Carol Lloyd has a really great blog post about the well-known aversion (especially amongst women) to the word “moist”. Language Log had an interesting blog post about word aversion, too, and there are two notable things about the phenomenon: it mostly strikes women, and there’s a certain what you might call trend to the words. Here are some favorites, if you can figure out what the trend is.
moist
cornucopia
panties
luggage
tissue
creamy
fleshy
goosepimple
Boob. Panties. Swimsuit.
I’ve also known women who physically cringe at the word “cunt”. The phenomenon (except when it comes to “cunt”) is written off as a weird word issue, but Carol Lloyd suspects something else is going on. I bet you’re suspecting that, too.
Last week the moist conversation took on a new dimension when Charles Doyle at the University of Georgia posted to an academic language list-serve that his use of the word in a Shakespeare class had prompted several of his female college students to inform him (in an amused, not outraged way) that the M-word was offensive to women. According to professor Doyle, the women offered no explanation for the word’s bad juju, but one male student suggested that it might have something to do with female sexual arousal. To which I offer the following comment: No, duh.
Since then some posts have suggested that the moist embargo is yet another feminist absurdity (a theory too absurd to dignify with a response). But maybe the college students were not talking about the word per se, but about the professor’s use of it. Doyle says he used the word to describe Egypt in “Antony and Cleopatra” — and the association with women’s sexual arousal “is not at all beside the point.” So are these women squeamish about Shakespeare’s (or Doyle’s) bawdy vision, or do they actually believe the word that has sold Betty Crocker cake mixes for decades is now an obscenity? Either way, it’s weird to imagine that in this era of happy-go-lucky explicitness, we could suddenly start getting offended in a college Shakespeare seminar and turning ordinary words into taboos. Is there a growing Victorianism lurking in our verbal closet? Or is it that since an open revulsion with the female body is no longer kosher, our disgust searches out substitute targets?
Ding ding ding! There’s a lot going on, including the fact that misogyny is related to what cognitive scientists call terror management theory—which is all the various tricks the brain employs to distract people from their awareness of their own mortality. Women’s bodies are deemed more “creaturely” than men’s, more vulnerable and fragile and gonna-die-able, and therefore more disgusting. It actually goes a long way to explaining why the disgust that drives the anti-choice movement is reconditioned as being “pro-life”, even though most anti-choicers show little to no inclination to stop war, the death penalty, or even give two shits about a baby after it’s born.* Laura Kipnis has an interesting chapter on this in her book The Female Thing, where she discussed how women often have this self-loathing dread of ickiness that goes back to the cultural teachings about how gross, disgusting, and damaged the vagina is. She even (and convincingly) argues that the beauty industry really banks on this with products like those that are promised to purify absolutely every pore on your face, sending female customers into a tizzy of barely-repressed imaginings of their face covered with a million little cunts, each one oozing grease and alerting the world to how female you are, how disgusting and unclean, how vulnerable.
It’s noteworthy that men’s genitals are also moist and damp most of the time, and they too emit all sorts of goo, but for some reason there’s not nearly the same disgust there (or if it is, it’s projected onto women, literally in porn), which says to me that it’s not that women’s bodies have directly caused the disgust, but misogyny marked women as the repositories of our cultural anxieties. And many women themselves rebel through denial, flinching at the very word “moist”, or saying odd things like this:
Deborah Wheeler was even more of a portrait in cognitive dissonance as she grappled with the mismatch between her firmly held views and the Giuliani record. Deborah, who works as a receptionist in an insurance agency, insisted, “As a woman, I’m tremendously against abortion.”
One of the ways anti-choicers market their repugnant views to the people they intend to oppress is to call on that shame and denial about what your body is and what it does. You’ll see abortion described in thick, disgusting detail in order to maximize misogynist disgust and make people run away or do whatever it takes (like sign up to be anti-choice) to suppress the fear of mortality and replace it with a more comforting misogyny. Contraception is described as “demeaning to women”, with the implication being that even thinking about your reproductive system and controlling it calls forth too many unpleasant associations, so deny deny deny and god forbid touch a filthy pill or a condom. Some cultures and subcultures still have a taboo against tampons, because it requires women to touch their own vaginas. There’s a distinct thread of behavior that falls into the category of women acting as if they just pretend the hated cunt isn’t there, then maybe it will go away or they won’t be defined by it.
It’s a neurotic tendency, of course. You’re never not going to have a cunt, and if you do forget it for a minute, as Laura Kipnis pointed out, there’s cars full of men ready to drive by you as you walk along or unload groceries in your car, all eager to remind you with some well-placed vulgarities aimed in your direction. For every woman cringing in shame and denying her basic female nature, there’s a man who relishes putting that on women and feeling superior** because of it. Better to turn to saying, “So what?” I’ve found that squeamishness about the female body and about sex basically drifted away once I acknowledged that those things are based in misogyny.
*The Fox documentary Facing Reality: Choice had an interesting example of this, of a couple that is “pro-life” so decided to go forward with a pregnancy that would result in a dead baby and they knew it. There was nothing “pro-life” about a dead baby, but they basically lived in denial. I felt bad for them, actually.
**And immortal, strangely. Which is why you’ll see men defensively run to scolding women about our duty to have children to “preserve our heritage” so often. Oppression of women is directly tied to men constructing a sense of immortality for themselves—women are disgusting in this model in the same way a manure-laden ground is disgusting, which is that its redemption is to produce food and life and fertility. In women’s case, it’s doubly anxiety-producing because such men have a tendency to think of children as Xerox copies of themselves, a shot at immortality.
Moist is good…
This reminds me of a conversation with a fundie over the ‘baddness’ of the word ‘damn’. It’s profanity they whined. Uh huh… In the reality based community, words are words. It’s up to the listener’s brain to interpret their meaning.
Moist?
Wow, that’s…weird. Or maybe I’m weird. I mean, I felt embarrassment that I had periods and such, and hated my pimples, but it never seemed a particularly sexual thing. I’ve never had any feelings about “moist” one way or another, except that you should allow moist towels to dry so they don’t mildew.
Maybe it was because I had brothers. Or because I once stood behind a popular football player who was wearing a sleeveless shirt and his back was *covered* with the grossest crop of pimples ever. LIke something out of a medical textbook. And on my worst day, I never got anywhere as bad as that guy. I was often grateful not to be a guy, considering the acne, the b.o., the hairiness, the shaving…
It was really bothering me to read this post with those effing John Q ads right next to the text when I remembered Firefox’s image blocking option. I blocked all images from http://b1.adbrite.com, and HOORAY!!!
OK, back to your regularly scheduled thread.
What’s funny to me is that the only word of those that I really hate is “pimples,” which has nothing to do with sex or vulvas. I much, much prefer the British term for them, “spots.” It seems far less nauseating to me, for some reason. But I have no problem with moist - I like to bake, and how else do you describe a well-made chocolate cake than “moist?” If it’s not moist, it’s not worth eating.
Moist and gooey? Yum, brownies! I never realized how erotic chocolate brownies were.
