I wonder if he'll bind feet?

This isn't new. Kenneth Anger noted in "Hollywood Babylon" that in the early days of Hollywood it became fashionable for female stars and starlets to have "their c---s surgically 'taken in' " Predating this by hundreds of years and still occurring today is the terrible practise
among certain Islamic cultures of clitorectomy, euphemistically called "female circumcision".Yikes! Of course, this is in a totally different category than voluntary cosmetic surgery, I would argue.

Both are culturally generated.

Bobb, please, the word is vagina.

I suspected some would want to link the two to a degree.
Hey, I was only quoting Anger's words!

Can the penis-wrap be far off?

Strangely, his right leg seems suddenly skinny but his..... Oh boy!

Hey, Bobb.

I was wondering if you were directly quoting the author as it seemed via punctuation.

Don't know if you agree, but this might be one way to get around it.

"...their (vagina) surgically taken in."

Anyway. I dont' mean to insult you as I'm sure your intent wasn't to insult me. My intent was to edify and to stand up to any intended disparaging commentary, which I now see wasn't there on your part.

Isn't it sad how we both, men and women have allowed ourselves to become little more than a target market for goods and services. And, allowed our version of beauty and worthiness be dictated by, one might argue, those who hate us? Yes, Skeptikool, men are more vulnerable now as they are targeted more openly.

Note the surgeon's comments, "...she is not even aware that her labia are a problem for her." Guess what doc.?If she's not aware, then they ain't. Oy.

How do people like this become physicians? Didn't they swear to "do no harm?"
Mutilating bodies for profit. Pornography creates the market and ethically challenged butchers make the dough.
Reminds me that surgeons once shared their profession with barbers.

I think the only "problem" the good doctor sees here is that if she doesn't see a problem, he gets a lower fee. To me, pointing out any "problem" that a woman has not noticed (unless leaving it will cause physical harm or bodily malfunction) for the purpose of getting more business crosses the line from poor ethics into malpractice and professional misrepresentation.

People like this guy are what give the cosmetic surgery profession its sleazy reputation and tar a lot of good surgeons with the same brush.

Okay girls, question for you. How many times have you examined the look of your labia? I think the last time I looked down there was 9 years ago, to see how well my post-birth-tear-stiches were healing...is labial-looking a common female activity? I'm feeling prudish, suddenly.

I thought that was what those consciousness raising groups were all about in the 60's and early 70's. ?

'First, do no harm' has been replaced by a pretend 'free-market', 'First where's my cash and then let's ignore my debt to the public accrued by money they paid to subsidize my education and/or the welcome arms opened to me when I immigrated not to mention my huge uncounted benefit of collective (Socialist) malpractice insurance so I don't have to go out of business like many physicians south of the border are having to do'.

The book, "The Aquarian Conspiracy'" talks a lot about the problems we are now seeing with some physicians, because of the emphasis on high grades rather than a blend of compassion and people skills combined with grades as a requirement for med school admission.

If we privatize medicine, I do not want to subsidize a business person's medical education, nor malpractice insurance, nor, as one without children, will my taxes go to pay for someone to send their child to a private school if the Neo-Con Campbell Liberals succeed in destroying a wonderful public education and bring in charter shcools.

here's the thing though, Skeptic, it isn't about what we think about the structure of our vulvas, whether we have longer or shorter labia, whether our vaginas are 'tight' [by whose measure i wonder - perhaps the problem is really penises which are simply too thin - but isn't that a whole other discussion?].

if sexually explicity material is being used by women to plan their rebuilds, then isn't it likely that the consumers of most sexually explicit material are the ones for whom the surgeries are being done? male sexual partners.

i'm a lesbian myself, and i feel fairly certain that there's not much cosmetic surgery being undertaken by lesbians who worry that their labia need a tuck. however, there is a whole different problem in our community - double mastectomies and everted vaginas being reconstructed into something resembling penises. and that is for sure another conversation. sex reassignment surgery plus testosterone at overdose levels.

anyway - is choice really what's happening? do women who use someone else as the measure of thier beauty or of their 'rightness' really make choices?

be well
peace

The "Aquarian Conspiracy" by Marilyn Ferguson is one of my most favoured books, something everybody should read. Now on the subject female bodies from an artist's point of view.

I happen to be a classically trained artist, world class in graphite drawings. The female figure is perhaps my most favoured subject and I've been working with live models since January 1949. Mostly taking photos first, as modeling for drawing and painting is one of the most boring jobs and results in dull works. Right now I'm working on a series of the figure in dance nobody has dared to paint before, as it is considered "too explicit" At 78, I can afford to paint anything I want to and nobody has to look at my work, as I don't sell them anyway. My wife of 54 years is my art director, who sets up the models and acts as a chaperone, as most of them are amateur, first timers who do it for their own satisfaction and get pictures of themselves for their efforts. I just gave 13 paintings to a model for about 10 hours of modeling in two sessions in two years.
Figure out the hourly rate, not even plastic surgeons can match. Nudes are virtually unsaleable in Canada, so we just do it for our and the models' enjoyment and the constant challenge each figure brings.

The biological purpose of the female body is to attract procreation and there's nothing to be ashamed about this. This article is about an artificially created hysteria for profits. Women are being taught from childhood that their vaginas are objects of shame. I think this is in part to put women down as second class. In reality, in 56 years, I've never seen anything that I would have considered ugly about that particular part of the female body, I call "The Door of Life", because, in spite of what we think of our sainted mothers, we all came out of one and we also have a good idea how we got there.

What I always find fascinating is the incredible variety of shapes and forms, virtually like individual fingerprints, male equipment can not come near. The only advantage we have is that it permits us to pee anywhere, standing up. Which I don't necessarily consider a form of superiority, but definitely a convenience.

One of these days I may just get fed up and do a whole series on the "Doors of Life", and couldn't care less if it will be considered politically unacceptable. Ed Deak, Big Lake.

I'm not sure you can really blame male sexual partners for all the impossible physical expectations put on women. Most guys I know while they may enjoy those air-brushed sexually explicit material don't really expect it in their real life partners. Men just respond more visually it seems, are turned on by it but the whole idea of perfection itself I think largely comes from a fashion world-beauty culture that really doesn't much like women or the real beauty of being a woman... sadly women have bought into this mutated view themselves.

I remember when I was about nine years old and a friend of mine remarked about what a great body some actress or other had - I still remember the jolt of what she said because up to that moment in my life my body and I seemed one, I never really noticed it...I was just me and happy to be so...does that make sense?

And Fiat lux, I thought that was a lovely post and a great tribute to women.

lynn - i odn't think i did 'really blame' men for 'all the impossible physical expectations put on women.' i made a much smaller and less general point.

be well
peace

Yes, Lynn. It makes sense. Was it your first awareness that there was an outer expectation of your body/self that was external and artificial?

I agree Fiat lux. Your post is lovely.

I too love her book. I have to go dig it out again. She was so prescient.

I have seen a 'yoni art', but done by women. I like it.

I say go for it and paint what you want. Part of being an artist is to do what is politically unacceptable, if one is called to do so, is it not?

cypress, my apologies, I realize that was not your intention... my fault... bad choice of word on my part.

redrivergirl: I think it was my first awareness of it...at least that's how I remember it....because I remember it being just something I had never thought of before in reference to myself or others...that separation... then you spend the rest of your life trying to get back there it seems...free of that body/self division...though there are those moments.... :-)

Oh, where to start? Where to start?

First, we Canadians have paid a good chunk of money to have this "physician" (Dr. Roy Jackson) get his medical degree. But hey, doesn't Canada have a desperate shortage of physicians??? Why aren't more people screaming about this? Why, because the doctors are a big, big lobby group. Money, money, money, they just can't make enough money. Go back and study our history: universal Canadian healthcare coverage was viciously opposed by doctors when it was originally proposed. Thank God Tommy Douglas was up to the task or we'd be like the 45 million Americans today who are without healthcare insurance. Or, the "lucky" middle class people who have health care insurance but ...whoops, a health issue arises, and they max out on their healthcare. The most recent statistics on U.S. personal bankruptcies show that over 50% are caused by health problems, and that virtually 100% of these bankrupt people had healthcare coverage but it wasn't enough. Why? Well because the U.S. coverage is provided by multiple, private-sector, for-profit insurance companies, not a government funded system like in Canada. Anyway, let's segue back to the issue (tissue?) at hand. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

To continue... let's look at a few of "Dr." Matlock's comments:
“making things pretty.”
Making things pretty for whom? The woman? I doubt many women spend much time examining their genitalia in the mirror. If they do, they're probably living in an institution, under care for far graver issues than ugly genitalia. No, this is for men. A very disturbing thing about this notion, is that it isn't very far from the porn industry, nor is it very far from an even more disturbing trend (albeit still on the edges) of men wanting sex with children. A few years ago, a trend started in New York (I believe) where women felt they had to shave their pubic areas to be attractive to men. Now, as a woman, I can tell you that a shaved pubic area is not comfortable AT ALL. So why are they doing this?? Because that's what men want them to do, presumably. And why do (some) men want this? You can all come up with your own opinions, but I can't think of anything other than it stems from an unhealthy desire to f**k children, even babies. I'm being deliberately crude because that's what these people and these acts are. Acts of unspeakable horror towards the children, and unforgiveable attitudes towards women. Just my opinion, but one I feel very strongly about, and have for a few years now as I see children dressing like sluts, and parents allowing it all. The porn industry rules.

