Linguistic Musings: Yoni, Discussions 1 & 2
I have a handbook called Naturally Healthy Babies & Children by Aviva Jill Romm, which, besides having the most adorable cover picture ever, is a fantastic guide to herbal and alternative remedies to children’s health concerns, as well as fostering health through good diet, exercise, and various preventive measures.
A few months ago, in the aftermath of Marigold’s dog bite, she developed a little yeast infection from the antibiotics, so I decided to check my handbook for a first course of action. Introducing the topic of Vaginal Itching, it says:
Girls may occasionally experience itching in the vaginal canal or vulva. Henceforth, I will also use the word yoni for these terms, based on the sacred Sanskrit word for genitalia, as opposed to the word vagina, which means sheath. Women and girls do not have to view themselves in relationship to men, especially not in the way implied by sheath–that our genitals are intended to hold a sword!
I had actually learned the etymology of vagina in college and have never liked that particular discovery because of its connotative implications–both the image of passive acceptance to something more powerful and active, underscoring the errant notion that men are supposed to be sexual and women are not, that men should be sexually assertive and/or aggressive while women are sexually passive, empty, or cold*; and the clear image of violence. Comparing a penis to a sword and a vagina to a sheath brings rape immediately to mind. I was intrigued and pleased to find this in a health reference guide and wanted to see what you all thought. So that is discussion #1.
Discussion #2 elaborates on #1 and is from the second paragraph in the section:
Much like urinary tract infections, vaginal itching can be caused by the chemicals in bubble baths, soaps, detergents, and perfumed toilet paper; tight-fitting or synthetic underwear, tights, or pants; a wet bathing suit; transference of bacteria from the rectum to the yoni; inadequate bathing; and contact with unclean hands. Teaching girls to love and respect their bodies from an early age is an important gift that we can give them to help ensure their health. So many problems in our society, such as anorexia/bulimia, drug abuse, and sexual diseases, stem from disrespect of our bodies. Help your daughter to be comfortable with and knowledgeable about her whole self, including her genitals. This instruction will serve her for her lifetime!
Again, I thought this was a really great thing to include in a health manual, though a little unexpected, and wanted to hear what you all have to say about it.
*Side note: Apollo recently taught the EQ class on chastity and he shaped his lesson around Robert Frost’s poem, Fire & Ice. He opened the discussion by asking the class what they thought it meant and one of the men answered that Fire represented men and that Ice represented women, sexually speaking. Apollo said something along the lines of, “well, that’s the first time I’ve heard that interpretation!” and moved on. We were both slightly amused and slightly appalled. Ah well….
p.s. I ended up applying plain yogurt directly to Marigold’s yeast rash and it cleared up within a day.
I’m not sure using the word vagina has the effect of making any girls or women define themselves in relationship to men. For virtually every English-speaking person, vagina means nothing more than vagina. The word evokes no image of sheaths, swords, penetration or anything of the sort. If vagina actually meant penis sheath to the people using it, then I could see cause for concern. But this just strikes me as pedantic and trivial. I don’t think etymology of a word matters when nobody knows the etymology.
Comment by Tom — September 27, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
I agree with Tom, with the added value that it’s specific. I don’t mean the labia or the anus when I say vagina, but what exactly does it mean if you say “my yoni itches”?
Comment by Kai Jones — September 27, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
Well Tom, I’ve know the meaing of the word since i was in high school. And it has always bugged me.
I guess ignorance is bliss.
Comment by Not Ophelia — September 27, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
As to #1-My first thought when I read sheath was, a covering of some sort, I really didn’t think of sword and sheath until I read further, Which, I think, goes to show that calling a vagina a vagina, no matter what it’s derived from, isn’t an insult to the vagina. In other words most people don’t know or really care where the word vagina came from. It’s one of those “pick your battles” kindof moment, does calling a vagina, a vagina really an insult to women? I don’t think so so therefore I don’t care.
As to #2-Well obviously we should teach our girls to love and respect their bodies. I, of course feel the same way about boys. They should learn to love and respect their bodies as well (yes you need to wash your hands if you pee, even if you didn’t thouch anything). As a side note to this subject it has bothered me that the new vaccine for HPV is only being marketed and pushed to girls but not boys, even though they are just as susseptable to getting and spreading HPV, if the desire of society is to rid the world of HPV, aside from behavior changes, then EVERYONE should get vaccinated shouldn’t they? A little off subject but this came to mind as I was writing.
Comment by Belle — September 27, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
I really like this post. Discussion #1: I find the etymology of the word vagina fascinating, but not surprising. After reading this I briefly considered using the word yoni permanently, but I happen to love the word vagina. I use it every chance I can get. I was raised not saying vagina, as though it were a bad word. In spite of the negative etymology, I love this word. To me it is strong and using it empowers me. I don’t agree with the above comment by Tom as a whole because I feel that he reacted to this post as most men do as soon as a women points out oppression or sexism; by trivializing and trying to discredit her opinion and experience. If vagina actually meant penis sheath to the people using it, then I could see cause for concern. But this just strikes me as pedantic and trivial.
Discussion #2: I am not a fan of all of the vagina-hating products on the market. I recently tried some organic cotton tampons in an effort to show my vagina some love while saving the environment, but they just did not work and I was mightily disappointed. When I went to find some “regular” tampons because I know they work, I was faced with an entire aisle of products meant to make my vagina smell “fresh.” I found it infuriating. Who decided that those disgusting artificial scents that cannot be good for your body are somehow better than the natural human scent of the vagina? I don’t want a fruity vagina. Or a floral one for that matter.
Comment by Leah Vanessa — September 27, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
I always figured it meant deep indentation because of the way it’s used in biology. I’m sure cells would be horrified to know that calling their pre-endocytic membrane indentations invaginations causes them to be defined in relationship to men.
