states of denial, misunderstanding, and turmoil, toward states of acceptance, understanding, and newfound strength.

            Though my words and the play sound, at times, crude, there is sometimes a high purpose to low talk.  I wish I could have articulated more clearly then what I am trying to clarify now.  Violence and silence are related.  Speaking is healing.  The body is sacred.  But do we sanctify something by obliterating the word for it?  The prohibition against speaking publicly about sex matters does not restrict sex practices or sex crimes.  It restricts only understanding of, and healing from, violent sexual experiences. 

Is it ever the intention of activities at UVSC to offend the community?  Definitely not.  Is it ever the intention to air provocative ideas and challenge commonly held ones?  Sometimes, yes.  And that is a perfectly appropriate thing for an institution of higher education to do.