"Dr." Matlock continues:
“liposculpting a mons pubis which is too fat,” laser-cutting “sagging or long labia majora,” injecting fat into the labia, tightening the vaginal passage to enhance a woman’s “sexual gratification..."

What a crock! To enhance a woman's sexual gratification!!! Give me a break. Many studies have shown, and most women know, that most female orgasms are generated by stimulation of the clitorous, not by stimulation of the vagina (aka intercourse). Now here's the "doctor" again "...her sex life was improved, so much so that her husband said it was “like being with a new woman.” What a laugh, the husband says the wife's sex life was so improved it was like being with a new woman!!! Wait a minute, who's sex life is improved??? We haven't heard from the woman, just from the man. So, again, who is this surgery being done for? For the man. Why? Well, so he can get that "virgin" tightie feeling. Cheaper than going down to Southeast Asia to boink some poor child sold into slavery I guess.

OK, continuing with the dross exposed in this article... So, even waitresses are lining up to have this done. Can't be waitresses in BC because with the training wage imposed on many of them, they're not even making minimum wage. Waitresses! What a load of BS! Is this a doctor talking or a public (pubic) relations guy? Or a businessman shilling on late night TV? How low "doctors" have sunk, eh? They're no longer on my list of "esteemed" members of the community. Sorry, I know some are good, but more and more I see this greed coming through. They're making Dr. Mengele look like he was just ahead of his time. (Duh, who's Dr. Mengele? Those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it.)

"Dr. Roy Jackson, a Vancouver obstetrician and gynaecologist ..." says "She’s doing this for herself, for her self-confidence. So I just ask what I can do to help.”
My God, would you want to trust your body to this guy??? Yah, surgery for self-confidence ...right. You know, I had a Victoria gynaecologist book me for a total hysterectomy because he said I had cervical cancer. He booked me to have the surgery a year away from the diagnosis. Well, I got a second opinion (a woman, as it happens). You know what? Turns out this guy (a "doctor" don't ya know) did an inadequate biopsy, and followed it up with a post-biopsy test that was conducted before the tissue healed well enough for a valid diagnosis could be determined. Turns out I never even had cancer, even though that's what he told me, point blank, just before he left for his skiing holiday at Whistler (or was it his sailing holiday?). I'm not making this up; it was my wake up call regarding doctors. When the doctor to whom I'd gone to for the second opinion told me I'd never had cancer, and all the other things that were "not done up to standard" I wanted to go and sit in that original gynaecologist's office and tell every patient to run for their lives. My medical procedures were helping him to pay for his sail boat, and his skiing trips! Anyway, I digress again. So, why did I bring this up? Let me repeat:
"Dr. Roy Jackson, a Vancouver obstetrician and gynaecologist ..." says "She’s doing this for herself, for her self-confidence. So I just ask what I can do to help.” Yah, right.

Dr. Roy Jackson continues:
"I might see a patient who’s going to have a hysterectomy, right. I’ll be thinking to myself, geez, this is unbelievable what I’m seeing here. And she is not even aware of the fact that her labia are a problem for her. Notice how the patient hasn't complained about a "problem labia???" I'm guessing she's stressed out about her upcoming hysterectomy.

"Dr." Matlock comments on someone who had “a beautiful genital structure..." Who exactly decides that? My God, if you fall in love with someone, are they not beautiful in their entirety to you? Or, is everything just reduced to parts, parts which you can buy to augment your deficiencies? Attraction, true attraction isn't the product of paint-by-numbers bodies. It's the je ne sais quois of the cosmos, and it will be ever thus. The rest of it is just pure physical lust, a simple relieving of physiological pressures, nothing more. Nothing, really, when you think about it, compared to true attraction. My husband loves me, and every part of me, because of who I am, not because my parts conform to somebody else's idea of perfection. Buy hey, we're just madly in love (and lust). If I could say a few words to "Dr." Jackson when he gets distracted by an imperfect vagina while he's supposedly dealing with a serious medical problem like a hysterectomy...get your f**king mind back to the actual medical problem!!!

These "medical doctors" are societal parasites. Draining resources from the medical system, and draining hard-earned cash from stupid women who feel they must get surgically altered in order to be loved, and putting people's (OK, let's be realistic here, women's) lives at risk even though there's no medical problem (I'm not against true cosmetic surgery, that which can help people who in times past have been called freaks of nature -- but we're not talking about that kind of plastic surgery here, we're just talking the latest fad that unscupulous "medical doctors" can take advantage of to line their bank accounts. Wake up women, you're being had. Men don't do this kind of thing so they'll be liked by women. They're not that stupid. (Sorry to be so insulting to my gender, but God, you who succomb to this shit got it coming. You've fallen for the advertising that encourages you to look and act like a slut, like a child slut to be precise, to satisfy the wet dreams of (some) knuckle-dragging men and countless corporate executives who make mega-bucks from the porn and semi-porn industries.)

OK, I'm done. If I've offended anybody, well good. It's time we started being offended at this crap. Especially this crap. Funny how we in the "evolved" western world tut-tut about the genital mutilation in Africa, and then attend fund-raiser balls for Doctors Without Borders, while booking our next appointment to get that oh-so-popular vagina tuck. Think, people, think.

Our taxpayer dollars go to train these budding Dr. Mengeles. We need to stop this particular carnage. These men don't love or respect women.

Sorry to be so incensed, and so long, but I had things to say on this one.

But Sunny, I wonder if this doctor does butt lips? I'm in my 50's and ...

Bobb, redrivergirl,

Some of us women are not offended by the C word, and I believe that Bobb's use of dashes conveyed his point with adequate sensitivity, considering the context. To insist that certain words in our modern vocabulary be replaced in their entirety by supposedly inoffensive synonyms is prudish and regressive. Words are simply words, they convey ideas. It is not a hateful word, nor violent, nor derogatory, but very old and very English.

And yes, the whole genital makeover trend is a stupid waste of money and energy. I agree!!!

Hmmm. Never met a pussy I didn't like.

Quick, contact all the MPs and MLAs to ensure this procedure is not included in the Public Health coverage!

Bravo, Apegirl. I would only add, "...they convey ideas and emotions."

Which needs to be brought to the attention of all prudes and closeted thinkers, however well intended.

Thanks Apegirl for defending the appearance of
the "c" word in my earlier post.
As I mentioned, I was merely quoting, and really, I see no need to censor the original author in this case anyway. Redrivergirl would have preferred I'd substituted the "v" word instead. As The Tyee is a "family news source", I thought the dashes would be appropriate, without actually deleting the word.
I agree that the common phrases we use for both male and female body parts are not denigrating in themselves IF they are used to describe the body part! If they are used instead to describe a person, this usually does come across as insulting!
I agree with Redrivergirl about some of attitudes expressed by the doctor. She gave one quote. And how about "The human being should be a better product". Wow, what a concept. Now THAT'S insulting!

Speak for yourself Apegirl.

I find the word offensive when used to describe a vagina, or a woman. I know where it came from in old English and I am aware that that is not how the word is used today.

I am also aware that some women have reclaimed the word as an act of empowerment.

Just because your comfort level is different than mine and I consider it offensive doesn't mean I am prudish, or regressive, in spite of what you may think of my request. It may mean I have a deeper understanding of certain things than you. Or, it may mean something else entirely.

I do agree with your statement that "some of us women (you), don't consider it offensive." And by all means let men describe you and your vagina as such.

It's good you have that sense of your whole self, Lynn. I think it's a good integrity/integration to return to, or at least, strive towards.

I was too precocious, too early, to remember that wholeness. I have a really good friend. An artist, musician, therapist and spiritual healer. She has so much 'self' integrity. She had to fight for a lot of it because of later events. But, she remembers, really well, being nine years old and whole. Complete, competent and really spiritually connected with the earth and God/dess. I see that magic child in her very strongly even at forty. Yes, there are those moments... :-)

Is it just me? Or does that guy's smile make anyone else's volcano turn to crust?

I was speaking for myself, redrivergirl, just as I assume you speak for yourself. That's what forums are all about.

