Why Religious Feminists Should Support Contraceptive Rights - Part 1

This post will also appear in Go Girl Magazine on Friday, as well as Part 2, which will appear on Saturday.

If you’re like me, you probably feel like this national debate over contraceptives is some bizarre throwback to the dark ages (or, as Stephen Colbert put it – why not start protesting Elvis’s pelvis-thrusting influence on teens?). And if you’re like me, you’re probably sick of hearing about it. Heaven knows, I wish this debate would just go away and that states would stop passing laws that allow employers to pry into female employees’ medical records and sex lives.

But we can’t ignore this debate, because states are still passing misogynistic bills that violate women’s rights to health and privacy – and because they’re doing it in the name of religious liberty, I feel it’s only right for the religious feminists of the United States to speak up. Already fellow Go Girl Erica is promoting a knitted vagina movement - the idea being that male legislators will stay out of our vaginas if they receive a knitted vagina of their very own. As a Catholic feminist, Erica represents just one of many people who want religious liberty and women’s health – not second class citizenship for women, with religious tyranny for Christian fundamentalists. Think my rhetoric is hyperbolic? Well, feministe has a great run-down of some recent anti-women legislation, including Georgia's efforts at forcing women to deliver still-born babies (justified by comparing women to livestock), Tennessee's efforts at depriving doctors and patients of medical privacy, and a whole slew of states passing ultrasound laws.

As a Christian feminist, I too want to respond to these attacks on women's rights, but I’m coming from a different perspective than a lot of feminists. You see, I’m a tad old-fashioned when it comes to sexuality. I don’t believe anyone should engage in sexual relations before marriage (though I'm not about to judge if that's your decision), and I consider pornography to be universally damaging to all who view or participate in it. I don’t believe that abortion is a good thing – though I support a woman’s access to abortion, particularly during the first trimester and at any time when the pregnancy puts her at peril. I’ve held these relatively old-fashioned beliefs my entire life, and as a result of not being married, I’m a 26-year-old virgin. The most I’ve ever done with a boy is kiss. And that’s something I’m proud of, because it’s a result of my decision not to have sex outside of marriage.

And yet, despite those strong beliefs on my part, I want this anti-women’s-rights legislation to stop, and I want more women to actively oppose these measures. I mean, come on – we’re more than half the population. We have the voting clout to make a serious difference where this legislation is concerned. So let explain why contraceptive rights do not violate the rights of religious organizations.

First off, we have to step back and examine the rhetoric of “This isn’t about contraceptives; this is about religious freedom” and ask, religious freedom for whom? America has a long history of proclaiming the ideal of religious liberty, all while denying that liberty to others. From Puritans who burned “witches” and cast out any who belonged to other Christian sects, to Southern plantation owners who forced slaves to leave their religion in Africa, to nineteenth century Americans who tortured, robbed and eventually murdered the founder of my faith, to contemporary Americans who didn’t want a Muslim community center anywhere near ground zero - we don’t have a perfect track record in the area of religious liberty. Especially not when the religion in question is a minority, either in our community or in the nation at large.

And differing moral beliefs are at the center of this debate about contraceptives as a form of medicine. Differing beliefs about family planning are driving much of this debate, as well as differing beliefs about the place of sex in a person’s life. Take, for instance, Sandra Fluke’s testimony in support of contraceptives (see video above), in which Fluke proclaims that access to sex is a right. Fluke also outlines all the reasons why women may need the pill even if they’re not having sex, and I am aware that Fluke’s statement could be problematic out of context – after all, Fluke is likely to support that “right” only insofar as the sexual partner is willing. But I want to point to this assertion that sex is a right, because that view is rooted in belief. I can’t know whether that belief is rooted in a particular religion, but Fluke clearly believes that sexuality should be a personal decision, not one dictated by the government or by an employer or by an insurance agent who somehow thinks denying birth control is a good way to cut costs.