Who am I kidding? Eating and inhaling the aroma of a hot, moist brownie is a sensuous experience. The only reason “brownie” isn’t a euphemism for the vagina/vulva is because the fudginess is a little off-putting in that context.
Any word can be gross in the right context - but, in general, I’ve never known anyone offended by any of the words on that list …. what am I missing?
(On the other hand - cunt is the one word that I once had a lot of trouble with, as do/did a lot of women at least in the long threads I’ve read on it - smutty fanfic solved that problem, eventually!).
Gah, yes. If I never have to read another bit of Eng Lit stuff again where they compare anything to arousal*, I’ll die a happy person. Sometimes a “tall tree in the middle of a forest” is just literally a tall tree in the middle of the forest. Softly undulating hills may just be softly undulating hills. (Except, of course, if you’re a horny Eng Lit prof at the age where it’s difficult to get laid.) This female aversion to “moist” may just be a polite way of screaming “go take that cold shower already!”
*…like this: Jane Eyre penetrates Rochester’s secrets, he reveals himself to her, thus taking on the female role, which of course drives her away, she then enters the moors and ends up lying down on the heather, celebrating a mystical union to wildness and nature…
“If it’s not moist, it’s not worth eating.”
Well said. :p
Honestly — um … would women prefer to be dry? ouchie!
Rumblelizard, try instead blocking http*://*adbrite*/*; you’ll get rid of a *lot* more ads that way.
I knew an overdramatic girl in jr. high school who got worked up over the use of the word moist. I never knew this was more frequent than one 13 year-old girl freaking out.
I knew what the allusion was to because I had found the family Penthouse stash, but I had severe doubts as to whether or not she did. She was a bloody prude.
I remember going to a lecture by the subliminal advertising guy; one of his slides showed the ususal Betty Crocker cake box. “Looks harmless, doesn’t it?” he shouted at us. “But look up close!”
He zoomed in on the chocolate frosting. Sure enough, in those lucious swirls, (and used your imagination a lot) one could just make out a vagina like curl, sort of like the pictures one sees in clouds. He used his pointer to trace out the “vagina”, just in case anyone missed it.
I thought of shouting back “So that’s why guys love cake!” but I knew he’d take it as a compliment.
I rate ‘cunt’ up with the ‘n’ word. There just isn’t a way to make it good…
But you can’t escape the idea that words have power. They carry weight.
Still, getting all weird over the word moist?
Oh, my genitals aren’t ‘moist and damp most of the time’, at least I don’t think so.
Gah, yes. If I never have to read another bit of Eng Lit stuff again where they compare anything to arousal*, I’ll die a happy person.
As I saw pointed out online once, if you go into an English lit or similar course assuming Freud Was Right (that absolutely everything is about sex) you’re on pretty safe ground with the professor and will get a passing grade.
I love the word “cunt”. I love the way it sounds: powerful, the sound of the “c” with the “u”. Perhaps I’m getting all Vagina Monologues on it, but I use the word with the upmost respect for my genitals. It’s when a man throws it at me that it becomes something disgusting.
It’s like when I try to describe to my male friends why my girlfriends can call me “bitch” but they can’t.
Mmm, moist.
Yeah, that’s cause you weren’t using steroids. It actually is in medical textbooks.
I actually had a doctor friend tell me once that if I ever had a boyfriend with bad body acne to break up with him, b/c the bad attitude steroids cause could turn violent in a moment.
Of course, when men get “moody”, it’s not considered the same sort of weakness that it is when women are “moody”. They just have ‘Roid Rage!!! It’s a very macho, virile thing!! And women should just be the receptacles for that, too.
My husband hates the word goiter. My mom has one and we call it the pterodactyl, because that’s a word we can get behind.
Regarding subliminal advertising. Far from me the idea that advertisers wouldn’t stoop so low as using this sort of techniques (even though subliminal messages don’t work according to any modern understanding of how the brain and mind functions), but I wonder how much of it is actually of the “there’s a Virgin Mary in my grilled cheese, there’s the Devil in the WTC smoke” variety of people seeing something significant in complete randomness. I mean, it’s not like there isn’t a couple million horny guys who’d find naked ladies in the form of puddles on the sidewalk, and as soon as somebody saw a particularly significant image and communicates that to others, they will tend to see it too even though they didn’t before.
Cunt is indeed a loaded word, like the n-word. In England, however, it is much more benign (cunt, that is, not the n-word) and it comes off that way when you hear them say it, too.
What about “snatch”? Kind of ugly sounding, I think — coarse, staccato and very German. Not that German’s ugly. Oh, yes it is.
I mean, it’s not like there isn’t a couple million horny guys who’d find naked ladies in the form of puddles on the sidewalk, and as soon as somebody saw a particularly significant image and communicates that to others, they will tend to see it too even though they didn’t before.
For a while subliminal messages were all the rage in advertising, and there might actually still be some holdover from that era. And there’s no way to know how common it is for illustrators and such to slide shit into the copy as a joke. So I’d say between that and the idea that it’s basically a Rosarch test anyway, you could find a lot of vaginas in your frosting.
I rate ‘cunt’ up with the ‘n’ word. There just isn’t a way to make it good…
Um, Blazing Saddles?
Bad words should be rendered inane not taboo.
men’s genitals are also moist and damp most of the time, and they too emit all sorts of goo
Emitting goo, yes. Moist and damp most of the time … not so much (unless you’re sweating, in which case all of you is moist and damp).
I had a friend in college who was really bothered by both moist and panties. It was lots of fun to see her physically blanch and shudder when you put the two words together.
I’m reminded now of a Monty Python sketch “Are you embarrased easily?”. One of the lessons was naughty words. The words are shoe, megaphone, grunties, and wanklerotaryengine.
Caren, it’s simply not true that any guy with bad acne is using steroids. Three men in my family went through lamentable phases of really bad, and I mean bad, acne—and it was all genetic.
Thanks for the tip, Aaron!
I will admit to a dislike of the word “moist,” and it may be because of some subconscious hatred of my own ladyparts, I don’t know. I know I don’t find it personally offensive as a woman; I just don’t like the sound of it. A friend of mine gets absolutely skin-crawly at “moist,” as well as “penetrate” and, for some reason, “pony.” What gets to me is the word “greasy,” not in its normal pronunciation, but the way they pronounce it here in the south — “greeeeazy.” It just sounds so icky and greazy when they say it.
Not that it’s much of a shock, but to a one, the most feminist guys I know are the ones willing to spend the most time in close contact with female genitalia. I know some rather misogynistic horndogs who, despite their constant, relentless pursuit of the vagina, are strangely reluctant to touch it, much less put their mouths down there; most of the good guys I know are content to head south, build a charming little cabin, and make themselves at home. It almost makes me wish I could start out the date with oral sex just to know what kind of guy I’m dealing with.
Not a bad idea, come to think.
Can’t stand the word ‘dink.’ So childish in sound, and… gah. The sound of it just annoys the hell out of me. Any other word for penis is fine, don’t care. Just not that one.
Moist is a bizarre one to get upset about.