And if your offended sense of self wishes to imply that I prefer men to call me a C--t in a derogatory manner, rather than me simply using the word to name a part of my own anatomy, so be it.

Have I have stumbled into, THE VAGINA MONOLOGUES, Tyee Version, today??

I don't get the doctor's line of scruples between which women are "fit" for this surgery or not. Except in what must be a few, isolated cases where the muscles have been too damaged, cut or torn by childbirth, catheterization, or botched episiotomies, and absessed Barthol glands from improperly sterilized equipment for Kegels to work, this surgery is just unnecessary, period. Therefore, all the women who go to him in order to improve the appearance and sexual tightness are just as psychologically frail as the "unfit" ones.

I have a mixed feelings about this guy's ethics. At first when I saw his face, I got the heeby-jeebies and thought this must be a real creepy exposition. And then I read this comment:

... And my next thought was hold on a second here. What about the women for whom it is physically necessary? I don't mean the healing which has to happen in the head and heart. I mean the ones who have been butchered or torn past the ability to heal themselves without surgical intervention. Hospitals won't pay for this sort of reconstructive work even when it's their screw up.

How, then, is this guy supposed to recover the costs of training, equipment and surgical theatre for those few women for whom the surgery is necessary?

It's not black and white.

Another "complex" issue, I agree. But hell, women in casual conversation refer to this or that man as a "prick" or "dickhead" more than a little bit. (Women are increasingly finding their own colourful, positive and negative, references to male genitalia and attributes as they "deal with the issues" of their lives. Power to them, says I.)And has one listened to the language "families"are listening to widely on mainstream media? Does one think the verbal and video images that stream by there are unseen and unheard, because all children are in bed by 8 0r 9-, even on daytime soaps?

Though there does need to be some "discretion" in its use, in order for cuss words not to entirely lose their "punch" and maintain their "shock impact", which many young folks, male and female, I overhear in conversation fail to appreciate sufficiently, I think profanity and cussin' have a useful and effective place in language. (I love its intensity and earthiness. It's sheer rawness.)

There is too much sanctimony and misplaced sensitivity around this issue of "profanity" in language-, in my view, I appreciate, which is likely a driving element in its over-use, especially by the young. (It was certainly the case in my youth.)

Hell, what has, at least in the past, but which may have changed as well, I don't know anymore, been thought most shocking in French cussing, are references to "holy and church" items tossed off in anger or other "intense" emotion. Sacre bleu! (Holy blue!) Tabernac! (From tabernacle in the Roman Catholic tradition. One of the absolute worst profane uses of words in the French Canadian tradition) Clearly, all words that should not fall upon overly sensitive ears.

Different countries have different "customs" as to what constitutes and is the proper use of profanity. Germans have an over preoccupation with shit and dogs in various contexts. Russians, a passionate people, have the reputation of swearing the absolute most of anybody. We "Anglos", at least in North America, the product of an immigrant "cultural meld", one might say, embrace a much wider "profane" cultural tradition. (Though "fuck" is becoming rather popular nearly everywhere, as an export from ourselves, I suspect.)

Even my sainted and gentle wife, who hardly ever otherwise uses profanitites, and would unlikely even say "Shit!" with a mouthful of it, frequently resorts to the raw, emotional use of "bad words" with her orgasms. Making clear enough to me, the connection between rawness and depth of emotion, and what is considered at least, the use of profanity.

I refuse to be censored or restrained in my use of language, any language. (Not true, now that I think of it. The one exception IS the "C" word, merely because women have not, in my mind, sufficiently liberated themselves yet to be sufficiently confident and totally accepting of their own genitalia that they can deal with it, and that "C's" harshness does seem to especially jolt them. So I concede women that much "graciousness", generally. Not that I have never used the word in certain emotionally intense situations. :-)

On the other hand, we all know that the world is full of men who are absolute pricks. The female equivalents can yet be only sterilely described as "vaginas" in deference to "female over-sensitivities" about themselves and theirt genitalia, I think. Though we might,yet privately, refer to one or two as cunts.

Outside of that one exception, until women toughen up a little more yet, :-) (In for a penny, in for a pound Coyote, they call me.) I refuse to allow myself to be censored, or in any otherwise resticted in my use of language.

(Yes, males have a whole lot of toughening up to do themselves yet, in many important regards, where women are indisputably way tougher-, in my view. :-) Both aspects of the whole, however, being incomplete works, still in development.

Now, I really must catch up to my money trail over the last several days. Fucking depressing! Tabernac!

Better duck for cover, Coyote, I anticipate some merde coming your way...

Looks like it, Herms.

Unlike some other cosmetic surgeons I've interviewed, Dr. Jackson was more than willing to discuss and grapple with the ramifications of physical perfectionism and more interestingly with the meaning of happiness. We had to cut down some of those philosophical digressions. Ditto on what might happen to our culture if the majority physically augments and also about the negatives of physical attractiveness, starting from childhood. What if Britney Spears and other pop stars had been encouraged to pick up a guitar and write poetry at say 8 years old, instead of her family focusing on her dance moves and her looks? All of this starts early on so we can't entirely blame the docs. What about the intellectual insecurities of the beautiful people in comparison to the so-called ugly? Would they be less brilliant writers? What would culture, literature, art, history be like if we had only confident, well-adjusted people, if such a thing is possible or entirely desirable?

On the gender issues, it's interesting that while some women are looking to make things "pretty" down there, what about groups like Eve Ensler's "Vagina Warriors"? They did a v is for vote v is for vagina thing during the US election. Some women would have been outraged if the tiny collection of meninists told men to vote with their penises. Isn't that also infantalizing our genitals? Or giving them too much significance. I understand that the idea was to focus on the politics of women's issues, pro-choice, etc, but vote with my vagina?

Fiat, I wonder about your comment on the bio purpose of the vagina, to attract procreation. (Studies are mixed on the purpose - or not - of the clit, g-spot orgasms, etc and considering that labour often rips up the vagina, it's not entirely perfect for pushing out babies). Ladies, remember Judy Blume books? Pre-pubescent Sally Friedman in the bath making good use of the bath tap. She certainly wasn't thinking about procreation.

But, are western women afforded the luxuries of certain gender equalities partly or largely because we live in consumer capitalist cultures? If we weren't such good workers we wouldn't be such good consumers. It's weird how our ability to buy products has made us ripe for these expensive and potentially deadly cosmetic surgeries. We're literally turning in on ourselves.

The porn connection is fascinating. It's also rare to see saggy balls and scrotums in Hollywood porn. But I remember seeing porn mags pre-puberty and thinking, okay, this is what adult vaginas look like, looks kind of freaky to me, but apparently adults like it, so must not get too alarmed. So, I think it was good exposure at an earlier age. Of course that was the 70s, era of the large pubes so you couldn't be an armchair gyno. Do you remember also, this was the era when women were encouraged to hold a mirror to the vagina and check it out for themselves, get to know the geography. Now, look how this has turned into a fright-fest for some women.

Very interesting perspective, Danielle E. Enjoyed the read.

All my better instincts are warning me to keep out of this fascinating discussion, considering the strength of feeling people are having about it. Coyote makes a valid point about the effect language has on our feelings about things, though.

Most of the words we find offensive are perfectly good words. I mean, we all know what they mean and how to spell them and so forth. So, what's the difference between them and the 'respectable' versions?

Turns out to be a class thing. In 1066 the Normans (French speakers)invaded England and took over from the Saxons (German speakers) who had themselves invaded it earlier.

After that, the French, more Latinized influences were considered refined and high class, while the defeated Saxon terms became coarse and low class. Shit was Saxon, manure Norman. Cock and prick Saxon, penis Norman. Cows are Saxon, beef is Norman. Vagina is a much more latinized term than cunt, but both are terms with the precise same definition. Except that only the 'low class' Saxon derived terminology for the genitalia are ever used as an insult. That applies to both genders.

Also, interestingly, cunt remains the most offensive English word. So offensive that until recently it was intentionally left out of English dictionaries. I think it's still left out of most of them.

Interesting how a land grab a thousand years ago still colours our feelings about our own bodies.

Thanks for clarifying it some more, Danielle E. Why shouldn't surgery to enhance sexual pleasure be as necessary as surgery to prevent women from spontaneous, uncontrolled urination or defecation? Good question.

It's not all about looks.

(This is a non-post for testing to see if this will post.Tyee wouldn't let me post earlier today.)

I am offended by the use of the word "balls". Could you have not used the the word "testes"? Or, in the future if you need to refer to only one, can you please use the singular "testis"? Thank you.