But Fluke isn’t alone in holding differing moral beliefs about sexuality. I, for one, believe that sex (between a married couple) is a sacred union that is about much, much more than having kids. And I believe that adults who are having sex have every right to take measures to prevent that sexual act from resulting in pregnancy. I also believe that kids should be born into homes where their parents welcome them as an addition to the home, and as someone who wants to cut down on the number of abortions that occur because of unplanned pregnancies, I think parents using contraceptives is a good decision for kids. And sure, you can make the argument that parents can simply abstain from sex during the woman’s most fertile times of the month – but a) that’s still a way to have sex without getting pregnant, b) that method is much less reliable, and c) it seems awfully cruel to women to say that we only get to have sex during the times of the month when we want it the least. Not to mention, how is it an employer’s business to dictate what times of the month a woman is allowed to have sex if she doesn’t want to get pregnant?

The fact of the matter is, allowing employers to determine - based on morality - what medical options (prescribed by a doctor) an insurance company is allowed to provide does not protect the religious liberty of the individual employee.

Saturday: more on why birth control rights do not violate economic or religious liberty.

Question of the Week: What Recent Event Bugs You The Most?

Ok, I'm thinking politics on this one, but any event will do. My idea is that it might be cathartic to vent a bit and just list off all the recent events that are bugging us. Or, at least the worst ones.

So, what recent (political) event has you incensed?

Snatchels

The cutest vagina you'll ever see, knit in my own living room.

I have a long history of struggling with strong feelings for my country and trying to balance my loathing for its incredible capacity for stupidity with a deep appreciation for the autonomy I'm theoretically granted here. Over the last two weeks, this challenging see-saw has become extra-wobbly as a series of proposed bills and speeches by state and federal legislators has reduced my personhood to some combination of whore, cow/pig, and rights-less incubator. If you think I'm joking or exaggerating, please check out those links because, unfortunately, most of that is verbatim.

It's one thing, I think, to grow up female/woman in a country where you know your basic civil liberties are only a handful of decades old, while simultaneously being aware that other women around the world would do an awful lot to have those same opportunities. There's a lot of pushback against people like me who campaign for an end to social discrimination because "feminism isn't necessary anymore." Truthfully, a lot of disenfranchised Americans (female or otherwise) can identify with that basic sentiment; with voting, education, and employment available, many of us are a lot better off than our ancestors 100+ years ago. But that doesn't mean that feminism, or activism more broadly, is redundant. The personhood amendment up for grabs in Colorado, for example, would prevent someone from seeking an abortion even in cases of rape or incest. The long-and-short of it is that, while the amendment protects a foetus from being "killed for the crime of his or her father" (direct quote), it doesn't protect the mother from the same.

I've frothed at the mouth so many times this week that I've been rather dehydrated. Discourses about feminism and women's rights, particularly women's reproductive rights, are always entwined with other discourses around social inequality such as racism, classism, and level of physical or mental ability, but I'm sick of how many things seem able to be diluted to the spectra of sex and gender. In the 21st century, in a country that likes to tout itself as being The Most Advanced On the Planet, basic concepts (such as the fact that I am, in fact, a human and not livestock) seem to elude many of our most powerful. To add insult to injury, it often feels as though I'm a lone (or, if not lone, at least very tiny) voice screaming to an uncaring wilderness.

The balancing factor this week has been the discovery of the Government-Free VJJ movement. While the usual course of writing letters to lawmakers and ceaselessly calling their offices can exacerbate the lonely "I'm talking to a wall!" feeling, a cohesive movement to send a message feels somehow more productive. You can recycle a letter or turn off a phone, but it's difficult to ignore the cute and cuddly vagina that's landed on your desk.