Comment by Tom — September 27, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
Just don’t confuse the terminology
Comment by Jacob — September 27, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
It is true that common usage of vagina today does not conjure up sword/sheath images. Etymologies, by their very nature, tend to be at least somewhat obscure. But this is a linguistic musing (perhaps not of interest to the average person on the street) first and foremost, and I do think there is value in looking to the root meanings of our words to see how the underlying assumptions and meanings in them have shaped and still affect current culture and attitudes, as well as their underlying assumptions.
Furthermore, if you try to match the metaphor to current attitudes and actions regarding sex and violence, women and men, I think you’ll see there’s a significant match between the root word and the way our culture operates today.
I’m not saying that nobody should use the words vagina, vulva, etc., and I think Kai has a good point that it’s helpful to have more specific terms. But don’t you think our society could gain something by consciously learning and adopting references to female genitalia that connote and denote sacredness, rather than either (in the case of vagina, etc.) functional, medical connotations or (in the case of more derisive synonyms) debasing, violent, objectifying connotations? I do. It’s not a matter of picking a fight or choosing a battle, it’s a matter of adding something good to our individual and collective consciousness, something that promotes respect for women, their bodies, and their sexuality.
Comment by Artemis — September 27, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
If you think the discussion is pointless or ultimately fruitless, I ask that you not participate. Please.
Comment by Artemis — September 27, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
Artemis,
To whom is your #8 directed?
Comment by Tom — September 27, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
For those who may be unfamiliar with the etymologies being discussed here, the following are the articles from the Online Etymology Dictionary:
vagina
1682, from L. vagina “sheath, scabbard” (pl. vaginæ), from PIE *wag-ina- (cf. Lith. voziu “ro cover with a hollow thing”), from base *wag- “to break, split, bite.” Probably the ancient notion is of a sheath made from a split piece of wood (see sheath). A modern medical word; the L. word was not used in an anatomical sense in classical times. Anthropological vagina dentata is attested from 1908.
vulva
1548, from L. vulva, earlier volva “womb, female sexual organ,” lit. “wrapper,” from volvere “to turn, twist, roll, revolve,” also “turn over in the mind,” from PIE base *wel- “to turn, revolve” (cf. Skt. valate “turns round,” ulvam “womb, vulva;” Lith. valtis “twine, net,” apvalus “round;” O.C.S. valiti “roll, welter,” vluna “wave;” Gk. eluo “wind, wrap,” helix “spiral object,” eilein “to turn, squeeze;” Goth. walwjan “to roll;” O.E. wealwian “roll,” weoloc “whelk, spiral-shelled mollusk;” O.H.G. walzan “to roll, waltz;” O.Ir. fulumain “rolling;” Welsh olwyn “wheel”).
yoni
1799, from Skt., “female sexual principle as an object of veneration,” lit. “vulva, womb.”
Comment by Kevin Barney — September 27, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
Tom, to no one in particular, just to anyone who thinks so (#8). I want this discussion to be for those who think there is value in discussing it.
Comment by Artemis — September 27, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
OK. I hope it’s OK to express the opinion that current use of vagina is innocuous, that no replacement word is necessary, and that etymolgy doesn’t matter if people don’t have the etymology in mind when using a word. For the recrd, I don’t think expressing those opinions indicates that one thinks there’s no value in the discussion.
Comment by Tom — September 27, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
I am personally very interested in the relationship between the sexisms of the past to the traditions (or words) of the present. So many of our words and traditions are based in deeply sexist ideas, and yet as our culture becomes more egalitarian, I wonder if we can change the meaning of the symbols/words without perhaps changing the symbols/words themselves.
I don’t know, I just wonder. The idea of systematically finding all the sexisms in our language and replacing them with something better just seem exhausting to me. But then again, if these subtle sexisms are part of the root of the problem, if we can not change the way think, the knee jerk way we ALL (de)value women without changing the language itself, perhaps then it’s what has to be done.
Again, I don’t know, just wonder.
Do you remember when Hugo wrote that post about “walking the bride down the isle” (not particularly relevant to Mormons I suppose) and how the roots of that ceremony are all about the passing the ownership of women, still “passing ownership” it isn’t at all what comes to mind for most modern people attending a wedding. His argument was that just because a symbol used to be the epitome of sexism, it isn’t sexist now if the meaning of the symbol has changed to everyone involved.
Don’t know if I agree, but it is interesting to think about.
Comment by fMhLisa — September 27, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
“Comparing a penis to a sword and a vagina to a sheath brings rape immediately to mind.”
??? This is both a striking statement, and one that seems to suggest confusion about the underlying metaphor.
Putting a sword in a sheath is an act of peace, generally. Swords are not ‘put away’ in a foreign sheath–they don’t fit, they don’t belong. Indeed, quite to the contrary, It’s when a sword is used to cut into something that it’s an act of violence. I can think of no way in which putting a sword in a sheath is an act of violence.
So, why does it have that connotation to you? Or, is it that whenever the masculine has a vague connotation of activity or even assertion, you always think violence and connect it to rape? And if so, isn’t that a reverse phallocentrism, and perhaps a grave limitation of your brand of feminism? Mind you, I’m not trying to insult you, I’m trying to understand why you make this association, and why you think it’s valid.
Comment by TMD — September 27, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
Hmm.
For my baby daughter, we’ve opted for “vulva” and “labia” when talking parts. Since she has two older (but still very young) brothers, this seemed a good compromise. I want them to have accurate information, but the parts they actually see when I’m changing diapers is not the vagina.
fwiw, I don’t especially care to be thought of as a sword’s sheath, but until now, was unaware of the etymology.
Comment by tracy m — September 27, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
huh, that’s unfortunate. I never knew.