Good!
I have to agree with Apegirl, and with Coyote and Bailey to degrees(those 2 are walking encyclopedias on profanity, a whole sub-branch of social science, I can see!)
Without going into their use as swear words, which has been already admirably covered,
to accept the words penis and vagina while rejecting their commonly used synonyms is prudery.
What are the differences between the two classes of words? Bailey has cited historical/ethnic origins and prejudicial treatment of words.But nowadays,I'd say the "acceptable" words are viewed as more neutral while the "unacceptable" ones are more likely to have sexual connotations.(In this sense do I agree with redrivergirl that the words vagina and cunt are not absolutely equivalent, necessarily).
But hey, we're talking about sexual organs, so of course there will be some sexual connotations!
To reject words with sexual connotations is Victorian prudishness. Someone might not want their doctor using such words, because sexual implications in a doctor's office would be inappropriate. But I say there are contexts where use of such words is appropriate, perhaps even preferable, as long as the person hearing them isn't offended!

-Danielle seems ambivalent about genital cosmetic surgery,giving pros and cons, but I agree with her where she says it seems to show the strange turns our affluent, consumer society can take. In many parts of the world people have more important, immediate concerns, instead of the multitude of elective diversions we involve ourselves in.

I agree Danielle, complex issue, not all about looks, but still I feel there is quite a knife edge to walk here, so to speak.

What women are prepared to do to alter themselves these days is... well... deeply disturbing. We see it in the whole reign of the Sex and the City take on manipulated sex. The genuine honesty of real sex is vanishing, its all window dressing, contrived surface stuff.

I clean up pretty good with the rest of them when I have to and it's nice to get a compliment from my husband in those few glammed up moments... but sometimes when I'm just in an old t-shirt and jeans, working in the garden and looking fairly dishevelled, I will all of a sudden realize he has been watching me...with that certain look ...and when I ask "what's that all about?"...he says he's just enjoying me. I love that and I really think that's what women really want... that simple connection between a man and a woman... and not all that pretense of artificial paraphenalia that we are presently being sold.

Mellors, the gamekeeper, in Lawrences Lady Chatterley's Lover, (1928) uses the word, cunt, in a real and lovely way, one of the reasons this great book about men, women and the class system was originally banned. In defending the book in his fine essay "Apropos of Lady Chatterley's Lover" he writes about how sex in this modern age has lost its dynamic call. I think its especially relevant today in regards to the chasing after the artificial... that it really has nothing to do with real sex at all. Lawrence writes:

"So all the activity that used to be unconscious and delightful becomes conscious and repellent. The woman exposes her flesh more and more, and the more she exposes, the more men are sexually repelled by her. But let us not forget that the men are "socially" thrilled, while sexually repelled. The two things are opposites, today. Socially, men like the gesture of the half-naked woman, half-naked in he street. It is chic, it is a declaration of defiance and independence, it is modern, it is free, it is popular because it is strictly asexual, or anti-sexual. Neither men nor women want to feel real desire, today. They want the counterfeit, mental substitute."

It's interesting to see how some are dancing around the elephant in the room which is that the word cunt has a modern, pejorative meaning which is reserved for women. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But, I am in a way. In always startles me to see abject hatred of women.

Apegirl, you addressed me by name in your post. I am glad however that you and I can now agree that it is not just a 'simple' word that in an unfettered manner arises from the the olde English and is really only benign, but rather, is used as THE 'mother of all' derogatory put downs.

The way I interpret your post is the same way I would to see a black person post - 'hey, not all black people mind the word n word because after all it's original meaning has nothing to do with the South and the use of Nigra and all that entails. So. here is my implicit permission to use it when talking about me or to me, or any other black person. That is assuming you are a women.

Prude is also an interesting word, usually reserved for women. Kind of a semi-literate word for 'cold fish'.

Not liking the word cunt used to describe a vagina or a self has nothing to do with one's comfort level with one's own anatomy and everything to do with the word being used to reduce a woman to her most basic utilization and ignore her personhood.

I know women are receiving a lot of backlash right now for 'daring' to be too uppity. But, whatever. It's been a very revealing conversation.

I want to add that I think that most cases of women being murdered should be considered a hate crime. If any other group of people were murdered as women are and sexually assaulted, (also a hate crime) it would be automatic. Yet our misyogyny is so ingrained it doesn't even occur to us. What if another group couldn't go out alone after eleven pm in our country in case they were viciously attacked by a stranger?

I know that we are in an age where 'feminism' is supposed to be a dirty word and some women are falling all over themselves to disavow the very movement that released them from total bondage, lest they be viewed as less attractive. However, I am so proud to be a feminist.
How could any thinking woman, not be a feminist.
I am not ashamed of it in the least.

One has to discredit feminism if one is to shove women silently back into menial work and unpaid labour. The New Capitalists love it. Who do you think is expected to pick up the burden of closed nursing homes, reduced child care etc? Pay equity was an ideal to be eradicated, just like overtime, unions and the 8 hour day and before long the weekend. One has to discredit feminism and the social programs which mitigate the absolute dependence some women have on their husbands and church and put women back into kitchen where she belongs.

"Hate Crime Laws – A Savage Hypocracy

Yes, over the past few years our great country has been developing new hate crime laws.

If somebody kills somebody, it's a crime. But if someone kills somebody of a different color, it's a hate crime.

And we think that that is a savage hypocracy, because all crimes are hate crimes. If a man beats another man because that man was sleeping with his wife, is that not a hate crime?

If a person vandalizes a government building, is it not because of his hate for the government?

And motivation for a crime shouldn't affect the sentencing.

Mayor, it is time to stop splitting people into groups. All hate crimes do is support the idea that blacks are different from whites, that homosexuals need to be treated differently from non-homos, that we aren't the same.

But instead, we should all be treated the same, with the same laws and the same punishments for the same crimes."

Episode 401 - Cartman's Silly Hate Crime 2000

An interesting discussion and set of perspectives. I have enjoyed it.

And as for Bailey; :-)

Thanks for having the balls, brother. That was a good and interesting contribution. And by the the by, "cunt" is in my Oxford English Reference, confirming your history of the word.

And from Lynn, whose comments I always find most interesting and illuminating-, and human. She strikes me as a good, down to earth kind of woman. My favourite kind.

I don't see many supporters of redrivergirl's position rushing to her defense! You seem to be in a minority of one, r.r.g., on this topic, at least on this board.
I submit that the same words often have very different definitions and implications depending on the usage and context.
Just because cunt has a pejorative sense if used to tag a person rather than a body part, it does not mean that every use of the word is therefore tainted, as you would have it.And this isn't a peculiarity of language specific to women only. Just because prick and dick are usually pejorative if used to describe a male person,it doesn't make their use as synonyms for penis offensive. Not to me.And how come you're not making this a general issue by including the male equivalents to cunt in your argument? Hopefully it isn't because you yourself might have been "guilty" at some time or other of speaking, writing, or thinking of some man or other as a "prick". Do you have a double standard here?
I think the fact that sexual organs and sexual words, even have some pejorative uses at all in English, says much about our culture's traditionally negative, repressive attitudes to sexuality in general. As Coyote points out, this is more true of Anglos than of the French.
p.s. Although I disagree with you on this, I would NEVER call you a c---!

Defenders of redrivergirl should have their head examined.

Here's one for you from the 60s, coyote. If they keep sending folks south of our border to die for Enron, I think it will make a comeback:

(Sing)
Sodomy, fellatio, cunnillingus, pederasty.
Father, why do these words sound so nasty?
Masturbation, can be fun.
Join the holy orgy Kama Sutra, everyone!

I am a feminist.

I go out, on my own, after 11 pm, and can handle myself. And I am what one would call reasonably young and attractive.

I have been called a whore, an asshole, a bitch, an idiot, a loser and a cunt at various times in my life. I haven't died from any of them. I don't feel victimised, assailed, denigrated. Pissed off sometimes, yes. That's it.

This is so true, Lynn. Scary stuff.

Well, Apegirl. As far as you being a feminist, I'll just have to take your word for it.

It's interesting how many thoughts and motivations are being attributed to me. I find this conversation fascinating from a sociologicaI perspective that we are having it in 2005.

I don't need any defenders, Bobb. I'm an adult woman who has opinions of her own. I often see things from a different perspective than the herd. It doesn't bother me. Actually, while I am very social, and have several close friends and a partner, I am not a 'joiner'. Never have been. Never will be. Thank God for small mercies.

I refuse to be cowed, subjugated, or participate in being scapegoated, or in scapegoating others.

It's funny, Apegirl. I've never (with the exception of Bobbs coment which did not escape me) get directly or indirectly, called a cunt, an asshole, or a loser. I probably got called a bitch at some point, but honestly don't recall being called one. To my face anyway. :-) Oh no! I have been. When I worked with disturbed adolescents. That's right.

But, it is interesting because if I were around someone socially, or intimately who did call me those names, it would be the last time.

So, the actual act of medical doctors carving up women's genitalia for "cosmetic" purposes (i.e. men's pleasure and doctors' bottom lines) seems not to be an issue with most people in this forum? It's language that offends people??? Whoa. Now that's really, really scary.

