The power of language — in designing for female sexual health
Sex or chit-chat? Sex or hooking up? Sex or…a whole list of aggressive terms? The role of language in designing for women’s sexual health.
It was the height of summer. I sat in a village home in North India, a line of sweat trickling down my back, interviewing a woman about her reproductive healthcare habits for a project. When I brought up family planning and contraception, she dismissed it saying — “no, for a few days before & after my period, I don’t talk with my husband.” She used the term “baat-cheet” — the Hindi colloquial equivalent of chit-chat. “Baat-cheet?” I had to ask. What she meant was that she didn’t have sex with him for those days. Wow, I thought, that’s one strong euphemism.
One might argue that lower-income women in rural India are an “extreme” example, but that evening when my project team re-grouped to exchange field stories, we giggled like little girls and boys — unconformable to talk about sex ourselves — as privileged, educated, modern young Indians. When I asked around and used Google translate, I found that there isn’t a colloquial word for sex in Hindi, to begin with.
Even in the Western (supposedly more liberal) context, terms such as “hooking up” either euphemize sex, or aggressive terms such as “nailing, pounding, destroying or tearing her up,” demean & dehumanise women. In her book Boys & Sex, author Peggy Orenstein says “[boys use] symbolic aggression toward women to bond and validate their heterosexuality. Dismissing that as “locker room banter” denies the ways that language can desensitise and abrade boys’ ability to see girls as people deserving of respect and dignity.”
Language — as euphemisms, or the lack of it, or a whole vocabulary dismissed as locker room banter — holds power because it shows us what is. In this case, it’s extreme discomfort in talking about sex, and a huge difference in the ways men speak of it vs. women. What language is showing us in this context of sex matters, because as Orenstein correctly asks: “Can there be true equality in the classroom and the boardroom if there isn’t in the bedroom?”
I see two ways how acknowledging language here can inform design:
- Design around the discomfort & differences language creates: Beinetna, for example, is a private online platform where Lebanese girls can openly talk about sex. Diva Centers — sex and contraceptive information centers camouflaged as nail salons in Zambia — is another example.
- Design to chip away at the discomfort & difference by creating mindset & behaviour shifts: Orenstein, in her book Girls & Sex, compares American sex education & attitudes with Dutch ones. The American way has been to promote abstinence and avoid talking about sex. The Dutch way is to have open conversation about it, both in school and at home — and this has promoted positive sexual health for young girls.
Both ways fulfil women’s (and to be honest, men’s) needs, but in different ways. They work because they have observed language, behaviours, and are designing for women accordingly.
PS: Huge thanks to reader Katie B for recommending Orenstein’s work to me. I will be sharing more learnings from her books with you in future issues.
This post is an excerpt from Unconforming: a newsletter about Design for Women. Unconforming goes out every two weeks and also shares learnings from experts, job and other opportunities, examples and articles — all to make an impact in the women’s space. Sign up here to get it in your inbox!