Comment by cchrissyy — September 27, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
TMD, even if the sheath isn’t the object of the sword’s aggression, it still exists only in relation to the sword, as the passive container to carry, store, and protect the more important, active item. A sheath is unequal, inactive, and less important.
Comment by cchrissyy — September 27, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
When I hear the word “vagina” I don’t think of the word “sheath.” However, when I think of a vagina, (what it is, how it’s used, etc) I very easily fall into thinking of it as a ’sheath,’ a body part that exists for use by men. I don’t think I am unique in this way.
Pointing out the history of the word allows us (and by ‘us’ I mean me) to put a name on the idea of thinking about sex in a male-centered way. Rejecting the word and renaming the body parts is a symbollic way of rejecting the thought pattern that says ‘these parts of me exist for a man to use.’
Can you reject the thought pattern without renaming the body parts? Yeah, but the symbollic action can help make vague changes in thought feel more concrete and meaningful. Can you rename the parts without changing the thought pattern? Yeah, I think it’s treating a symptom rather than a cause, but it does make some people feel better.
Comment by Starfoxy — September 27, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
Artemis, I think I can only assume because of your posts you are refering to me, atleast in some respects, I think 1-You misunderstand me and 2-I was under the immpression that you didn’t like where the word vagina came from (or atleast the meaning behind it). As you wrote ” I had actually learned the etymology of vagina in college and have never liked that particular discovery” 3-I also thought you were interested in what other women’s perspectives on the subject were, perhaps I misunderstood you.
To clarify I would like to say that I was not saying that it isn’t worth discussing. By saying I don’t care where the word comes from doesn’t equal I don’t think it’s worth discussing I was simply adding my perpective, maybe I’m not welcome in such a discussion, which is the immpression I get.
Also, for what it’s worth, I was having further reflection while out gardening with a babe in one arm and the toddler at my feet “helping,” and I had the following thought. I started thinking about what a sheath really is to a sword, it doesn’t seem to be something that it stabs, like any enemy, but rather an actual covering, something protective. It keeps the sword from doing harm when sheathed. Perhaps one could look at it with a more respectful perspective. That Female actually helps protect our culture/any culture from the prospective violence of Male (which is a little insulting to men but whatever). It doesn’t have to be an insult to women.
Now don’t attack me I’m only adding my perspective, it doesn’t make me wrong, and I’m not saying that anyone else is.
BTY I was always under the immpression that this blog was welcoming to others thoughts and perspectives, you know somewhere to share thoughts and reflect in a respectful way, silly me. I think I might have been wrong. Please correct me if I am, I would love to be wrong about that or just ask me PERSONALLY not to participate, to clear any confusion as to who you are referring to and I’ll go quietly away.
Comment by Belle — September 27, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
“I wonder if we can change the meaning of the symbols/words.”
I tend to think the meaning HAS changed, really. To most people, a vagina is a body part, not a sheath.
I’m more interested in - how do you teach your children respect for their bodies? What does that mean? I get the sentiment, and the GENERAL idea, but am not sure what it looks like in practice. I gather it would be teaching them the power of their body, how to treat their body well, not to teach body shame… Does anyone have good ideas for how to teach your children respect for their body?
Comment by Sue — September 27, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
17: “TMD, even if the sheath isn’t the object of the sword’s aggression, it still exists only in relation to the sword, as the passive container to carry, store, and protect the more important, active item. A sheath is unequal, inactive, and less important.”
Not necessarily–it seems to me that you want to be able to construct it that way, perhaps, but that ignores a wide range of other sword-sheath relationships. Take for example the dress and ceremonial swords, which are rarely if ever removed from sheaths, and which are generally much plainer and even less decorated (or, indeed, symbolic) than the sword.
Comment by TMD — September 27, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
Wow, starfoxy strikes again! Loves ya foxystar.
Comment by fMhLisa — September 27, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
The vagina has needed a new name for a long time, but I don’t think “Yoni” is it. Any other nominations? Perhaps you should sponsor a contest!
Comment by MCQ — September 27, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
In pursuing this discussion, we should be aware of something called the etymological fallacy. There is a difference between what a word means and its origins in dusty history, its etymon.
For example, the English word nice etymologically means ignorant, from Latin nescius, a combination of the Latin particle ne- “not” and the verb scire “to know.” So, if someone says “you are nice,” should you be offended and slug him? No, because the meaning of words is determined by contemporary usage, not by etymology. The Online Etymology Dictionary entry s.v. “nice” shows how this word came to have a diametrically opposed meaning to its etymon:
nice
c.1290, “foolish, stupid, senseless,” from O.Fr. nice “silly, foolish,” from L. nescius “ignorant,” lit. “not-knowing,” from ne- “not” (see un-) + stem of scire “to know.” “The sense development has been extraordinary, even for an adj.” [Weekley] — from “timid” (pre-1300); to “fussy, fastidious” (c.1380); to “dainty, delicate” (c.1405); to “precise, careful” (1500s, preserved in such terms as a nice distinction and nice and early); to “agreeable, delightful” (1769); to “kind, thoughtful” (1830). In 16c.-17c. it is often difficult to determine exactly what is meant when a writer uses this word. By 1926, it was pronounced “too great a favorite with the ladies, who have charmed out of it all its individuality and converted it into a mere diffuser of vague and mild agreeableness.” [Fowler]
“I am sure,” cried Catherine, “I did not mean to say anything wrong; but it is a nice book, and why should I not call it so?” “Very true,” said Henry, “and this is a very nice day, and we are taking a very nice walk; and you are two very nice young ladies. Oh! It is a very nice word indeed! It does for everything.” [Jane Austen, “Northanger Abbey”]
Now, if there was sexism involved in the application of the Latin vagina to become a term for female genitalia, that is certainly worth comment and discussion. But whether one should avoid the word on that basis is a different question. In contemporary usage, “vagina” is used as a neutral, scientific term of art, a technical anatomical term. To that is what the word means.