Ah, balls. Sorry redriverboy!

Te, about your post [Thanks for clarifying it some more, Danielle E. Why shouldn't surgery to enhance sexual pleasure be as necessary as surgery to prevent women from spontaneous, uncontrolled urination or defecation? Good question.]

There's also the risk of nerve damage with these surgeries and the vagina designers I interviewed all talked about having to fix up other botched surgeries. You can't get a surgeon to chop off your healthy arm! While Matlock quotes from Masters and Johnson etc on his site about how much better sex can be, I have my doubts and again am baffled with the appropriation of modern sex studies to this kind of thing. At least Jackson doesn't go that far. But, damn, you could still die, a muscle could be severed or you could lose all sensitivity. Interestingly the male genital surgeries haven't really taken off because of a few reported botched cases. But have you ever heard of a cosmetic surgery convention being picketed by angry women, feminists et al?

As for feminism, talk about loaded words - there must have been some good smear campaigns in the 70s and 80s because the women academics I interviewed for this piece are shaking their heads and wondering what the hell happened to this F-word. Even in women's studies 101 the students say they'd never be called a feminist because they like men. What the hell does that have to do with it? Feminist is such a booh-scary word I wonder how many women would rather be called a cunt.

Sunny Samson; The language discussion approaches the question 'why?'.

Don't you find it interesting that a whole group of intelligent and interesting modern people, all very articulate and everything, are having such a strongly felt rant about attitudes that were a gift of William the Conquerer? What if the Saxons had won? What would we feel about our genitalia then? Or what if it had been Danes? There were lots of Vikings about, it might have happened. Would we then insult one another by using those words that are now used at Ikea to designate cute folding furniture?

I don't think women are oppressed by being called cunts, or men pricks, or politicians assholes. These words could as easily have been an endearment as the insults they became.

For that matter, I don't think men oppress women, whites oppress blacks, adults oppress children. I think what actually happens is a kind of round robin of pain. When someone is hurt, they sometimes search for a way to pass that on. It's a monkey thing.

So when you have to vent, you pick whatever word you think will hurt the most. That's when 'cunt' loses it's appeal, 'nigger' becomes a deadly insult. We do it to establish ourselves as not subservient; to put others down quite literally, so as to convince ourselves that we're above them.

And we choose our victims by only one criteria: Do we think we can get away with it?

We seem to be in a period when sex is more of a group thing than it ever was before. We do it at parties. We do it on TV, on film, on webcam. Even the young seem to be dating in groups rather than pairs. It isn't too surprizing that women should choose cosmetic surgery for their sweetest parts. They expect them to be seen and admired.

Maybe that word 'cunt' will stop being a slur, and become a cute little nickname for one of life's great joys. That might even be where the word began.

But if it does, expect the damaged to find some other word to use as a weapon. It seems to be the kind of monkey we are.

While I suspect there will be other uses put to this surgery which Daniella writes about, regrettably, for all the consumer and more purchasing power than brains reasons, I don't have trouble accepting that there will be "essential" reasons for even "reconstructive" surgery on female genitalia. Or even male genitalia for that matter.

I remember an occassion many years ago, when as a male nursing ordely, following my exit from military life, and as my introduction to "civvie street", in a time when much of what is formal "nursing" today was done be we "apprenticed" male caregivers, upon male patients, I was sent to "prep" a young male for surgery. The situation was, much even to my shock, a badly botched circumcision and subsequent infections, followed by yet a life of more surgery attempts to correct the original problem, which left this young lad with scarcely anything that could be called a penis at all. He was going for yet one more restorative surgery attempt, with a haunted look in his eyes that I will never forget.

I prepped him, and heard no more of him. (Big hospital. As in assembly line medical care.)

So, eh, shit of all kinds happens to people.

The point being, there is doubtless a place for this kind of surgery and knowledge. It becomes scary, to me, only when it is done for vainglorious "cosmetic" reasons. Call me old fashioned, but I still prefer "real" real women, "attractive" within a fairlywide range of shapes, sizes, and sundry physical possibilities. And while it is true, we males are extremely "visual" stimulated, that is not to the total exclusion of other socio-psychological considerations. (Personally, the visual elements MUST include certainly an adequate IQ level, and frankly some of the more historically valued "mothering" qualities-, not particularly of me per se-, but eh, I am a real man afterall. :-)

But then, back to this prick/cunt discussion, for a final thought. Where I suspect that I will disagree with most, some.

A prick, even in the Oxford, has two connotations; firstly as a slang for the male genitalia, and secondly in referance to "an objectionable male."

Cunt, though it gets slightly different "formal" treatment in the Oxford, first as a reference to the female genitalia with a "Germanic" historical root, plain and simple, it has a secondary meaning as "an unpleasant or stupid person", meaning a woman, I presume, certainly in modern usage. I've certainly not heard "hetero-sexual males use it on each other-, though I have homo-sexual males, in their not infrequent tiffs and jealousy spats.

So, my view, contrary to redrivergirl, is, that what is fair for the gander, is fair for the goose in this case. Cunt is no less a legitimate slang/profane reference to an "objectionable female" than Prick is to an "objectionable male"-, however much being called a prick or a cunt may offend thee. (I mean, being called a "prick" would certainly be offensive to me, though I have certainly been called it, and on very rare occassion, possibly for all the right reasons. Ditto, for "one or two" ladies I have known in my time, for the feminine variant of the same root "objectionable person" word.

More than that, if I am going to get out of here unscarred, I will henceforth retreat from. :-) It is my final word on the subject, for simple cowardly "self-survival" reasons. (I wanna "make love" to the ladies, not fight with them. :-)

(As most males will appreciate, it's always risky business getting involved in discussions on "female" issues. I just can't resist controversy, it seems, however. There's a Devil in there that makes me do it.:-D

And by the by, the feminism/new masculinity emphasis considered even, I do think the dialouge of recent decades is actually clearing the air between males and females-, somewhat. There are lingering "negativities", but many have and are being worked out, and will continue to do so, in the ongoing negotiation that is the male/female relationship.That's my sense of the relationship anyway. And the continuation of "the species" is contingent on it, let's face it, whether the pussy or the prick is about procreation or pleasure, or some measure of each. (The latter being what I suspect.)

I think you gotta take the word and make it your own, claim it and wear its power. All stereo-types involve language... I grew up as a blue -eyed blonde, one of the "deceptively easier" ones, it has lots of hidden dangers though besides the assumption by some that you are dumb or easy or a threat... the greatest danger is to rely on it to get you what you want...which is what I think this present trend of the willing mutilation of women is all about.

Women think this is about getting what they want but this is more and more a case of careful what you wish for....

This is really about the growing industrialization of the modern world, now the neo-con corporate world of the machine where machine-like efficiency and perfection is all. It has been seducing women for the last hundred years... and it has just about got this new sparkling image of cold feminine perfection into bed with it. If it gets us, girls, it gets the world. Our surrender comes with a big price for everyone.

That is why DH Lawrence crowns the word cunt in his novel, expressing the power of the feminine, the embodiment of the natural world... creation itself. It is why his novel was considered so dangerous, so profane... because it is genuine human warmth and all that it represents, real sex (which is just the life force) of a natural but wonderfully imperfect world, the end of the class system, that is the real threat to industrialization... and now to the commercial corporate world. It is the main obstacle that must be overcome for the machine to finally rule.

That's why for women, I think, it is important we get this right, not living just for careers but for that which promotes and advances life itself. (And I know I'm on dangerous ground here.)

And to Coyote, Bailey, and Bobb 999, love ya guys for having the courage to tread among us girls here...

As a woman, registered nurse, and long time feminist I have to stress that the truly disturbing thing about this story is the obviously misognynistic perception that large numbers of normal women could ever require liposuction, lipoinjection, surgical labial adjustments, or vaginal tightening. Generally speaking we women are beautiful and perfect the way we are. It is very sad to think that women in large numbers could be perceiving ourselves to be ugly. Why should such procedures even be considered unless there has been some kind of damage??? As some previous writers have noted, damage can be medically induced by botched (often unecessary) episiotomies, which leaves me even more suspicious of a 'medical fix' for a nonexistent problem. Given the fact that most female orgasms are reached as a result of clitoral stimulation, I cannot see how "vaginal tightening" could do much to enhance a woman's sexual response, and, not having seen the procedure (thank God/Goddess) I hate to even contemplate how it is done. It seems to me that, if the goal is enhanced pleasure for women, men need to learn how to be better lovers, not better surgeons. I can't help wondering how well taken it would be if female doctors opened private clinics to surgically 'enhance' male genitalia in any way shape or form. It takes so much away from the beauty that we, both men and women, are able to experience in sexual communion to perceive ourselves as flawed when we are not.