Thinking of euphemisms for genitals. I like ‘naughty bits’ but I like Monty Python…
I’ve heard ‘box’ which is peculiar…
But anyway, ‘moist’ is offensive? These people need some ‘good dirty sex’… They have too much time on their hands, or exquisitely filthy minds…
I wonder what pops into people’s minds when they react like this to certain innocent words.
I did know someone who thought the word ‘cleaved’ was dirty…
Sillyest thing I’ve ever heard…
So, women are supposed to be as clean as possible b/c they will never really be clean, so they shouldn’t compound the problem. But men go play and get dirty, b/c at the end of the day, they can get clean again.
I see.
This was in Shakesville’s QOTD, yesterday, FYI.
We might have known the same woman, ohsohappy. She would absolutely cringe if someone said “moist panties.” I suspected that part of it was theatrics (we were all theater people) but she definitely also had a visceral reaction to the words.
“So I’d say between that and the idea that it’s basically a Rosarch test anyway, you could find a lot of vaginas in your frosting.”
There’s a fair amount of suggestiveness in advertising. It makes people more interested in and receptive to the product. It generally doesn’t get either that blatant or that extremely hidden, though. If you’re finding vaginas in the swirls of icing on Betty Crocker boxes, you’ve gone too far.
I don’t hate the word “moist” in and of itself, but I have used it as an insult. As in, watching Tobey Maguire act makes me cringe because he’s so moist.
I think that what I mean by that it that he seems squishy and over-emotional, like he’s going to burst into tears at the first excuse. But I’m not sure. All I know is, I associate Tobey Maguire’s emo-ness with “moist.”
I gotta argue with that one. I used to say that myself until a high school classmate took my hands, gazed into my eyes and told me, in German, that my eyes were as lovely as the heavens. I’ve actually been kind of turned on by German ever since, but I know it can’t be entirely attributed to him. Russian does it for me, too.
“Booty” bothers me more than anything. I think it’s just because it’s so infantile; “booty” is what you say in front of your toddler to forestall “ass,” and there’s no reason that adults can’t, in adult company, make it up to at least “bottom” or “behind.” I remember seeing an infomercial for (IIRC) Yoga Booty Ballet, and the entire thing was about sculpting your booty and lifting your booty and creating a firm and shapely booty, and I just kept thinking, These are all adults! This is a woman in her thirties who can’t refer to the human ass in anatomical terms!
It almost makes me wish I could start out the date with oral sex just to know what kind of guy I’m dealing with.
Me too; it remains my only non-negotiable dealbreaker. Ever since I gave a pass to a guy who said it was “icky,” and that ended so terribly, no more passes.
I’ve got an aversion to the word ‘rally’. Every time I hear the expression ‘rally round the flag’ or ‘rally round the president’ I get pissed off. And this was even before the overuse of those expressions right after 9/11.
Yeah, really. Everyone should get a German romantic interest before they call the German language ugly.
It actually goes a long way to explaining why the disgust that drives the anti-choice movement is reconditioned as being “pro-life,” even though most anti-choicers show little to no inclination to stop war, the death penalty, or even give two shits about a baby after it’s born.
I can’t let this one slide.
You may have a point if you’re speaking of right-wing Republicans in office, but if you’re talking about rank-and-file pro-lifers, you are way off-base. Have you even bothered to talk to actual pro-lifers? There are many, many pro-lifers, especially Catholics, who are against the death penalty, who are against the war in Iraq, who are disgusted with Bush’s handling of the war and his horrific policies on torture, and who would vote Democrat in a heartbeat if it wasn’t for the party’s rabid support of the right to stick scissors in a partially-born baby’s skull. It’s not at all uncommon for someone who attends the March for Life to also attend an Iraq war protest or a vigil to end the death penalty. Such people tend not to run for office, and would never get elected if they did. They are largely ignored by the media. But they exist, in droves.
Contraception is described as “demeaning to women,” with the implication being that even thinking about your reproductive system and controlling it calls forth too many unpleasant associations, so deny deny deny and god forbid touch a filthy pill or a condom. Some cultures and subcultures still have a taboo against tampons, because it requires women to touch their own vaginas. There’s a distinct thread of behavior that falls into the category of women acting as if they just pretend the hated cunt isn’t there, then maybe it will go away or they won’t be defined by it.
I actually agree with you about the widespread disgust about the female body. It’s evident with people who have no problem with Playboy but suddenly turn prudish when they see a woman breastfeeding. (In other words, it’s ok if women’s bodies are used for the pleasure of men, but heaven forbid a woman uses her body in the manner that it’s intended to be used.)
But I think your anger is misplaced. Have you ever looked into the philosophy behind natural family planning, which is endorsed by the Catholic Church? (For a completely secular take on the same thing, see Toni Weschler’s “Taking Charge of Your Fertility.”) The whole idea is that a woman’s body and natural fertility cycle is a good thing. Natural family planning involves monitoring your fertility signs, including cervical mucus. If you’re going to use natural birth control, you can’t be squeamish about your vagina. Women who use it actually “think about their reproductive systems” and understand their cycles far better than women who use hormonal birth control. Hormonal birth control can actually cover up some fertility issues, plus it can have a lot of bad side effects. Hence the “demeaning to women.”
Sorry for the novel…
I have to admit, I don’t like infantile words for things either. It’s surprising that “moist” would bother anyone.
I once had an English prof who described a woman in class as “lubricious”. She actually knew what it meant and left in tears and the prof actually apologized hugely to the whole class the next day.
As far as words I don’t like, I don’t care for butt. And everyone, including little kids, use it. So I do, too.
The word “moist” inevitably brings to mind a sweaty man with a pencil-thin mustache nervously panting and licking his lips. Others, I suppose, have more positive associations, like cookies that aren’t crunchy, but I think of those as “chewy” rather than “moist”–which, come to think of it, is how they’re marketed.
If men go through these astonishing hoops to manage their terror at the blank existential horror that awaits us all, how do women generally deal with it? I’ve been told (it was in a thread here, but I’d have to go looking for it) that women have existential horror, being human beings and all, but is there something weird that women do with surprising frequency to deal with it?
I’d rather be complimented in German than insulted in English. But let’s face it, people, I’d rather be insulted in Portugese than complimented in German.
Russian’s sexy, though.
Or, as an old roommate of mine used to say of moist: “Awful word. Fantastic state of affairs.”
“The word “moist” inevitably brings to mind a sweaty man with a pencil-thin mustache nervously panting and licking his lips.”
No mustache, but is this what you mean?:
That was the first image I thought of when you said that…
Jodie, you had a professor call a student lubricious to her face???? OMFG. That is grounds for a harassment complaint.
Ohsohappy,
Reading this, I was actually thinking of this Python skit.
“Oh, dear, don’t say ‘tin’ to Rebecca, you know how it upsets her.”
If you want to read a fabulous book about body disgust and its relationship with mortality (and misogyny and other forms of discrimination), I urge you to read “The Anatomy of Disgust” by William Ian Miller. It’s fascinating stuff and is wonderful to read through a feminist lens.