The etymology is certainly interesting, and I suppose one could avoid the word vagina as some sort of a portest over its origins. I just want to make sure we are clearly differentiating etymology and meaning–they are not necessarily the same thing.
Comment by Kevin Barney — September 27, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
See, Belle, construing the vagina as something that protects society against male violence is, as you admit, unfair to men, but it’s also unfair to women. It makes women responsible for controlling male sexuality, and that’s an impossible and unfair task to impose. It’s also detrimental to women, because they will be blamed if they fail in their sheathing responsibility.
Also, I don’t agree with your dismissal of this idea’s insultingness to men. Why do you say “whatever”? Shouldn’t men be treated as adults, not violent beasts with no self-control?
Comment by z — September 27, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
17 - or, worse yet, the place that the item is forced to return to after being able to go out and play. If that isn’t an accurate conception of most people’s (particularly male’s) view on marriage, I don’t know what it.
Comment by Jacob — September 27, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
I decided to check on the male member, and see if something “swordy” is in there, but alas this etymology was the best I could find. (As stolen from dictionary dot reference dot com)
phallus
1613, “an image of the penis,” from L. phallus, from Gk. phallos “penis,” also “carving or image of an erect penis (symbolizing the generative power in nature) used in the cult of Dionysus,” from PIE *bhel-no-, from base *bhel- “to inflate, swell” (cf. O.N. boli “bull,” O.E. bulluc “little bull,” and Gk. phalle “whale,” see bole). Used of the penis itself (often in symbolic context) from 1924, originally in jargon of psychoanalysis. Phallic “pertaining to the phallus” (1789) is from Gk. phallikos, from phallos. First record of phallic symbol is from 1907.
Couldn’t help but notice, that man’s is an inflating animal, while woman’s is a holder. Maybe Artemis is on to something. Comment as you wish.
Comment by Jacob — September 27, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
Oh Lisa, I only comment to hear your words of affection!
Comment by Starfoxy — September 27, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
Z,
I said “whatever” because I wasn’t addressing YOU, I was addressing Artemis, whom i thought felt like sword and sheath is insulting to women, it can be just as insulting to men as well, I was simply reflecting on the attitude that I felt coming from her.
As to your other comments, great they are a different perspective, some of which I agree. However, I wasn’t refering to sexulaity in this case, perhaps somthing I should have clarified, but rather I was referring to how male and female often complement each other in our oppisites. I don’t think that women are responsible for sheathing men (non sexual) but that there influnece often does, and vice versa. I think I may be having a difficult time expressing myself (finding the right words) to explain this. I also never said that men are violent beasts or refered to them as children but…whatever.
Comment by Belle — September 27, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
Interestingly, the word vanilla is linguistically related to vagina, as it is a Spanish diminuitive for “sheath,” and has to do with the shape of the vanilla pod. The medical coinage of vagina came several decades later, and it is possible (I don’t know and would be interested if anyone knows the history of the coinage) that it arose for similar reasons, based on shape and not on a putative relationship to a “sword.”
I found this discussion at the Gonzaga website:
The link is here.
Comment by Kevin Barney — September 27, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
Regardless of your intent, Belle, your comments raise the problem of that responsibility being assigned to women, whether for sexual behavior or social behavior in general. I think those who would promote a paradigm of complementarity have a heavy burden in explaining why that won’t result in subjugation or an inequitable transfer of responsibility. Any suggestion that women should or do protect society from men raises the question of why men can’t be expected to behave better.
Comment by z — September 27, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
The first quotation given in the OED dates to 1682 in Gibson’s Anatomy:
If this is really the first origin of the word, the parallel with “neck of the Bladder” makes it look like vagina was coined based on sheath-like shape, without specific thought for its sexual function in receiving the penis.
Surely there must be a study on the historical origins of this coinage; can anyone produce one?
Comment by Kevin Barney — September 27, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
I can see the connotation (not that it’s the first thing that springs to mind but I can clearly see it) and for me it has less to do with “activity or assertion” and more to do with the violent connotation of sword, which functions as a weapon; and a weapon functions as a means of taking something by force.
Comment by Quimby — September 27, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
I get the immpression Z, you just like to argue, of which I don’t have time for. Please reflect for a moment and think that perhaps men and women do complement each other, by saying that, I’m not placeing women at the head of all protecting or saying they are better, or excusing bad behavior in either sex. My orginal post was a way to say that perhaps “sheath” could possibly be a complement to women intead of an insult, just another way of looking at it, you want to make it out to be more, like some great resposibility to heap on women, I clarified what I meant if you want to argue find someone else, I believe that men and women complement each other, I see it in my own marrigage, I see it in my own family and friends.
Comment by Belle — September 27, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
#7 But don’t you think our society could gain something by consciously learning and adopting references to female genitalia that connote and denote sacredness, rather than either (in the case of vagina, etc.) functional, medical connotations…
No. I think that the female genitals are body parts, pure and simple. What’s the sacred term for a penis? And “yoni”? Please. You’ll have to go around explaining to everybody what it is. It sounds like one of those euphemisms for “vagina” that people use because they don’t like to say “vagina.”
Comment by Ann — September 27, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
I must admit, this whole discussion reminds me of this!
Comment by Jacob — September 27, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
No no no no. I know this has been brought up, but I ….yoni for these terms, based on the sacred Sanskrit word for genitalia, as opposed to the word vagina, which means sheath.
It doesn’t matter what the word used to mean. That meaning has since been expelled from the average English speaker’s lexicon. Hell, I just barely learned about that meaning. Maybe initially the word emphasized female genitalia in relation to men’s, but today a vagina is just a vagina. Good lord, I get so irritated by folk linguistics.