As to the language issue, I think that, in a respectful relationship, when one partner states that he or she finds a certain word used in reference to him/herself offensive, the other partner owes that person the respect to refrain from using it - at least until a mutual discussion leads to clarifications or new understandings that make it OK to use the word again. Even though I love colorful language, I have to recognize that others may feel differently, especially in relation to emotionally charged words. In other words, my perceptions are not necessarily superior to yours, and we all have to treat each other with respect and empathy.

One can not compare the use of the word cunt, with prick for a guy.

If there is a word that comes close it would include aspersions on his masculinity, such as, he's a 'girl', a LITTLE man (forgive the caps, Idon't know how to bold) and that doesn't come close either, because the word cunt includes all the projections of a fallen woman, a whore, something you use and discard and nothing more than a receptacle.

It is interesting to me that Bobb chose that specific quote, which, is if not offensive, as I found it, controversial. It can not be taken away from the context in which it was posted and that is about an article (a very good one, by the way) concerning a misogynistic based medical procedure.

It is interesting to me that my words , "...(calling a women a cunt) has everything to do with the word being used to REDUCE a woman to her most basic utilization and ignore her personhood"., have been completely ignored, when this is the crux of my entire argument.

That is the slur. It isn' t in the sensual poetry and novels of D H Lawrence. It isn't in it's 'just another word for vagina', or like the word 'wench',(meaning female servant) yet another, not so benign word, from a time when women could be raped with impunity if she was unfortunate enough to be caught walking on the castle grounds on her way to her chores.

I'll say it again. This is a word I've never heard in mixed company. Only among women reclaiming the word. I've never heard a man use this word in front of me (exept here) and I wouldn't want to hear it. Because it isn't a benign word.

This conversation is amazing to me. Again, from a sociological perspective and also that we are having it in 2005. I don't think we would have had this conversation 5 years ago. I see it as a reflection of how deep the resentment towards the feminine has become and how terrifying it can be to women. It's very interesting.

So, having said that, I'll agree to disagree and probably bow out of this specific debate and see you all on another comment section.

Blessings.

One more point. I find it also interesting that this deep resentment of the feminine is at a time when the negative masculine, as in traits not gender, is dominating public discourse and that same machismo, domineering behaviour of GB is putting the world in peril. Just as it is endangering the well-being of Canadians as our 'caring' social programs are being dismantled by similar types.

Can it only be a back lash from having to share some power for a decade or so? Or, is everyone angry that 'mom' isn't protecting us from an abusive 'dad' and she is an easier target. I'm not sure if I'm on the right track about this. I'll have to think about it some more.

Perhaps, that's not it. Perhaps, it is the same as it always has been, only it had to be hidden for a while, until fairly recently.

Anyway, see you on the boards.

redrivergirl: I appreciate your great depth of feeling on this issue. You're right, Lawrence's Mellors would never call a woman a cunt... it is the mechanical world that is reducing woman to that... effectively making her that, sapping her power. That is why he uses it so tenderly in their lovemaking, it is a retaliation against all that false outside world that is defeating them both.

He exalts the word through his working class roots and makes it into one of the most beautiful of all words. As a woman I couldn't ask for more from the man I loved...

Just wanted to add that my reference to the promoting of life in my comment somewhat above now has nothing to with the pro-life movement whatsoever, but to the promotion of the natural world, its life force, of which we are all a part.

"The dangerous grounds" I referred to was in reference to the "career" aspect of it all.

Oh, dear. All of this malicious stuff has a common element. It's all bullshit. Lies.

And lies are the most telling kind of truth there is. Whenever somebody attacks, they lay themselves, their deepest flaws and pains and fears absolutely bare. The nature of the attack, of the lie, points unerringly to the source of the pain that caused the howl in the first place.

Once you learn to see it, it's downright embarrassing, like watching somebody show off their scabs or something.

Men who attack women by undermining their sexual identity might as well be shouting their own lack of identity. If you insult my sexuality, I must instantly wonder about yours.

It's no different when the rich attack the needy, dismantle their meager protections, they display their own fears and hatreds. Most unattractive. And it's so clear to see that I have to conclude that all this 'oppression' is just a smokescreen. Some men do oppress women, but so do some women oppress men, and it's just as resentful.

So it really can't be about gender generally, it has to be something personal. I suppose it's still terrifying. But the terror must be as much on the part of the oppressor as the oppressed.

I guess I'm saying it's not hatred against a class of people, whatever outward form it seems to take.

It's personal. It's a damaged person howling in pain, and throwing words at somebody to make them hurt too.

But their pain isn't really yours, unless you make it so. Being called a cunt doesn't say anything at all about you, your condition or state of being.

Can it only be a back lash from having to share some power for a decade or so? Or, is everyone angry that 'mom' isn't protecting us from an abusive 'dad' and she is an easier target. I'm not sure if I'm on the right track about this. I'll have to think about it some more.

Perhaps, that's not it. Perhaps, it is the same as it always has been, only it had to be hidden for a while, until fairly recently.

Women Studies 101 ... how it's poisoned our culture....

Yes, Bailey. The personal becomes the political. I understand that people act out of their personal pain. I really do. I know men have suffered under our system. It is the power structures within our system as opposed to men per se. For instance, I believe seeking to correct the real injustice of power imbalances by affirmative action hurt the next generation of men. It didn't correct the problem of the 'old boy's club' shutting out women from opportunity as it was intended. It had an unintended consequence and that is it discriminated against individual men who were penalized by it. It was a crude attempt to right a wrong. I also understand that words speak of the speaker. But, women are oppressed in our society. In many, many ways. Working class men are now as well. And, it's getting worse.

Sirj, I've never taken Women's Studies. Although, I'm sure I've read much of the material. I'd be interested in hearing why you think it has poisoned our culture, though.

Lynn, I love Lawrence's poetry. He was so 'alive'. So acutely aware, sensual, full like summer and lush. I appreciated his novels when I read them some time ago. I understood what you meant by life affirming. Did you read the biography Frieda? I did quite a while ago. Are you a poet? Don't answer if you'd rather not. As I'm thinking about Lawrence my summer reading list is getting longer. :-)

Bailey, point taken that the oppressors are oppressed.

Bailey, I am thinking more about your post. I believe the only way to effectively meet this time in history is to meet it by being balanced within and to meet it with love. To see the 'others' humanity. To forgive them and to embrace them.

But, I am having a hard time doing this. I feel angry. I struggle between those two ways of being. I feel a lot of anger towards the Neo-Cons and the rise of hatred and scapegoating powerless groups of people.I feel angry at the sell out, or occupation, to use another word, of my country. I am also at a point in my life where I see very clearly the ways I was overly socialized to my detriment. I am seeing some of the ways in which I traded my real self away for society's approval. This is colouring my perspective. Or, at least contributing to my intolerance of the way things are.

I'm not sure about rightgeous anger. I know self-righteous anger is destructive and a negative emotion. Righteous anger though, like Kali, can be cleansing and necessary. Still, I have to look at how I contribute to the divisions being promoted in our society. I'm not sure. Still thinking...

Oh, Lynn. I see! It is the mechanical world reducing her! Thank you. I am going to re-read him.

Sigh, trying to mock redrivergirl has been fruitless. May she find peace in her hysteria... signing off

redrivergirl: I love Lawrence's poetry, too. I have read Frieda's biography, she is fascinating and so much a part of what he writes. I can see why he fell so in love with her and they ran off together

I have read quite a lot of Lawrence... his essays and literary criticism, are just as good as his novels, all about life and not dull at all but with that same aliveness, very prophetic about the twentieth century and the times we live in now. He is deadly and passionately honest...that's why I love him ...yes, I do write poetry, red, but I'm far, far from being a poet...

Save for the drivel of Sirj of course, (What is wrong with this woman?) this has been a most interesting and fascinating discussion to read develop. I have gotten much from reading the persepectives of you all, without exception.

And don't think for one second, Redrivergirl, while I may not agree with all aspects of your viewpoint and conclusions that I do not understand the fundamentally sound socio-psychological source of it. I very much do. Otherwise I would have had to be a man walking through the world with my eyes closed.

It's been forever since I read D.H. Lawrence myself-, with my working class male, possibly over-emphasis on physical "action" over "literary" experience. When time catches up with me just a tad more, I must revisit him, for sure.

(I find I am much preoccupied at this end of my life, even more than my youth, while my health and vigour remains still "relatively" intact, with being out in and physically experiencing the world. Along with yakkity-yakking it up here with you folks, of course. Though really, I have always been more physical than intellectual, I suspect.)

Always a pleasure, folks. And I think it is important for men and women to have these kinds of discussions, even if they expose old wounds and bruises on both sides. Otherwise they will only fester and never heal.