Maybe it’s because moist has been used to market cakes and other baked goods that I’m not fond of it as a word not pertaining to food. I’m cool with damp, juicy, slick, and wet as words though. I associate moist with a sponge-like containment of juices, whereas dampness sort of suggests liquid is seeping out from within and running down surfaces. From a purely comfort related standpoint you really want your vagina to be more than moist to reduce friction.
Responding to Godmonkey, I don’t know, German seems kind of sexy to me. All those guttural sounds kind of suggest quick and dirty deeds done in semi-public places with no obligation to call one another afterwards. Romance languages are for people who want to be romanced I suppose.
My husband once had a housemate who told some interesting tales out of Smith College. Seems she had a fellow dorm-dweller who was wincingly averse to the word “lesbian”.
So they rubbed her nose in it - used “lesbian” in as many non-sequitur and sequitur sentences as they could manage in casual conversation. Such as “mmmm! This cake is soooo moist and lesbian”, or “My car won’t start in the cold - the lesbian starter doesn’t work”.
If you want to read a fabulous book about body disgust and its relationship with mortality (and misogyny and other forms of discrimination), I urge you to read “The Anatomy of Disgust” by William Ian Miller. It’s fascinating stuff and is wonderful to read through a feminist lens.
If you want to read a fabulous book about body disgust and its relationship with mortality (and misogyny and other forms of discrimination), I urge you to read “The Anatomy of Disgust” by William Ian Miller. It’s fascinating stuff and is wonderful to read through a feminist lens.
If this posts more than once, I apologize in advance. I had an html tag in there and the post didn’t show up at all, so I tried again.
I’m with you. I’ve always liked the sound of German, which is why I took German classes in high school and in college.
Well, okay, really now, any foreign accent is sexy to us Americans.
Romance languages are moist and lubricious, is all.
Boob is bad? All the women I’ve known have used the word boobs informally. “My boobs hurt,” etc.
I’d never heard of “moist” being offensive until the TV show Dead Like Me. The mother thought it was pornographic.
Cunt was the last word that I had problems with, but I got over it and have learned to embrace it and appreciate all its cuntie goodness. Hard ‘c’s are always powerful. And ‘u’s are almost always fun. Fuck, fudge, cum, lust, cute butts and milk duds. All sensUal delights.
Words to me are like puppies. Even when they’re ugly or annoying, you pretty much have to love them.
Greasy as ‘greazy’ - rhymes with sleazy, and connotes someone with too much grease in their hair or who hasn’t bathed.
Most of the words have something to do with dirt, sex, or both - I’d guess it reflects standard American puritanism and neat-freakism, coupled with sexually repressed, OCD personalities and a bit of self-loathing. Women are socialized to be more sensitive to these things, so women are affected more.
Most of the words in Amanda’s lists reflect one individual’s idiosyncratic statement - they show up once in the comments. Moist and panties are the big ‘winners’, creamy gets a few mentions, beyond that, they seem idiosyncratic, though they ‘theme’ dirty, hot, and sweaty. ‘Panties’ is obviously entirely ‘female’, but moist? Creamy? Those are recipe words, not person words. On ‘person’ connotations, moist runs more female, but my associations on “creamy”, to the extent that they are ‘dirty/bad’ at all, go to the verb “to cream” which can apply to either sex’s secretions. Anyone have issues with the much more commonly used (for women) ‘wet’, or ‘juicy’, which (to me) are neutral and positive in connotation, respectively?
I’d hazard the issue on panties arises from the fact that most women have it drummed into their head from an early age that they have to be careful when wearing a skirt or dress, lest they expose their ‘panties’ to the whole world, creating a subconscious panties=bad association (which men wouldn’t have).
How about some ‘male’ oriented words. Anyone out there have issues with ‘turgid’? ‘engorged’? ’skivvies’? The more general purpose ‘crotch’?
I like moist; in health, a necessary function of self-cleansing and bodily maintenance plus a good way to tell if things aren’t going well. It’s too bad women bearing the brunt of misogynistic distortions about women’s health have to carry the burden of fastidiousness based on ignorance.
I like it in cooking, gardening, at the spa or in a sauna, inhaling tub vapors off a hot bath &c &c
BTW, it’s unfortunate how few health professionals recommend good old honest wanking as a way to offset the discomfort of dryness and to stimulate and maintain reproductive and sex related balance, ntm overall health.
I was experiencing dry contacts and sinuses, and a dry cough (though I don’t smoke) due to changes in my work space’s air conditioning. (A new heater was drying out the air more than usual.) I got some eye drops, which helped, but what helped more was the advice to shut my eyes and enjoy some, er, quality alone time. It actually worked!
Stimulate one of the body’s mucus producing areas, which include the eyes, sinuses, stomach, colon and that controversial C-word, and the others join in solidarity — make that moisturedarity.
I’ve never even heard of anyone being averse to the word “moist” before. And the idea of anyone not liking “creamy” (mmmmmmmmm) is bizarre, because — *cream*.
I’m with Godless Heathen. Duncan Hines ruined me, I suppose, because I see the word “moist” and I think “Mmmm, cake”. ‘Cause I love me some cake.
Come to think of it, I have described specific vaginas as “moist” during sex talk. No one ever said anything, though one girl didn’t really appreciate her vagina being refered to as “tasty”.
Terry Pratchett once said something along the lines of, because of the Victorian attitudes towards sex, it’s impossible to speak a complete sentence in English without stumbling across at least three euphamisms for the vagina. I’ve found rural Southerners do much the same thing, which isn’t so surprising given the rather Victorian attitudes towards nookie most the folks I knew growing up had. Boys had “goobers” and “peters”. Girls had “cooters” and “critters”, though the only one that sounded much fun to me was “puddin’.”
Hmmm. Maybe I’ve got a previously unconsidered food fetish. However, I must say I don’t quite get being squicked out by words. Concepts, sure, and context, of course, but words? Use and function, I suppose it’s just a case of seeing words as tools, I dunno.
“In England, however, it is much more benign (cunt, that is, not the n-word) and it comes off that way when you hear them say it, too.”
I live in England, and I have heard this said before, but in my experience cunt is not an benign word at all.
And I was glad someone mentioned the Dead Like Me reference.
“Jodie, you had a professor call a student lubricious to her face???? OMFG. That is grounds for a harassment complaint.”
Betsy, this was in the late 70s. No harassment complaints, then, unfortunately.
Thank you, PhobeFay! I was beginning to think I was the only one who watched DLM. I have to say, though, I don’t mind the word moist at all. Some of my favorite situations involve moisture: rain, cake, my vainga, sex. Good sort of woody word to me.
Then again, I can’t think of any words of the top of my head I dislike (well, except for misadry, because my boyfriend calls me that to annoy me when I say or act particularly feminist). I love words and languages. I find communication facinating and therefore love to find as many ways of expressing myself as possible. I’m an Lit major, though, so what do you expect?
My husband still has bad body acne in his mid-30s, especially on his upper back and upper arms, despite various solutions suggested by various dermatologists. And he’s never used steroids–it’s just genetic. His mother and sister suffer from it too.