Comment by Rob — September 27, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
I totally agree with Leah on smelling like fruit! I think this discussion is important and it’s important to think about semantics; but it’s equally important (maybe more so?) to teach our daughters that our vagina (or yoni) isn’t dirty and isn’t supposed to smell like a frangipani.
Comment by Quimby — September 27, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
Whew, just got back from VTing and look what’s happened!
Belle, RE #19, no, I wasn’t referring to you or anyone in particular. Really. I just hate having a discussion derailed at the start because several people jump in and tell me how wrong-headed the very premise of it is (and maybe you (collectively) didn’t really say that, but I felt like the conversation was starting to go awry at the getgo). I meant no threatening tone to anyone and certainly everyone is welcome to participate. I just wish that only people who found the topic interesting would do so. That’s all.
As for the rape connection, Quimby expressed it well in #33–a sword is a weapon, a sword is violent, and even if it’s unlikely to be so in the real world when it’s in or going in a sheath, when you’re talking symbolism, meanings don’t have to be so tied down and connotations have greater weight. So a sword going in a vagina = violent penetration = rape, more or less.
Ann, I’m not saying everybody switch terms, right here, right now. Nor, Tom, am I chaining every word to it’s original meaning. I’m saying, I liked Romm’s use. She was presumably speaking to a sympathetic audience, since it made it past her editors and a previous edition. And I, a reader, liked it. Not that I’m representative of every reader. I didn’t mean the suggestion or discussion to be taken quite so literally–I just thought it was a cool idea that would be fun and interesting to discuss, something somebody could use if they wanted to, something somebody could find insightful, etc.
Kevin, you’re obviously quite a bit more into this than I am (and I mean that in a good way)–what sources do you use?
Starfoxy, nicely put. And Jacob, interesting take.
Sue, I agree–I’d love to hear people’s ideas on how to put ‘respecting your body’ into practice. Personally, I think that a lot of how we view our own bodies, spoken to our kids or not, teaches a lot. I think if we are not embarrassed of our bodies or of talking about them will help, as will demonstrating respect for our bodies (which can mean a lot of things to a lot of people). But it’s a place to start.
Comment by Artemis — September 27, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
For someone who is so concerned about the obscure etymology of a medical word, I find it very strange that you’re not concerned about the implications of the far-less-obscure relationship between your pseudonym and your husband’s. It really squicks me out every time you mention him.
Comment by Firebyrd — September 27, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
Okay, I thought the etymology and word use was more than this (I realized my wording had undermined my real opinion), but less than a manifesto that “everybody should use this word”. Sigh….
Firebyrd, are you serious or are you just poking sticks at me? Besides, the Greek gods had much more squicky situations–it was par for the course, if I remember correctly. As for DH’s pseudonym, it grew out of a poem I wrote about him (it fits him sooo well) and the egalitarian & friendly nature of our relationship and the fact that I was already Artemis. The logical corollary of Artemis is Apollo, and well, so in our situation, we’re married instead of sis. & bro. I confess to cherry-picking my connections to mythology for my own purposes. Lalala….
Comment by Artemis — September 27, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
In re 40, para 2 (As for…): this makes clear why womens’ studies is an agenda rather than a discipline. Who cares about the specifics of the symbolism, let’s just force it to mean what we want it to.
Comment by TMD — September 27, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
It doesn’t get much more squicky in my opinion than incest between twins, but whatever floats your boat. I’m sorta serious. It’s been squicking me out for a while, and since we’re talking about etymology and original meanings of words here…
Comment by Firebyrd — September 27, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
You’ve just got to love Kevin Barney. KB, my hat’s off to ya.
Comment by MCQ — September 27, 2007 @ 11:30 pm
MCQ- No kidding. I was just thinking the same thing. Once again, I doff my hat to Kevin Barney.
Comment by tracy m — September 28, 2007 @ 4:46 am
TMD, I don’t see how it does. Symbolism is by nature rather slippery, unless you’re talking something pedantic like allegory. Metaphors and symbols have a lot of slippage and my interpretation of them here is well within the realm of reasonability.
Actually, I meant to comment on Kevin’s #31 about the claim that only feminist writings have found the term objectionable. I wanted to point out that even though these writings are represent a smallish subgroup of English speakers, the objection can still be valid, especially when you consider that the objection is to the embedded meaning of vagina as sheath (viewing women’s sexuality in relation to men, the implication of violence, etc.), which can be seen as affecting basic attitude’s towards women’s welfare, respecting women, etc. Since feminists are advocates of women, their objections in behalf of women (even if you think it’s impractical or agenda-driven) cannot be simply blown off.
But Kevin, you really are awesome.
Comment by Artemis — September 28, 2007 @ 9:00 am
Wow, that whole thing was way fun to read. And as to the original post, I like the idea of a slightly general word for the genital area, as opposed to specific organs such as the labia or vagina. I even like the word “yoni,” although I do see how it would cause confusion when the well-brought-up girl who is comfortable with herself and respects her body is able to vocally tell her doctor, friend, whatever, that something’s goin’ on with her yoni. “Your what???” laughs a fellow 11-year old girl at the 6th grade “maturation program” (do they still do those?). It might make matters worse for her than just using the common terms would.
Comment by sarah k. — September 28, 2007 @ 11:11 am
…one of the men answered that Fire represented men and that Ice represented women, sexually speaking.
whoa, that’s gross. i feel bad for that guy’s wife.