To mock means to treat with contempt. Who could brag about having mocked anyone in an arena where most people spend a great deal of time thinking about and elucidating concepts, thereby deserving the same in response? No matter how much I disagree with anyone, I hope to never find myself proudly proclaiming that I have treated another human being with contempt.

Redrivergirl, I'm surprised that you've only heard the word "cunt" applied to women. I've heard it used between men, and applied by women to men as well. In general I think it's used in far more contexts by Brits than it is by Canadians....

I think this goes to show that the hatefulness of any word cannot be gleaned by considering it outside of the context of its use. I've actually heard "cunt" used in a very jocular fashion.

That must be true, eh? Given the history of the word in the English language, I guess one should expect that it has a more complex usage, due to its root history over there, as Bailey helped make clear, amongst the lower "Saxon" speaking classes.

Interesting.

I see, doing some research of my own, that harsh K sound actually comes from it having been spelled with a K, rather than a C.

I suspect that it provokes such distaste amongst women over here, like my wife just pointed out to me, because were she to be called that, in anger, the next thing she would tend to expect is-, to be hit. Making "fear" an emotional element that is attached to it.

And powerful emotion, I think, is always attached to profanity, and so long as it is not "over used" is what makes the use of profanity so powerful and effective.

It was a powerful and thought provoking article in the lead off, which naturally led into a number of different directions.

You are so right jsinger, I will mock you instead. Just repeat the above in the most whiny, anal-retentive tone you can muster and voila - mocked. Just because you think and "elucidate" (big word - did you go to skool?) doesn't mean you are above a little puncturing of the ego. Hitler thought and elucidated....

Coyote, I think your wife makes an excellent observation...women I think are very sensitive to the tone and feeling, the small signs behind words...it is very ingrained in us to interiorly size up threats to ourselves and our children...as historically sometimes our lives have depended on it...probably true of all those who have been oppressed...to look for the little signals...I'm sure that's how as women we became so charming :-)...seriously though, I bet there's many a woman who has charmed herself out of a bad situation....men, no doubt, too :-) ....but probably not quite so much.

Hey everyone!

RRB, give it a rest. jsinger is expressing her feelings. Don't be so cranky. You'll have to change your name to Red River Black Fly. :-)

Deeby, I'm not sure. No one I know uses racial slurs either. Naturally, I've heard them on the street and in the media.

Coyote, yes, your wife is right, I would expect violence to follow. Fear is a big factor.

Lynn, isn't it interesting how it can be hard for some of us to claim the identity of a poet, when we are? :-) I know this is true for me as I can see the flaws in my poetry so clearly and therefore they are never finished and never good enough. I would not have the confidence, or audacity to call my self a poet. Yet, so many people who it could be argued, write at least, not any better, claim the identity fully. Really, if I remove my self-consciousness, I think being a poet isn't about the quality of one's work, but the way in which one thinks and sees the world and relates to others and their environment. I thought you were a poet.

Do you ever go to the poetry section on Slate?
I used to read there quite often. I have been too busy lately. But, it is very interesting. I don't know if you have other writers around you.

http://fray.slate.msn.com/?id=3936&tp=poem

I want to thank everyone for the provocative discussion. I'm really busy today. I've got to run. Have a good Sunday, everyone.

I'm a little confused. Sarah, in the story says she started "noticing a difference" when she was LIKE 13... am I missing out on some activity teen girls engage in? I have no idea what that means... when do girls/women see each others' private parts..???

thanks redrivergirl, I return the generous compliment in kind and thanks, too for the Slate link. Nope, no writers around me... just a happy little troop of merganzer ducks sailing by on the waves today...think I'll sail along with them....:-)

I'd just like to take a moment to draw your attention back up to the photo of good old Dr. Roy here. Now I ask you, what kind of twisted universe am I living in where this creep gets to decide whose vaginas need 'rejuvenating'? Ew.

I’ll spare you the discussion of the way his hands are clasped protectively over his groin or the creepy way he’s perched on the gurney, sheets pulled back seductively, and just say again, ‘Ew’.

What a vagina.

Redrivergirl: I just got home after a day out. Does your comment to RRB, which refers to me, relate to something that was posted and then removed or something?

Yes, jsinger. There was a post that appears to have been removed. That is very odd. RRB was wisecracking about mocking.
I wonder what happened.

I wish I knew what the official policy was. At some boards the editior will remove posts at their discretion. However, I am hoping the author of the post is not someone on staff.

What would make you think that? Creepy.

Sorry for taking so long to respond Danielle E. and jsinger. Busy in my main community today ...

I guess my fundamental question is this: Is there ever, ever a time when vaginal reconstruction is necessary?

Oh, I don't necessarily think that. I just thought of it as I was typing because I didnt' know why the post had disappeared. That would be creepy though! Most likely the editor removed it.

Your post and perspective as an RN on this topic was very interesting.

Te Aro Arahina; I'm just curious. Does it have to be necessary?

Why wouldn't it be enough that somebody just wants to do it?

I think that the context of the social world within which a woman would want to alter her already existing perfection is a huge factor to be considered. How many among us would truly want our loved and perfect children to undergo dangerous surgery (all surgery has inherent risk of unexpected damage and infection, any of which could lead to problems up to and including early death) for some socially perceived need to appear exactly the same as anyone else? Were we not all created by some force more powerful and knowing than the entertainment machinery that seems to be the source of 'need' for many such surgeries? Is it not to our human detriment to ignore the depth of our potential, focussing only on the superficial? Are there not more important things on which to spend our time and money?

Of course there are times when vulvar-vaginal surgeries are necessary, for reasons relating to congenital or trauma induced conditions - or perhaps in gender reassignment cases (human situations are far too complex for me to categorically state exactly what is right or wrong here), and of course women should have access to them if necessary, but I would certainly question the ethics of any medical professional (especially one operating in a private surgical clinic in BC today) who would encourage (or even help) a perfectly healthy woman to choose needless, risky surgery.

While we're on the topic, may I take this opportunity to say that it drives me crazy to so often hear the entire vulva referred to as the vagina. Given the fact that the vagina, except for its collapsed opening, is invisible to the observer when viewing a woman's genitalia externally, while we actually see the entire vulva (which of course includes the labia majora, the labia minora, the clitoris and the openings of the vagina and urethra), could we please start calling the vulva by its actual name. Especially given the fact that the clitoris, part of the vulva, is a woman's most important piece of equipment from a sexual arousal perspective, I was constantly frustrated that, even in the supposedly progressive Vagina Monologues, this common error was repeated throughout. To me it is akin to referring one's nose and upper lip as one's nostril.

That's the answer I was wondering about. In such cases, the procedures should be covered by health care.

In principle, I agree with this:

In practice, I think it would be very difficult to keep specialists on staff for purely reconstructive work.

Do I like that? No.

wow, I'm just amazed where this thread has gone.
I'm still trying to understand why supposedly modern, somewhat progressive brains are intent on painting this as a legitimate health issue in Canada.

Its timing with the Supreme Court's decision late last week, leaves me to wonder if it isn't all just cosmetics we are chasing today, whether its a tuck or uplift here or a booster or mood enhancer here.

I am seriously concerned about the future of univerals public health care and everyone else appears to be standing around looking down at their pants wondering if they ought to be embarrassed or fixed.

If I want to add an inch to my penis I should pay, if my wife only wants a clever little hook added to my penis I should still pay if I am shallow enough to agree.

Will this doctor be taking up a bed fixing someone's fantacy while a child sits in pain in emergency waiting his turn?

Worse still, will some truly gifted person who is intent on practicing real medicine be kept out of publicly funded medical school because some young future whiz-kid with a blade has rich parents who can buy his way past the normal hurdles?

I don't know if I'm expressing myself clearly, allan. Yes, I absolutely think reconstruction surgeries should be available when women have been mutilated through events like botched episiotomies, rape, childbirth accidents, abscesses and blocked glands. If it's just so they look pretty and want to satisfy some sort of primitive sexual preference about the hymen, no.

OK then, so why should you get to choose for them? You don't like their choice, you you want the power to impose yours?

How far exactly would you take this principle?

I think that post by redriverboy was likely removed because a web master deemed it somewhat abusive, too mean spirited for the Tyee.
I myself cringed a bit when I read it. I did think his original point was legit, in fact it was one of my points too, but his tone was getting meaner and someone must have decided he'd crossed the line... which reminds me:
redrivergirl: The last line of my prior post I hesitated before adding, but decided it might add a small bit of levity to the discussion, for some people. There was a teasing element too in ending with the "verboten" word.
I don't call people names, and like to think I'm reasonably respectful of others.It appears you thought I was calling you names in a round about way, but I promise you that was not my intention. In fact, my position all along was that the word might be appropriately used so long as it wasn't used to tag or insult a person.I plead guilty to teasing only!

How far exactly would you take this principle?