Is this an American thing, anyone? I’ve never heard of moist-aversion. I do hate “panties” though, but we never use that word this side of the Atlantic, and I hate it because it sounds childish to my ears. It gives me horrific images of little-kid underwear. Ack. “Knickers” I like, even though it somehow sounds much much “dirtier” and more physical to me than “panties.”
I’ll go on record and admit to being one of those women that cringe when “cunt” is uttered. That is, except when Aidan Moffat said so eloquently in “Phone Me Tonight” by Arab Strap (you know it’s a song about a drunk dial from an on-again/off-again partner/ex). I find that song strangely sweet. It’s a sweet turn of this particular word.
“Tell me you want me in your cunt. tell me youre not sure what you want.”
Oh, and I loathe the word “moist”- but if Aidan M. were to be addressing me…
Oppression of women is directly tied to men constructing a sense of immortality for themselves—women are disgusting in this model in the same way a manure-laden ground is disgusting, which is that its redemption is to produce food and life and fertility.
Oh, please. The construction of the “good Christian mother” image may be oppression, but it isn’t painting them as disgusting or in need of redemption - just the opposite. It’s straightjacketing them into a particular role based on their assumed righteousness.
Jesus H Christ, I feel old and out of touch. I never heard of any widespread aversion to the word “moist” until this post. And I find it totally weird. Is this a generational thing? I’m 55 and I’ve never encountered any such aversion anywhere until now. Moist? Really?
MKK8
“If it’s not moist, it’s not worth eating.”
That’s what she said.
Sorry, couldn’t help myself with that one. Excellent, moist post, Amanda. I’ll def be sending this to my Shakespeare prof.
I would like to say that the term “cooter” creeps me the fuck out, basically. Eek.
I’m sure it can affect men too, but with a different choice of words.
“Teenie-weenie” for example.
Ooh, lubricious is a great word. Much sexier than moist. Goes great with those strictly educational tools y’all can buy down in Texas.
I’m just boggling at “cornucopia” and “luggage.” Huh?
And I’d take German over French any day. To me, French just sounds…squishy.
As for the “Natural Birth Control” acceptable to the Catholic Church — it may well mean that the woman becomes more conversant with her bodily cycles, but it does not necessarily mean it effectively controls birth.
My mother was Catholic, my father Protestant, and he had this to say to me about the forerunner of Natural Birth Control, the then Church approved plan,”You were planned for — your brother and sister were the Rhythm Method.”
Typical use of the rhythm method, or “Natural Birth Control,” results in a 25% failure rate.
I also have an extremely hard time believing that droves and droves of anti-choicers would vote D if the Democrats threw women’s right to bodily autonomy under the bus.
Jesus H Christ, I feel old and out of touch. I never heard of any widespread aversion to the word “moist” until this post. And I find it totally weird. Is this a generational thing? I’m 55 and I’ve never encountered any such aversion anywhere until now. Moist? Really?
Me neither, Mary Kay. I never heard of this “moist” aversion until I read the Broadsheet article.
Maybe I live in a non-prudish and/or foodie bubble but I’m fine with moist and so is everyone I know. It makes me think of cake, cupcake, brownies…mmmmmmm yummy! Also soil.
I don’t really like the word “panties,” because it sounds kind of juvenile to me. Pants, fine. Underwear, underthings, underpants, knickers, all are fine. Panties, however, just sounds coy and childish.
Like a poster above, I can’t stand the word “acne.” Ew. I also hate “glut” and “squander.” Both sound so unpleasant and icky to me.
Also, you make it seem like it’s only late-term abortion that’s keeping these droves of non-existent anti-choice-who-would-vote-Dems-if-they-would-just hate women like we do from voting D? Because only 1.4 percent of all abortions are late-term, and the majority are due to non-viability of the fetus or dire threat to the pregnant woman’s health.
Oh, wait. Anti-choicers don’t care about women’s health.
You may have a point if you’re speaking of right-wing Republicans in office, but if you’re talking about rank-and-file pro-lifers, you are way off-base. Have you even bothered to talk to actual pro-lifers? There are many, many pro-lifers, especially Catholics, who are against the death penalty, who are against the war in Iraq, who are disgusted with Bush’s handling of the war and his horrific policies on torture, and who would vote Democrat in a heartbeat if it wasn’t for the party’s rabid support of the right to stick scissors in a partially-born baby’s skull.
I’ve talked to plenty, and the ones you claim are the majority are only so if you consider 1% a majority. And no one sticks scissors in babies’ heads. But nice attempt to replace arguments with disgust.
You’ve never heard of the sin of Eve? The idea that women need to redeem themselves for their inherent sinfulness by submitting to their husbands and by bearing children is an old one, and unfortunately one that has grounding in the Bible:
And when I say “unfortunately one that has grounding in the Bible” I don’t mean “unfortunately, we should obey it becuase it’s in the Bible” I mean it’s unfortunate that the Bible openly teaches sexism, seeing as millions of people follow it and believe it’s the word of God.
@ holly r.
Aidan Moffat actually wrote a wee poem about how the word cunt is used in Glasgow; a recording of it got put out on a label compilation a few years back.
Now that I think about it, I did know someone who was grossed out specifically by the word “moist.” The word “uterus” was icky, too.
Did I mention that this was a woman in her 30s who’d actually had a child? How the F did she have any meaningful conversations with her OB/GYN if she couldn’t say the word “uterus”?
Oh, and let’s not get into the fact that she was one of those women who get grossed out by touching their own vaginas — apparently it was reserved for her doctor and her husband, not something that she was allowed to touch.
Notice I don’t refer to this woman as a “friend” in any way, shape or form. She was just too fucking weird.
EM- thanks! Yeah, I have a couple friends that live in Glasgow and Edinburgh. I’ve noticed (on Arab Strap’s old website) that Aidan is the man, when it comes to poetry.
Then there’s that knicker/drawer dropping voice of his…
;)
Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildegard_of_Bingen
“Hildegard’s visionary writings maintain that virginity is the highest level of the spiritual life, however, she also wrote about the secular life, including motherhood. She is the first woman to record a treatise of feminine sexuality, providing scientific accounts of the female orgasm.”
Hildegard von Bingen’s Visions of the Divine Feminine
By Dianna Elizabeth Conner
http://www.empowerment-for-the-soul.com/article_visionsdivine.pdf
Hildegard the theologian compared God to a Cosmic Egg that surges flames into the universe, emptying and filling itself like a womb – creative, beneficial, and nurturing to all life within. She spoke of this sacred feminine as Divine Love, the essence of the universe – the highest fiery power that shines in water, burns in the sun, moon and stars, stirring everything into existence, and causing all life to glisten with this light. This feminine Cosmos “flushed with rapture at the sight of God and her soul was kissed in its innermost regions at the sight of God.” Feminist theologian Nancy Fiero calls it a “regenerative and cooperative universe orchestrated for life, growth, pleasure and fulfillment of needs – warm, moist, bright, precious and purposeful with each person contributing his or her part of the universal melody.”