(from the outset, i’m sorry if i always repeat what others have said already because i don’t have time to read all the comments.)
we use both ‘yoni’ and ‘vagina.’ i talked about this last week in my blog:
we visited with some friends the other night, and their son, who is the same age as isaiah, is learning to call the vagina a yoni. i think yoni is an exceptionally beautiful word, and i do understand that some people feel vagina to be very male-centric in its original meaning, and kind of cold and clinical. isaiah knows penis very well and does sometimes wonder where sister’s penis is. i’ve been telling him that sister has a vagina instead, but that’s a pretty hard word. i’m thinking about using yoni. i really dislike it when kids have sexual euphamisms foisted on them when it’s certainly not going to corrupt their little minds to understand that it’s called a penis or a vagina and that’s that. take the mystery out of it and it becomes less powerful. but vagina is a pretty hard word for isaiah to understand, and yoni is such a beautiful word with a beautiful meaning. although, as an equivalent, i guess we should call the penis the lingam instead. how confusing.
at this point, we tell our son that he has a penis and that sister has a yoni or a vagina. he really likes the word ‘yoni’ and says it a lot now. it’s definitely easier for him to say than vagina. i think the word yoni is absolutely beautiful and the meaning behind it is simply one of the most incredibly honoring, sensual, independent definitions that i’ve ever heard. i feel free and happy to use both. i view ‘vagina’ as a more clinical, medical term and ‘yoni’ as a more sexual, intimate term, and i use them accordingly.
my question is, what do you call the entire genital area on girls, when speaking to children? if you just look at my daughter, all you see is labia. “vagina” might be the central focus of the area but that is not what my son sees when he looks at her and compares. for my son we refer to the “penis” and “scrotum” respectively because those are pretty defined areas, but for my daughter there’s just so much going on there and i’m not sure how to refer to the whole when explaining it to my son.
also, i don’t know why artemis seems to get the majority of the flac on this blog from people who think her posts are pointless or ridiculous. she should be honored for sharing herself whether you agree with her contemplations or not.
Comment by chandelle — September 28, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
Chandelle - like tracy m (#16), I have always used vulva and/or labia. The vagina is NOT visible upon casual observation of a girl’s diaper area, and in general when she needs help wiping or washing it’s the vulva - hardly ever the vagina - that is involved.
I’m bothered by kiddie books that label the boy’s groin area a penis and a girl’s groin area a vagina. The vagina is one well hidden opening inside the vulva, so IMO vulva is the proper term for a girl’s genital region.
Comment by tisheli — September 28, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
Lingam means: Wand of Light. Yoni means: Divine Passage. The two can and do function independently, yet fit perfectly together as Divinely intended to.
I started using Lingam in exchange for Penis about 10 years ago as wall a yoni for vagina. Penis sounds like something that is broken and vagina sounds too clinical.
Comment by Jamie Trwth — September 28, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
the objection is to the embedded meaning of vagina as sheath (viewing women’s sexuality in relation to men, the implication of violence, etc.), which can be seen as affecting basic attitude’s towards women’s welfare, respecting women, etc.
Sheath isn’t part of vagina’s meaning (for anybody but a few feminists, that is)—it’s part of its etymon (hat tip: Bro. Barney). Since it’s not part of its meaning for anyone whose attitude towards women feminists think needs changing, it cannot affect those people’s attitudes towards women. It is 100% innocuous and will be until it means anything but vagina to the people using it.
Since feminists are advocates of women, their objections in behalf of women (even if you think it’s impractical or agenda-driven) cannot be simply blown off.
I’m gonna go ahead blow this one off (again). There has to be a reason to not blow it off. That it’s coming from people who call themselves feminists is not a reason to not blow off an objection without merit.
Comment by Tom — September 28, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
Generally, a scabbard is used with a sword, while a sheath is used with a knife. I think of a knife as more of a tool than a weapon. In any case, sheath is used in many circumstances referring to a covering, when no blade or violence could possibly be involved. A myelin sheath on an axon, and the sheath of an electrical cable are both quite innocuous. It seems quite a stretch to get violent imagery from a sheath, much less a vagina.
Anatomical terms often have colorful etymologies. The sella turcica (”Turkish saddle”) is the portion of the skull that contains the pituitary gland. The sartorius muscle crosses diagonally from the hip to the inner knee, and is named from the Latin for tailor, in reference to the cross-legged position once typical of a tailor at work. Vagina actually has one of the more prosaic etymologies.
The original etymologies may or may not have much real meaning to an anatomical structure, but I have a hard time understanding why it would be a virtue to choose a name precisely because it obscures the actual biological function of that body part. We all recognize that the uterus contains the developing embryo, the prostate secretes a portion of the seminal fluid, and the ovary produces the egg. If the origin of vagina is a reference to its biological function as a copulatory organ, I can’t see how its origin could be offensive. I can’t understand how it could be empowering for women to use a particular term because it denies the biological function of the vagina as a copulatory organ. To do so would seem to feed into the whole mentality of sex as being dirty, unmentionable, and something that “nice” girls don’t do.
Comment by Left Field — September 28, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
Since feminists are advocates of women, their objections in behalf of women (even if you think it’s impractical or agenda-driven) cannot be simply blown off.
Nonsense. This statement echoes the ideology that any decision a woman makes is a feminist decision, because she’s a woman.
I’m a woman, and a feminist. I think your argument does a disservice to feminism, because it detracts from real issues. Gender-neutral language is a real feminist issue, and wrapping “seeking the divine vs. the clinical in what we call our genitals” diminishes the importance of that (real) issue.
Comment by Ann — September 28, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
I heart Ann
Comment by MCQ — September 29, 2007 @ 5:59 am
My first thought upon hearing Yoni was one of those drinks multi-level marketers in parts of Utah are always trying to sell. I’m pretty sure some of them have Yoni fruit which cures cancer or something.
This is what I always thought as well. A scabbard is what you carry your sword in. I use a knife all day at work, and it’s carried in a sheath. I sheath my knife after using it as a tool.