Yes, I do object to public money going towards unnecessary cosmetic surgery -- unnecessary being defined by what is required to maintain health and vitality, not appearance. If my hospital started providing free breast implantations or wrinkle treatments, I would most certainly protest.

Did you miss the comment (not mine) that people should holler at their MPs to ensure this type of operation is not be covered by healthcare? Ever? If it's about physical health, things like controlling bodily functions, then yes, it should be covered.

Those are the lines I draw and the places where I engage in political activism.

Frankly, I don't care if some woman who feels entitled to free cosmetic surgery thinks that's interfering with her choice or not. If she's insecure about her looks, then she can pay for surgery out of her own pocket. That's not a healthcare issue.

redrivergirl:

If we didn't subsidize the doctor business, we'd have 75% fewer doctors..........
But is this so bad ? Likely no more Colleges of Physicians & Surgeons, no more CMA, BCMA, etc., no more heavily weighted lobbies against home births, midwifery, holistic treatments, herbal remedies, vitamin therapy, marijuana. Perhaps no more Big Pharma either.......

I hear you, Bobb, my sense of humour has returned. :-) I was feeling a bit sensitive during these posts. I find posting can be tricky sometimes because I can't see expression and find with email etc, I can misread tone far easier than when reading paper pages for some unknown reason.

Good point, Rick. I think some of these doctors pushing for privatization think they will still enjoy the benefits they do under our system. If people have to pay, in a way other than their taxes, the demand for medical care that can not be met because of cost will be lost to them. We don't have the population the US has. They've already lost a lot of public respect they hitherto enjoyed, that's for sure. "The Aquarian Conspiracy" spoke to this problem as people were attracted to medicine because of the money and were accepted just on marks. I think that is what we are seeing today.

I agree, the return to 'wise' ways of healing and further abandonment of allopathic medicine will occur.

Sometimes the drs remind me of the time a number of years back that Vancouver's pharmacists decided to take on the grocery stores who sold drugs. I'm sure they were only looking at the potential profit they would have if grocery stores couldn't sell drugs. They fought for a while until the groceries said, okay, then you stop selling food. And, suddenly the fight was over. The drs will find they rue the day they trade HMO interference with a gov't who respected them. As if with our numbers they'll have access to more surgery time. And, as if insurance will cover those with existing conditions and continue to cover them after they come down with a chronic disease. No, the public system, which will lhave less resources put into it, will have to cope with those cases, if the public system survives at all, because of NAFTA and its redistribution of resources.

I am very serious about not using socialism to benefit the free-marketers who have destroyed Canada, while eliminating benefit for the public. My taxes are not going for it. I expect a lot of people feel that way and there would be a real tax revolt. I have already stopped spending at businesses which promote the destruction of my community. If they do win this fight in Canada they'll find many unintended consequences which they don't like. Did you know that as our taxes go to support Drs Godely and Day's private surgery, instead of opening more operating rooms at our hospitals, that our taxes are also paying for the fines for breaking the health care act? And, subsidizing their malpractice insurance? Nice little trough.

redrivergirl:

The doctor trade in this country, at least that part which advocates privatization, automatically assumes it will be billing either insurance companies or the government (or both). Few of them actually think they will be billing the patient directly and solely.

While I have no problem with insurance company involvement, I DO have a problem when our government(s) actually favour this, and go about creating a demand for insurance company involvement, and private medical treatment, through the simple means of withholding funds from, and constructing barriers against, the public system. It's become a David-and-Goliath scenario, with the government controlling the supply of stones for David's slingshot........

Good point, Rick. We really are being betrayed. aren't we?

Re insurance companies. I do have a problem with them. My sister in LA pays 1,400 a month, plus has a copay and deductable clause, for a family of four. It is these companies which are lobbying and interfering with our country and must be buying off our politicians to destroy our system the one we paid for and chose to have. I will never accept them as legitimate.

redrivergirl: Thanks. I'm glad any misunderstanding of motives is resolved.I agree written communication can be lacking, for the reasons you mention, and can perhaps be misinterpreted more easily. What I do like about it is I believe it can facilitate more in depth thinking and pondering of topics.
I'm also glad to say I agree with much of your critique of our medical system. That our focus on allopathic is wrong - it's often too little too late. If by "wise" you mean natural remedies and traditional and alternate healing methods, I'm with you on that. I use natural supplements 5HTP and SAMe which are very commonly used in Europe, instead of Prozac, Zoloft and those types of prescription drugs. They work to help balance neurotransmitters without any side effects that I know of. I no longer suffer depression or lack of mental energy, and I don't need to run to my M.D. for prescriptions.And so much illness could be avoided simply by lifestyle change: diet, physical activity, etc. Just like defensive driving,as far as health goes, a person can practise "defensive living"!This I try to do.
I want to preserve our public system. The US system scares the heck out of me, from what I know of it, with people getting kicked off insurance rosters if they're costing the ins. co. too much money, people's life savings being wiped out by unexpected by medical bills, unaffordable policies, lots of people with no coverage... It's a nightmarish system Canada should not move toward.
Long waiting lists are one of the scarier aspects of our system. I don't know how that will easily be addressed, but it sure needs to be. I didn't realize we subsidize malpractise insurance.I knew we subsidize doctors' education. I'd agree the public should not subsidize any doctors who are opted out of the public system.They should have fend for themselves!

redrivergirl:

And the sooner we (the hoi polloi) realize that government is in bed with "special" interests, and regards the voting public as "the enemy", the sooner we will actualy some justice served. But, among the general population, probably the most commonly used expression is "the government should........" We haven't had a government (likely since Tommy Douglas, and possibly Alan Blakeney) that has enacted legislation with the people in mind.

PS Which Red River..........?

Yes, Bobb, I love herbal remedies and closer to the earth remedies when possible. Balance in all things. It's great you are holistically treating your symptoms and finding relief.

Agreed, Rick. We are viewed and something to be circumvented and also with contempt. I was thinking of Manitoba, but I like New Mexico too.

Ohmigod. I haven't been to the Tyee site for months and months, but I am delighted to see that good discussion continues in spite of my (notable I'm sure) absence.

Please, stand back. I want to show you all my newly sculpted c___. [Just kidding]. In fact, the whole thing strikes me as bizarre--by which I refer to cosmetic surgery of the female genitalia.

Why, I saw China's photo spread (pun intended) in some mag a few years ago and I thought, "wow, she must be a transgendered person. Where else might she have got that rather too-perfect-Georgia-O'Keefe-like wee tiny itsy-bitsy bit down there, eh?"

Little did I know, little did I know...she was probably just an early client of the Falsie Creek Surgery Centre.

What I really want to know is, how DO they shave so errrrr close...

Maybe just maybe they have someone else do their shaving for them? As very few of us are contortionistic (now there's a word for ya) enough to ensure a smooth as a baby's bottom closeness. Then again, I am sure some in this blog would consider shaving one's yak to be a bit over the top? I just wish more men would accept this grooming tip......

effle...it's great to read you again...hope you plan to stay for awhile... :-)

Pray tell, what part of the body is a "yak"?

That would be that area of a woman's body covered by scanty bikini bottoms. As it encompasses more than just the one specific area this word tends to cover all bases.....

I would be enlightened to know how
other women refer to this body part. I am sure most have a name for it. I am not sure a man has a word that includes all of those parts together or do they?

One day at the dinner table, my gal remarked to me, "give me something to look at." So I threw out the rags I wuz wearin', got a haircut, and headed into the gym for a nine month workout. So what's the difference between my efforts and cosmetic surgury? Btw... we are both really happy with the results.

Well, speaking as a man, I've heard several, but the only one not associated with an action is the medical term, 'perineal area'.

The ones used less formally are usually phrases:

-Spanking the Monkey
-Drain the Lizard
-Airing out the Python
-Draining the Dragon
-Strangling the Chicken----etc.

None of these does anywhere near as much honor to that area as 'yak'. I'd love to hear an etymology of the term. Where'd you get it?
-Willie Wonking
-Playing hide the Salami

whoops! Sorry about the broken list. I'm aware I could benefit from the services of a good editor.

Bailey most of those mentioned by you refer to the action not the equipment. My husband said that men sometimes call that whole area "their junk" or the "package" which are much easier on the imagination than "yak" which may be short for "yakity yak dont talk back" not really but it sounds funny......I am sure there are other names out there......

Still trying to comprehend,jow does one's labia size impede their self esteem? That just begs comment. I remember once seeing a cartoon in a playboy? I think that it had a girl answering the door with labia that touched the floor with a caption that read something like, "thank goodness the dating service came through again" as the beau on the other side had a man's package that reached the floor also. I could see a stripper with a self conciousness regarding the size or look of her package but the average woman doesn't exactly go around saying to their girlfriends "do these labia make me look fat"