…
I can’t say I understand or agree with everything attributed to Hildegard of Bingen, but I don’t understand or agree with everything attributed to Nobel prize winners either. It’s interesting how many “firsts” are attributed to her, though, and her “time”, the eleventh century. If nothing else, I’ve found her life and those she’s influenced to be at least as interesting as “Lord of the Rings”, and more politically relavent.
holly. r., I assure you that Scottish accents are the most knicker-dropping of them all.
Suggestion for why such distaste:
Over-exposure to Harlequin Romances and similar. Euphemisms–coy, simpering little devices to convince women that no-we’re-not-really-reading-pornography-but-only-about Twue Wove….
As an Englishman I keep the word ‘cunt’ in the weapons locker for those evil souls who deserve it.
If men go through these astonishing hoops to manage their terror at the blank existential horror that awaits us all, how do women generally deal with it? I’ve been told (it was in a thread here, but I’d have to go looking for it) that women have existential horror, being human beings and all, but is there something weird that women do with surprising frequency to deal with it?
They turn that misogyny inward. They scrub their pores and douche their pussies and give themselves infections. They flinch at the word “moist” and refuse to talk about the realities of childbirth. They join anti-choice organizations and swear that their abortions have traumatized them. They, like Leslee Unruh, preach about the horrors of kissing and masturbation and other sex-related things and get face lifts to conceal the fact that all their paranoid fear of sex hasn’t done a thing to slow down the long walk to the grave.
Obviously, not all women. And there’s varying levels. But that’s true of men, too. Only some treat women’s bodies with this existential horror.
In my personal experience, coming as I do from a Catholic family, the so-called “pro-life” people are overwhelmingly in favor of the whole reactionary package–military arrogance overseas, cutting taxes on the rich, raising them on thne poor while slashing services, “tough” law enforcement and sentencing, no national health care and they frown on public health of any kind, against public schools and for vouchers, and of course, should they veer left on any of these, against civil rights for queer folk and all “artificial” BC.
Sure, hard-core lifelong Republican Catholics like my parents might say they are against the death penalty, but they only say that to try to confound their critics–no matter how much power and influence they have within their party and no matter how thorough that party’s control of a state or locality’s politics is, do they ever go against the standard R package to say, ban the death penalty in their state? Support rather than oppose judges or DAs who propose to avoid death sentences? Support expanding public health? Try to make their local public schools work for everyone instead of sabotaging them?
Absolutely never in my experience.
To the contrary, they are entirely capable of flatly ignoring, even contradicting, particular Papal pronouncements that happen not to jibe with the Republican agenda. Pope John Paul II, for instance, very clearly ruled that our invasion of Iraq in 2003 met none of the criteria of a “just war” yet my parents (my father btw was trained as a seminarian and fancies himself quite qualified to gainsay bishops for being “too liberal”) claim it’s a just war anyway.
There are lots of Catholics who support progressive causes–but I think you will find that these are overwhelmingly the ones who stay silent on the sexual culture war issues, or even speak out against the Church’s positions on particular points. I suppose the class of Catholics who are serious progressives on most issues but “stand fast” against abortion is not empty, but filled largely with clergy, and with waverers who will wind up on one side or the other.
Okay, what’s with cornucopia?
I realize there’s a lot of deserved animosity towards traditional views of Christianity, and the Catholic church in particular, but I wish there would also be mention of progressive, even feminist traditions in the church, especially ones that go back as far or further than the more regressive, misogynist traditions.
And in the spirit of this moist line of reasoning, I’d like to present a couple quotes regarding Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179).
First:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildegard_of_Bingen
“Hildegard’s visionary writings maintain that virginity is the highest level of the spiritual life, however, she also wrote about the secular life, including motherhood. She is the first woman to record a treatise of feminine sexuality, providing scientific accounts of the female orgasm.”
And second:
Hildegard von Bingen’s Visions of the Divine Feminine
By Dianna Elizabeth Conner
http://www.empowerment-for-the-soul.com/article_visionsdivine.pdf
Hildegard the theologian compared God to a Cosmic Egg that surges flames into the universe, emptying and filling itself like a womb – creative, beneficial, and nurturing to all life within. She spoke of this sacred feminine as Divine Love, the essence of the universe – the highest fiery power that shines in water, burns in the sun, moon and stars, stirring everything into existence, and causing all life to glisten with this light. This feminine Cosmos “flushed with rapture at the sight of God and her soul was kissed in its innermost regions at the sight of God.” Feminist theologian Nancy Fiero calls it a “regenerative and cooperative universe orchestrated for life, growth, pleasure and fulfillment of needs – warm, moist, bright, precious and purposeful with each person contributing his or her part of the universal melody.”
…
I can’t say I understand or agree with everything attributed to Hildegard of Bingen, but I don’t understand or agree with everything attributed to Nobel prize winners either. It’s interesting how many “firsts” are attributed to her, though, and her “time”, the eleventh century. If nothing else, I’ve found her life and those she’s influenced to be at least as interesting as “Lord of the Rings”, and more politically relavent.
Whenever I hear the term Cooter, I think of the grease-monkey hillbilly cousin guy from the Dukes of Hazzard. Accuse me of pedantic intellectual posturing, but there you have it.
For awhile it was hard to get away from the phrase “Britney/Lindsey are out there flashing their cooters…” All I could envision was that guy’s semi-retarded gap-toothed grinning face, flashing disembodied from inside Britney’s mini-skirt. And I cried.
Not a big fan of “cunt” because it just sounds harsh and mean. I just don’t like the word. Sounds vicious.
“Moist” reminds me of this movie I saw.. where this person with a really gross mouth said the word and they did a slow motion close-up of the mouth as they said it. Grossed out forever.
And I hate pimples. They … blech… so naturally the word disgusts me. One of my old friends used to tell me about how she used to pop her boyfriend’s back pimples all the time. *shudder*
But, yeah, I noticed a long time ago that all those words that people think are so “eeewwww” are linked to lady-parts in some fashion.
-Stentor
Perhaps Amanda was talking about uncircumcised men? I’m circumcised, myself, but I believe that if you’re uncircumcised, your glans stays more moist most of the time.
Re: male-aversive words
I don’t know about turgid, but many, many men have an aversion to flaccid as a word.
Phlem. Just an icky word.
“…women are supposed to be as clean as possible b/c they will never really be clean”
My dad said essentially this to me when I was 14, bleeding heavily, and had accidentally left 2 drops of blood on the toilet. Nice, huh?
From one of his favorite nephews:
C- Can’t
U- Understand
N- Normal
T- Thinking
Charming family of hicks, huh? And they wonder why I distance myself.
That’s the way this passage seems to be taught by ultra-conservative Christians. An alternative reading is this.
Apparently in the early church the women really latched on to the idea that we’re all one in Christ, whether rich or poor, man or woman, master or slave. Some thought that women had greater spiritual authority than men, because it was a man who brought the original sin over mankind, not a woman. They threw off all the shackles of their own (sexist, patriarchal) culture. People around were scandalized: “…don’t let your daughters go to these Christians, they’ll become shameless and rebellious!”