That's right! The Government-Free VJJ movement is a craft-centred form of political protest that facetiously suggests that (primarily male) politicians would stay out of our vaginas and uteri if they had a set of their very own. Whether sewing, crocheting, or knitting, each one takes only about 30 minutes to complete and can be made with relatively cheap supplies. The goal is to send at least one to each politician who has been systematically degrading and violating women's personhoods through speech or proposal. The movement itself has already caught some media attention, which is promising; since I've already knit four, I've spent every stitch envisioning a storm of news coverage about how Washington and state capitols have all been inundated with hand-crafted lady-bits. Even better is trying to imagine the press releases coming from these lawmakers' offices in response to the influx: "Representative England is unavailable, as he is currently trying to figure out how livestock learned to knit."

There's something to be said for the medium of choice, for while a hand-held vagina is difficult to ignore, it also uses trades (sewing, knitting, etc.) that are part of the pantheon of "Things That Only (White?) Women Do Because Men Are Too Busy Running the World." In other words, is it subversive or complicitly patriarchal to use domestic activities to make a political point about women's rights? There's a discussion to be had there, I'm sure, but I have to admit that the excitement of giving lawmakers a bunch of vaginas to ponder has short-circuited my critical thinking skills.

If you're crafty, or wish to learn crafty skills in order to participate in the VJJ movement, check out their website. They have a list of patterns to follow, as well as a sample script to include in your cuddly cooter package. When you're ready to mail yours off, use this form to let the movement's organizers know which politicians you're sending them to. The goal, of course, is maximum distribution! Naturally, I highly encourage all of our readers to produce at least one. As a clarification, this isn't about being pro- or anti-abortion rights (although I'm sure you can guess my opinion). This is about drawing attention to the treatment women, as a very generalized group, are given in a male-dominated political landscape.

When you've made your vajayjay or uterus, take a picture and send it in to Go Girl! We'd love to make a gallery of how Go Folk everywhere envision their crafty political engagement in or with the U.S. After all, in how many countries can you use yarn genitals to make a point?

This post also appears today on Go Girl Magazine.

Achive Tuesday: I'm a Woman, and I'm Not High-Pitched

I originally published this post in 2010, and I want to make it clear that I was describing the religious community where I was living at the time - I'm now in a different Latter-day Saint congregation. As much as I miss many of the people and leaders from my old congregation, the presentation I describe here was just one example of the kind of crap that was fed to women in the community I describe.


I'm probably going to make a few enemies with this post, but there are some myths out there that are just too offensive to go ignored. And tonight I once again encountered one of those myths - at a church dating workshop.

Now, I suspected the workshop wouldn't be my cup of tea, even before I went. Based on the way many people in my community speak about gender, I had a feeling this workshop would cast men and women in the traditional roles of bold male hunter and flirtatious damsel in distress. But what can I say - I'm morbidly fascinated by these stereotype-informed, pseudo-scientific presentations. I knew that if nothing else the presentation would amuse me. Well, it did. But the audience's reaction to our dating sage's advice did notamuse me.

Who is this guru who has me irritated and bold enough to publicly complain? Well, the dating coach is a woman named Alisa Goodwin Snell. She's published such gems as Dating Secrets for Marrying a Good Man and Want to Marry a Good Man? Here's How.You can read more about her on her website.  While I admire Snell's drive and her dedication to helping people develop safe and healthy relationships, her tips rely on stereotypes that leave unconventional men and women out in the cold.

While she provided some rather good tips on how to effectively communicate interest to a potential romantic interest, particularly in terms of body language (taking a step forward, for instance), she undid much of the understanding she tried to build between genders by stubbornly representing men and women in stereotypes. According to her, men care more about being trusted and respected in a relationship than anything else, while women care more about feeling safe and secure. Yet, when she asked each gender to say what they valued most in a relationship... not even a majority of the group gave her the answers she was expecting. But that didn't stop her from pretending they had agreed with her.

Personally, I value a man showing me respect more than anything else. How could I even begin to feel safe and secure anyway if a man didn't respect me? But Alisa Snell didn't even build potential exceptions into her dialogue. She provided a handout that listed the 17 secrets to understanding the male and female psychology, and each item on the list built upon that main stereotype. What did this handout teach us? That women want immediate relationships, men love to feel like heroes, women like receiving gifts, and men like talking about things and activities rather than ideas and people. Again, her narrative did not leave room for exceptions or acknowledge that these traits may vary depending on class, socioeconomics, race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, biology, education, etc.