Maybe the fact I’ve never thought of my penis as a weapon makes this harder to understand. When telling a daughter that she can’t call that part of her body a vagina because how it might possibly relate to violence and rape, are you ever worried it might make her feel like a victim just because she happens to have a sheath, or whatever the hell you tell her it is?
Comment by jjohnsen — September 29, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
the biological function of the vagina as a copulatory organ
the vagina has a lot more purpose than just a copulatory organ, thank you very much. i’ve passed over 16 pounds of baby through mine, for example, and lots of other stuff too. i think it WOULD be nice to have a term that’s a little more all-inclusive than to be referred to simply as an organ for sex. that’s as arbitrary as people who are offended by women nursing in public because they cannot separate the sexuality of the breast from its utilitarian function.
Comment by chandelle — September 29, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
chandelle, have you read the whole thread? It seems ridiculous to say, in the face of the evidence that Kevin produced, that the word vagina means “simply an organ for sex.” It certainly does not have that meaning now, and may never have had that meaning.
Comment by MCQ — September 30, 2007 @ 2:26 am
chandelle, you will notice that I made no claim that the vagina is only a copulatory organ. What I said was that it is a copulatory organ, and that I see no virtue in choosing a particular term for the sole purpose of denying that essential biological function. I’m not sure of the point you’re making regarding childbirth. Since the vagina forms a sheath around the child during birth, the etymology of the term is at least as appropriate for the vagina’s function in parturition as its function in intromission.
Comment by Left Field — September 30, 2007 @ 6:49 am
chandelle, have you read the whole thread?
nope.
i didn’t really want to get into a discussion about the etymology of the term because i actually think it’s irrelevent. as i said way up there, i don’t actually think it matters what the original meaning of the word is - it’s about how it is used now, mainly that many feel the term to be too clinical, and many who DO know the origin of the term feel uncomfortable with it, EVEN IF nobody really means it that way now. the question is, what can we do NOW to create a more neutral, all-inclusive terminology? and in that context, i think yoni is a beautiful alternative.
my husband just told me that he thinks yoni is a good way to refer to the whole, as opposed to the individual parts (vagina, clitoris, vulva, labia, etc.). i think that’s pretty good too.
Comment by chandelle — September 30, 2007 @ 9:36 am
Yesterday I was listening to a commercial on the radio. All of a sudden I heard “Womanly Delights”!?!? It was in reference to a woman going out in her robe to start her car in the freezing cold (Sans Electronic Start). In the commercial she slipped on the ice and her rode went up over her waist:
If you don’t like the word Yoni you could use Womanly Delights. Either way I like these better then Vagina.
Comment by Jamie Trwth — September 30, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
I don’t really understand the idea that vagina seems too “clinical.” To me, it’s just the English name of a particular body part. If that makes it clinical, then I guess I don’t see “clinical” as being a bad thing. Most body parts are commonly known by their correct “clinical” anatomical terms (e.g., head, lung, arm, neck, bone, mouth, stomach, ear, nostril, knee, and just about any other body part you can think of). What is it that makes vagina too clinical, while nobody thinks twice about using eye? Both are the proper English anatomical terms for an organ.
The only alternatives to the correct “clinical” terminology are either “cute” (such as yoni or womanly delights or vulgar. Neither alternative seems like it contributes to a healthy attitude towards sex. The whole idea that we somehow have to have euphemistic terms for the genital organs seems to me to derive from the unhealthy idea that those body parts are dirty or embarrassing.
Comment by Left Field — September 30, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
HooHoo and PeePee are cute names. It you’re five. But as adults we have words like Spicy for things children call Hot. Just like the word “Black” for African Descendents is socially acceptable but if you look up the word the meaning is totally different.
Comment by Jamie Trwth — September 30, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
i agree that it’s a slippery slope using alternative terms. i most definitely support teaching children straightforwardly and honestly about sex from an early age. of course my children will learn and use the correct terms for all the organs of the body. however, i do not consider yoni to be in the same category of “cute” words like naughty bits, womanly delights, or whatever other tongue-in-cheek terms that exist. i think yoni speaks far more to the sensuality and, yes, holiness, of that part of a woman’s body. i think it sounds reverent, and i think it deserves reverence.
i think it is sort of different referring to the vagina as opposed to the eye. there are of course all sorts of occult feelings about the vagina. i personally feel weird saying the word, not because i have any problems discussing sex or it’s associated parts (obviously i am not), or because my parents raised me to use euphamisms (they definitely did not, and i am grateful), but because it’s just a weird word. i think penis is a weird word too. i’m not sure why, but they are. can anyone back me up here? i would actually feel more comfortable using some of the other, what many would consider vulgar, terms for those parts of the body because i think they actually sound more straightforward and realistic than the clinical terms. but that’s just me. i’m just rambling now.
Comment by chandelle — September 30, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
i guess what i’m wondering is if it’s possible to use a lovely, honoring word like yoni without it BEING a euphamism. i imagine explaining the meaning behind it to my daughter and her feeling proud and in awe of herself for having something so beautiful and amazing. i don’t really think there’s anything wrong with the word vagina, but i also think there’s value in using a word like yoni. that’s why i feel comfortable using the two terms side by side. i grew up hearing a lot of whispered derogatory terms and comments about the female genitalia and convinced myself for a long time that it was gross and ugly to have girl parts, as did most of the women i know. i would be thrilled if my daughter could avoid that.
Comment by chandelle — September 30, 2007 @ 9:08 pm
I agree. That’s why I only use “Golden Palace.” Also, I refer to breasts only as “Treasure Domes.”