So Paul said that a woman should “learn in quietness and full submission” as was usual in that time and place, so as not to antagonize everyone against Christianity. He “did not permit a woman to teach [literally: ‘to teach in public’]” in THAT particular church - there’s plenty of evidence that other churches had female prophets and apostles, and indeed Paul himself was probably taught by a woman (Priscilla). Paul being Paul, we’d have certainly heard of it if he’d disapproved. But he usually adapted his methods to the culture he was communicating to.
The accurate wording of this passage is: he forbids women to “teach in public” and “rule (with words) over a man”. This doesn’t mean that “…and therefore men should rule (with words) over women”. Neither does it mean that women aren’t allowed to teach, period.
The next bits are about how women are neither more nor less spiritual than men. “And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner” — so the original sin wasn’t a male sin, but a human sin. Women aren’t less sinful than men.
Neither are women more sinful than men. Women aren’t made “unholy” or profane by sex and motherhood. A painful childbirth was the punishment for Eve’s part in original sin, true. But enduring this pain does not taint a woman in any kind of way. So, literally, “through the pain of childbirth” she’ll be saved (i.e., a Christian) if she just goes on doing what Christians are supposed to do, faith, love, all that. “Through” is not synonymous with “by means of”.
Done. Sorry for being so wordy.
schrödinger, that’s an interesting interpretation. I’ve also heard that some Biblical scholars don’t believe that particular letter was actually written by Paul. But regardless, my point was that the “good Christian mother” and “submissive Christian wife” phenomena in ultra-Conservative Christian circles are absolutely related to the idea that women are particularly sinful and in need of redemption.
Thank you; that’s quite enlightening. Having just been through some illness myself, I’m wondering how the way I dealt with realizing that I live in a fragile sack of frequently-rotting meat compares with the way other people do it.Funny, the only words for lady-parts I hate to hear are “vagina” and “vulva”. There’s something about the cold hard Latin of them that brings to mind a really creepy medical experiment. Well, and then there’s “twat” which is totally demeaning, but does anybody even say that anymore?
I never even knew I was supposed to be disturbed by the word “moist”. A friend and I have a whole routine about how cake is supposed to be MOIST–she went on and on about her standards of cake sponginess one time and eventually it got to be a joke. I don’t think either of us realized it could be a sexual thing.
About contraception, I always thought it was supposed to be demeaning to women not because it requires thinking about the Moistness Down There but because it’s unnatural. I.e. if nature took its course, conception would occur, so we’re denying our essential womanliness if we try to prevent it. But then, we do lots of unnatural things, like shaving, riding in cars, and using artificial light, that we seem to be OK with.
You’ve never heard of the sin of Eve? The idea that women need to redeem themselves for their inherent sinfulness by submitting to their husbands and by bearing children is an old one, and unfortunately one that has grounding in the Bible:
My thinking was more of the Donna Reed image conservatives seem to have as the ideal female figure. Naturally enough, I only remembered that name which would have clarified my comment *after* I posted.
And, as it turns out - Donna Reed posed topless, was against the Vietnam War, and was an early feminist. The culture, she has gone “sproing”.
About the Catholic church and Natural Family Planning: it’s true that the rhythm method didn’t work (or wouldn’t have worked) for your mother. But there have been some advances in fertility monitoring that make it really effective, provided you can keep track of certain indicators from day to day and either abstain or use a barrier method on fertile days.
The book cited by Sarahndipity above, Taking Charge of Your Fertility, is a very thorough guide to effective prescription-free birth control. It has no religious orientation or dogma, it’s more along the lines of Our Bodies, Ourselves. Good for people like me who have no philosophical problem with birth control but make a point of avoiding doctors’ offices and pharmacies except for dire illness.
I don’t like “moist” for the same reason I don’t like “ointment.” the “oi” sound is nasal; unpleasant to say, unpleasant to hear. I also don’t like the word “slacks” because of its nasality. I love my vadge, though, in whatever state.
Aside from the attempts to arouse visceral reactions with inaccuarte descriptions…I’m always amazed by people who think this is rational thinking, even for those who do truly believe that taking a fetal life is morally wrong. We all must make moral trade-offs in terms of our support of politicians and causes. How many dead & tortured adults will you be willing to accept to “save” a few fetuses? (and let’s not kid ourselves that abortions all stop just because they’re illegal). 10 per fetus? 100? 1000? 10,000? more if they’re not americans? if they’re not white? more if they’re dying from illegal abortions? Would you support the wholesale genocide of an entire race or country to avoid voting for the pro-choice candidate? The fact that “pro-life” people are willing to throw support to anyone, no matter how heinous, if the candidate is the “pro-life” one, clearly shows that post-born, breathing, realized life isn’t terribly important to them. And how many MORE unintended pregnancies and abortions are you willing to create by supporting abstinence-only no-access-to-affordable-birth-control folks, because they agree with the “pro-life” position? Is no amount of death and misery too much to take?
You know, a gay-rights position is important to me too, but there’s no way I could vote for someone who supported marriage equality along with torture and death penalties and no health care and so forth. At some point, the sacrifice is too great to protect this one point that I care about. But it seems that for “pro-lifers,” there is no amount of non-fetal death that is too great for them to dismiss as acceptable collateral damage of their position.
Now, more on-topic: I can’t stand “horny.” Seems very adolescent, Porky’s-movies to me. I much prefer the British-flavored “randy”… but my greater reliance on that term means I occasionally have to suppress snickers when I meet someone named Randy (”Hi, I’m Randy” “oh, I’m sorry, I’m in a monogamous relationship, can’t help you there”).
You can’t possibly mean the former two-term Democratic Representative from Georgia, Ben Jones, could you? http://www.lemarssentinel.com/story/1285934.html>
The word moist never bothered me. “Vajajay” annoys the holy living fuck out of me. As a child my parents said we do no use silly words. Men have penises, women have vaginas, end of story. “Pussy” makes me cringe a bit too, even when it’s used in a positive way, like when someone is talking about pleasure or sex with enthusiastic consent. But vagina, I have no problem with! VAGINA, VAGINA, VAGINA!
I’m positive that some women are empowered by this, and it’s good that more effective versions are out there. But I still hate that this is always drug up when Catholics and birth control are the topic. This method should be something you do b/c you really want to, and not b/c you think it’s only the available option. Otherwise I’d venture that even folks who have the book and the thermometer and whatever else are going to end up unintentionally pregnant b/c the resentment from feeling anchored to one’s own fertility is going to produce less-than stellar adherence to the method.
I’m positive that some women are empowered by this, and it’s good that more effective versions are out there. But I still hate that this is always drug up when Catholics and birth control are the topic. This method should be something you do b/c you really want to, and not b/c you think it’s only the available option. Otherwise I’d venture that even folks who have the book and the thermometer and whatever else are going to end up unintentionally pregnant b/c the resentment from feeling anchored to one’s own fertility is going to produce less-than stellar adherence to the method.
What the hell? Where my posts?
But there have been some advances in fertility monitoring that make it really effective, provided you can keep track of certain indicators from day to day and either abstain or use a barrier method on fertile days.