Then she gave us advice on how to initiate romance with the opposite gender. (Since her audience is comprised of LDS young single adults, she only talked about heterosexual dating. Given who her audience was, I think that's fitting, though I know some members of the gay rights movement would disagree with me on this point). Her advice to men seemed well-received by the entire audience. She gave them tips on how to come across as confident, and most of the tips related to body language and wording. She kept warning men that they couldn't come across as "too nice," a point that I found disturbing, but mainly because she never defined what she meant by "too nice" and thus may have unintentionally given a few men license to act like jerks. All in all, though, her advice to men seemed empowering. She was teaching them how to be confident in order to appeal to women.

And then she gave the women advice. Because men "like femininity" (as her handout on the male psychology explained), her advice to women focused on how to act more feminine. It hardly needs saying that there's a real problem in a dichotomy that instructs men to act confident and women to act feminine. Not only is femininity impossible to define - I'm pretty sure that as a woman I am by definition already feminine - but she helped us hear what a feminine voice sounds like by taking her voice back and forth between what she called "business-like" on one end of the spectrum, and "feminine" on the other end. There was no similar spectrum to show men the difference between a business-like voice and a masculine (or confident, since that's what she was telling them to be) voice.

When some of the women in the room bristled at her recommendation to talk in a high-pitched "feminine" voice, she told us that she hears two main complaints about this piece of advice and then offered her rebuttals:

1. She said that women say, "I'm not that kind of person. I don't talk like that," but that all women talk that way to babies and that they should also talk that way to the men they're interested in. When I later told some other girls in the audience that I don't talk to babies in a high-pitched voice, they said, "Yes you do." Even though they've never seen me around babies. Somehow, the fact that most men also talk to babies in high-pitched voices never came up. But I can see why she wouldn't mention that - after all, you can't let facts get in the way of a marketable stereotype.

2. A few women in the audience said that they don't want to sound ditzy or superficial. Alisa explained that women who talk in high-pitched voices only sound superficial or ditzy when they're trying to get everyone in the room to pay attention to them, but that if a woman directs that voice at a particular man, that voice will make him feel good about himself and not draw attention to her. No, I'm not making this up. She actually said this stuff.

Alisa then proceeded to act out how a woman could get a man to ask for her number and how a man could continue to persist even after a woman had given him a clear 'no.' When a woman in the audience asked for Alisa's perspective on asking a man out, Alisa explained how to do so. Here's the gist of it:

"I feel a little embarrassed, because this is really hard, but there's this Christmas party coming up at my work. And when I was thinking over all the guys I know, you seemed like someone who would make it really fun. Do you think you could help me out and go as my date?"

And then, "I never know how to do this when the girl asks - would you mind picking me up? Should I call you, or would you like to call me? Calling must be so scary! I don't know how you guys do it, I'd get so nervous!"

Remember, all of this was said in a high-pitched, breathy voice.

Now, am I saying that her advice is bad for everyone? Absolutely not. I actually found some really excellent tidbits in her presentation, and a lot of the other people in the room seemed to find her advice even more helpful. She offered great advice on how to use precise wording for the best effect, helpful ideas about using body language to help others feel comfortable, and excellent ideas on how to keep up a positive attitude in the face of dating failures.

But the bulk of her advice came back to the idea that men should present themselves as heroes and that women should present themselves as damsels in distress in order to make it easier for men to feel like heroes. And you know what? The men in the room quite vocally agreed. If that dating model works for most of the people who were there tonight, then hey - I'm sure that's great for them.

As for me and my voice, we will not be affecting a high-pitched, damsel-in-distress routine anytime soon.