Comment by MCQ — October 1, 2007 @ 1:44 am
[…] like this post discussing gender roles, and this post discussing the etymology of the word […]
Pingback by Feminist Mormon Housewives « Unbork — October 8, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
whilst trapped on the east coast recovering from emergency surgery, i had little to do to pass the time, so i ended up watching some tv. i never watch tv. but there were reruns of old Oprah shows, and in one of them they got off track and started discussing various women’s terms for the vagina. Oprah solicited audience-member’s names for it, but admitted her current favorite term is “va-j-j” (or, i suppose, it could be spelled “vuh-jay-jay”)
i don’t know why we have so many euphemisms for various body parts. seems like the more sacred the part, the more the monikers.
i did really enjoy the original post by artemis…sounds like a lovely book and i enjoyed hearing the positive outcome with the yogurt. can’t feel any worse than a creamy diaper that needs changing (gross blue!)
thanks for sharing this interesting topic. i realize i’m coming to the discussion belatedly…but you guys didn’t stop whilst i was sleeping. lots to catch up on!
♥
Comment by Blue — October 8, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
When I was young, many carnivals had a “tunnel of love” ride, usually with a carriage containing a bench seat for two, that traveled down a tunnel into a building, and then usually past things to make frighten children slightly, and then cause them to laugh about what scared them, so that the ride would show couples coming out holding each other and laughing.
The symbolism of the “tunnel of love” though, always struck me as suggestive, and that the couple could have a few minutes of privacy and closeness during the ride, during which most would embrace and kiss, went with the suggestive implication.
Call it what you will, it sure is a joy to enjoin.
Comment by Trueheart — October 13, 2007 @ 10:41 am
[…] FMH: Yoni […]
Pingback by More bloggernacle posts about sexuality « The Visitors’ Center — April 28, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
I really don’t know what the big deal is. You can call penis and vagina by any name you can think of but the function is the same.
First they are for reproduction, the man plants the seed, the woman nurtures the seed until it comes forth from the womb.
Second they are for building a bond between the male and the female.
As a (Mormon) nudist I have seen many many penises and vagina’s and to me they are just parts of the amazingly wonderful body that God created in HIS OWN image. When he created the human body he called it very good. He didn’t say its very good except the penis or the vagina.
The whole body is amazing, with the brain we can think up great buildings, cures for horrible illness.
With the hands we can create beautiful works of art, and build the buildings the brain can conjure up. With our eyes we can see the wonders of the earth. With our legs and feet we can run great races or just walk hand in hand with a loved one.
But…With the penis and vagina we can be co-creators with God and can bring new life. To me the parts that so much of society deems as shameful, dirty, and sinful are the greatest parts of God’s greatest creation because they represent life its self with all the amazing and spectacular parts of life.
Read the standard works, Book of Mormon, Bible, D & C, Pearl of Great Price, search of any where that says that any part of the body is dirty or shameful. In fact in Geneses that it was SATAN that told Adam and Eve to cover up, and introduced shame, not the Lord.
When I see in the Temple where the Lord finds them covered with fig leaves and asks “who told thee that thou wast naked” he seems to have a tone of disappointment because Satan had defiled his greatest creation.
What is more sad to me is that we still defile his greatest creation. The body should be respected and the genitals should be held in higher regard than any other body part.
Comment by Nudist — December 16, 2008 @ 1:42 am
This conversation is way over my head. I happen to think “sword and sheath” are respectful terms and sexy when applied to male and female anatomies. A naked sword is a powerful thing. When it is sheathed it is protected. That is a powerful thing. What would the double entendre in classic literature be without the sword and the sheath. Really, people, quit trying to make it a politically correct, bland world. Signed, English Teacher
Comment by mosquito — February 24, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
I know this is an old thread, but after reading 72, it got me to thinking. Clearly some euphemisms are used because people are embarrassed about their genitals- if you’re saying “down there” and “it” and can’t bring yourself to actually name it, that’s a problem.
But maybe “special” names for the vagina (not cutesy kid names, but special names) can really show a sign of respect and honor. Not that you want to be militantly P.C., or you’re embarrassed by the proper names, but that maybe it sounds too clinical. A lot of my friends refer to their vaginas as “my girl”, which sounds funny, like it’s their buddy, but in the context and to hear them talk about it it’s really relaxed and comfortable. Or we say vagina. But we’re pretty open about our bodies, and all of our male friends and boyfriends and husbands and fathers have at one time bought us tampons and pads. They know when we’re on our periods, because we’re saying “please give me any pain pills you have, I’m dying”. My entire friend group is just very, very open, and any euphemisms we have are endearing ones, not meant to try and avoid the clinical terms out of shame, but rather to make our bodies feel more personal to us.
Comment by sophia*rising — February 24, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
Mosquito, I think the problem with analogies such as “sword and sheath” is that the sword can exist without the sheath, but the sheath exists for the specific purpose of having a sword thrust into it.
I prefer metaphor which allows me my own autonomy, not as a matter of “political correctness,” but as a matter of maintaining my sense of self — my independent existence. I don’t exist as a container to be filled. I am fulfilled within my own being. My vagina is not an empty crater seeking someone or something to put inside it. I exist as an independent human being without regard to my anatomical structure.
Thanks belatedly, Artemis, for this post. Removing violence and invasion from our gender metaphors is an important step towards removing violence and invasion from our gender interactions.
Comment by Lorian — February 24, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
Lorian, you miss the point, as it were. The vagina is shaped like a sheath - it enfolds the penis with pleasure for both. Obviously, the sword can exist without the sheath, and vice versa. These shapes or euphemisms do not exist to diminish your or anyone else’s independent existence. I think that the sword has romantic and potent connotations and sheaths are definitely part of sword lore. It would be sad if any woman defined herself as a crater or a vagina.
Comment by mosquito — February 24, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
Got all that, mosquito, but I prefer to be defined on my own terms, not as how my genitals accept the entry of other genitals. Women are more than receptacles for the “sword,” and the sword analogy, itself, is a violent one, and disturbs me.
Comment by Lorian — February 24, 2009 @ 7:21 pm