Well, if you have a pretty regular cycle, yeah. I could probably do it successfully because I’m like clockwork even when I’m not on the pill.
People whose cycles are irregular, though? Not so easy.
I’m positive that some women are empowered by this, and it’s good that more effective versions are out there. But I still hate that this is always drug up when Catholics and birth control are the topic. This method should be something you do b/c you really want to, and not b/c you think it’s only the available option. Otherwise I’d venture that even folks who have the book and the thermometer and whatever else are going to end up unintentionally pregnant b/c the resentment from feeling anchored to one’s own fertility is going to produce less-than stellar adherence to the method.
I’m positive that some women are empowered by this, and it’s good that more effective versions are out there. But I still hate that this is always drug up when Catholics and birth control are the topic. This method should be something you do b/c you really want to, and not b/c you think it’s only the available option. Otherwise I’d venture that even folks who have the book and the thermometer and whatever else are going to end up unintentionally pregnant b/c the resentment from feeling anchored to one’s own fertility is going to produce less-than stellar adherence to the method.
I do want to go on the record, just to clarify, that it’s not the concept of “moist” that I have a problem with (in fact, I’m fairly sure that “lubricious” is my new favorite word). It’s entirely the execution; I really don’t enjoy the way the diphthong rolls around the back of my tongue and then oozes out between my teeth. I actually have a better time hearing it (especially in reference to cake) than I do saying it. It’s the same thing with “ointment.” I think that’s why so many Southerners are so quick to flatten the “oi” diphthong to “oh” - sohl, ohl, and aluminum fohl.
I’m positive that some women are empowered by this, and it’s good that more effective versions are out there. But I still hate that this is always drug up when Catholics and birth control are the topic. This method should be something you do b/c you really want to, and not b/c you think it’s only the available option. Otherwise I’d venture that even folks who have the book and the thermometer and whatever else are going to end up unintentionally pregnant b/c the resentment from feeling anchored to one’s own fertility is going to produce less-than stellar adherence to the method.
(Sorry that I have to run and don’t have time to read all the comments first. Just my $0.02 here).
I don’t mind the word ‘moist’, there’s even a half-decent mid-90s band by that name. ‘Creamy’ annoys me, though. I’m not sure why. Hell, I don’t mind that Prince song ‘Cream’. That word all on it’s own is okay, but put the ‘y’ on it and yuck. huh.
For the record, I don’t think my vagina is disgusting. It’s, like any other part of the human body, an animal part. But our bodies *are* animals, and.. you know.. so what? Flesh and sweet and secretions don’t smell like soap and rosewater, usually. The idea that (some) men (and I suppose since everyone gets the cultural indoctrination, it’s pretty much stupidity available to everyone of any gender alignment) think that women’s bodies are somehow more monkey-body and hairy-fleshy and smelly is just….
…FUCKING FUNNY. Seriously. I’ve gotten up with my BF after sweaty summer nights and, dude, he does NOT smell like fresh springwater. If people are so disgusted by the animal-yuck-mortality of the vagina, what, do they think the penis *isn’t* weird looking? Sheesh.
And the idea of this rabid existential hatepanic about omg!mortal body! is silly. (Yeah, I know that doesn’t stop people from believing it.) What, do they think the male body is like gleaming steel or something? Oh wait..
Anyway. My basic comment boils down to ‘that’s messed up’ and ‘my vagina never did anything bad to me, so why should I hate it?’ I don’t mind the word cunt in and of itself. I think that intention is almost more important then the actual word. You can said ‘vagina!’ hatefully, after all. You can say ‘woman’ hatefully. I think that cunt is sort of hard-sounding for vaginas (which are mostly not.. uh.. hard exactly). Pussy works better for me. I think ‘cunt’ sounds more like a weapon, actually. Something with hard, sharp edges.
It ain’t the word, it’s the hate.
It is more complicated, but it’s not impossible. I used TCoYF when trying to conceive and found my body’s signals (the cervical fluid, the temperature gauging and the cervical position/feel) were very helpful in determining whether or not I’d ovulated in any given cycle, regardless of its (irregular) length. Just reading the book was a revelation — it was not religious at all and had more of a crunchy, midwife-doula vibe than anything, I’d say. Nothing like the Rhythm Method crap my mom talked about when I was growing up (the RM being something she hated, because it gave her five kids when she only wanted three, making the family’s financial life rather tough at points).
The Catholic Church’s position on women’s moist bits sucks, and is part and parcel with its view of women as broodmares. But there are other sources of information for women that can be very helpful in making women more informed about how their bodies work and better enabling them to ask more thorough and helpful questions of their health care providers. I highly recommend TCoYF as an owner’s manual, whether or not a woman intends to use NFP for birth control or conception. Understanding bodily changes and the reasons therefor is a pretty cool thing in and of itself.
About the Catholic church and Natural Family Planning: it’s true that the rhythm method didn’t work (or wouldn’t have worked) for your mother. But there have been some advances in fertility monitoring that make it really effective, provided you can keep track of certain indicators from day to day and either abstain or use a barrier method on fertile days.
The book cited by Sarahndipity above, Taking Charge of Your Fertility, is a very thorough guide to effective prescription-free birth control. It has no religious orientation or dogma, it’s more along the lines of Our Bodies, Ourselves. Good for people like me who have no philosophical problem with birth control but make a point of avoiding doctors’ offices and pharmacies except for dire illness.
I’m positive that some women are empowered by this, and it’s good that more effective versions are out there. But I still hate that this is always drug up when Catholics and birth control are the topic. This method should be something you do b/c you really want to, and not b/c you think it’s only the available option. Otherwise I’d venture that even folks who have the book and the thermometer and whatever else are going to end up unintentionally pregnant b/c the resentment from feeling anchored to one’s own fertility is going to produce less-than stellar adherence to the method.
(pointless addendum to test why this isn’t posting)
agreed with the comments about the SOUND of the word. that’s the only reason i dislike the word ‘moist.’ it’s just a pleasant sound. ‘damp’ isn’t too thrilling but at least it sounds pretty neutral.
i mean it’s NOT a pleasant sound. >_
“Flaccid” makes me giggle. It’s just something about the combination of “fl” and double c — makes it a word as silly as “balloon” or “snigger”. I guess double letters just amuse me…hey, anyone else find Dutch intensely amusing? And “turgid” looks too much like “turd”. Then again, I process language very visually so this may be a bit of a personal idiosyncracy.
Never heard of anyone having issues with the word “moist”, though…pretty interesting. I can see “panties” being embarrassing, it’s so juvenile-sounding. But “moist”? I mean, “moist” is a more-or-less constant state for lots of Human Things, thanks to our aquatic origins, but it’s not a particularly vulvic word to me. It’s not even as good a word as “wet” for female arousal.
German always sounds like philosophy to me, or else invective — I suppose the two aren’t always too far apart. But I once had an affair that involved a lot of Turkish, and it’s left an indelible impression in my mind. I mean, I blush when people on the news speak Turkish. Terrible, really.