Feminist Question of the Week: Women Nurture, Men Protect

Gender Essentialism: Basically this ideology states that gender and sex go hand in hand, meaning that gender roles are the result of biology. Now granted, there is a little more to the idea than that, however that's the bit I'm focusing on for this week's question.

I was always taught that women are nurturers; women are maternal, loving and filled with an overwhelming desire to have children. The home is a woman's sphere. Men on the other hand, are meant to provide and protect; Men are supposed to take care of women.

The argument has kicked up it's heels again recently (what with all the great political, woman furor that has surrounded this election cycle) and I'm wondering how you feel about the issue.

Personally, I lean away from gender essentialism, however nothing is really that simple is it?

I'm curious, do you believe that there are defined gender roles for men and women? Do you believe biology affects gendered attributes? What about small things? There are dozens of studies that discuss the differences between men and women, "Men only worry about things that directly affect the physical safety of those they love, while women worry about the small things--which is why men seem lazy and women are nags" (Laura Brizendine).

Anyway, answer the question. What do you think?

In the News

The past couple of weeks have seen me frothing at the mouth over some of the stupidly offensive and horrifyingly threatening moves that (male) politicians have been making against women in the U.S. This means that you all get treated to a listing of some of these stories while you're reading this compilation of news links, so strap into your rage-machines and be prepared to be infuriated!

We'll start off easy with a piece from Jezebel that reports that the Arizona representative responsible for the atrocious proposal that women (yes, women specifically) should have to report their contraceptive use to their bosses has finally seen a glimmer of light and is rewriting the bill. I'm grateful that the negative feedback around the bill has caused Representative Debbie Lesko to reconsider the violations of HIPAA that she wished to codify, but I'm still mad that she's rewriting the damn thing. It's illegal and inappropriate! It's none of my boss's business if I take pills or use other prescription contraceptives!

Although if I'm no better than a pig or a cow, as some legislators would believe, then I suppose my anger is simply the lowing of a herd animal spooked by the passage of clouds across the sun (or some equally simplistic dismissal of my experiences). Y'know, because animals are forced to carry their foetuses as long as their bodies choose, and get pregnant whenever a stud shares their pen, and die of pneumonia because Nature doesn't make penicillin in hay and OH WAIT A MINUTE. I'm SO sorry that calves and piglets are sometimes stillborn, but if you had an ounce of common sense (or a veterinarian on the premises), you'd know that sometimes animal pregnancies are terminated too! ESPECIALLY when the foetus is already dead! Not to mention the fact that the argument that we should have the same natural restrictions as animals is going to put your car, your house, your woven clothes, and your expensive and advanced medical care in a whole world of "not allowed" anymore because it doesn't happen naturally. I'd include something in here about being a human, and therefore not a cow, pig, or chicken, you sexist little f***, but I don't think you're listening to me to begin with. In case someone IS listening, though, Soraya Chemaly at HuffPo wrote a far more eloquent retort to the War on Vaginas and Their Assorted Internal Counterparts. I suggest you read it.

A wonderful guerrilla campaign has started in response to this war, however, which has me thrilled and empowered all at once. What is it? Knitted and crocheted vaginas, uteruses, and ovaries, all inundating the offices of the members of Congress and state legislatures that are committing the most vicious legal attacks on women's rights. How great is it for a representative or senator to be confronted by a cute and cuddly version of the very thing he's trying to kill? It makes me feel so happy to envision that scene. What a great way to express to Congress et. al. that they're often so obsessed with trying to determine foetal rights that they entirely forget the rights of the living, breathing, functioning, undeniably human women who already exist.

Yashur on The Current Science wrote a wonderful editorial looking at why so many people- men in particular- are so ready to dismiss sexism as being a real problem, even when they're falling all over themselves to change racism, economic inequality, or any other form of discrimination or injustice. The easy answer, of course, is that sexism is both universal and a social order that benefits a lot of people (again, men in particular). It goes further, however, especially in light of the pile ofScheiß that has been heaped on women in the U.S. this week.

Let me take a quick breath to gather my thoughts and cool my temper a little...
In good news, more executives from Susan G. Komen are resigning after last month's funding debacle. It's good news not only because their decision was boneheaded and deserved a shamefaced exit, but also because it demonstrates that popular movements can still have an impact on the forces shaping our country (and, hopefully, the world). We might not be getting very far with Congress, but at least we can teach corporations a thing or two.

After a sixteen-year-old committed suicide in Morocco because she was forced to marry the man who raped her, the country is reconsidering its forced marriage laws. While rape victims aren't necessarily forced into marriage by law in Morocco, the law does permit a rapist to use marriage as a form of exoneration. Let's be real: who wouldn't take that option when facing up to 20 years in prison? I for one stand behind the activists in Morocco who are advocating for an update to penal law in cases of rape.

A free new app is out called the "Circle of Six," which allows people to enter six friends into the app with prewritten texts such as "I need a distraction." The beauty of it? It was designed for a contest to create apps that can help prevent sexual assault. How does this prevent assault, you might say? It gives potential victims the opportunity to request bystander intervention before anything goes wrong. That person might not feel safe asking the potential attacker to stop or leave, but pushing a button to get a friend to come in and provide an easy excuse to get away might be a hell of a lot easier to accomplish. It's not perfect, of course; bystander intervention should also come from the friends of the potential attacker (see the Green Dot Project for ideas). I give this concept major kudos, however, for making it that much easier to intervene in a potentially dangerous situation.

My final piece of news is an article from my home state, New Hampshire, where a push to repeal same-sex marriage was defeated this week. New Hampshire has been the site of some impressive political stupidity recently, I must admit, but this leaves me feeling optimistic that at least some human rights aren't being trampled out of existence entirely. An extra note for fun is that one of the men in the 2010 photo is someone both Emily and I knew in high school, and it's wonderful to know that he and his husband will get to continue to share the benefits and privileges that marriage confers.

That's it for this week, readers. I'm off to cool my heels and knit some vaginas for the lovely folks of Congress.

Guest Post: Up on the Table

Since I can't seem to get my act together for cross-posts and guest posts, today I'm combining the two and cross-posting my recent Go Girl Magazine article as today's guest post. So there!

“Try angling it down,” the dark-haired woman suggested to her student. The student maneuvered a bit, then said, “Is that it?” Both women peered in close, their heads nearly touching the object of study. The instructor made a quick adjustment to the student’s work, and the student immediately gasped, “Oh! There it is!” She looked up at me. “It’s glorious!”

From my vantage point above them, I chuckled. Apparently, finding my cervix was as exciting as observing a desert sunrise and as difficult (at least initially) as bringing microscopic cells into focus under a lens.

It wasn’t difficult to understand how I’d wound up on a birthing table in the middle of a hospital teaching lab in Colorado. One of the local forensic nursing teams- the people who collect evidence off someone’s body after asexual assault or other crime- had won a Violence Against Women grant to train forensic examiners for rural and underserved communities across the United States, and the best way to teach evidence collection is live models. Ever eager to do something to help The Cause, I’d filled out my W9 without hesitation and prepared to join my first training session on International Women’s Day. What a great way to celebrate, I thought.

The ever-terrifying speculum, courtesy of wikipedia.org

Forensic examiners play an incredibly important role in the aftermath of a sexual assault. Their examination is equal parts medical and crime scene, with the result that their findings- analyzed by a crime lab- play the role of DNA evidence if a case is taken to prosecution. Additionally, they are treating their patient as they go, dosing them with Rocephin and Zithromax for gonorrhea and chlamydia exposure and checking for injuries that might need more than a few hours to heal. Perhaps their most important role, however, is that of the supporter. Patients receiving a forensic exam- which involves bright lights, blue dye, photography, and a full pelvic exam - are put in charge each step of the way. Where the sexual assault has taken away the person’s choice and bodily integrity, the forensic exam seeks to restore that. Nothing is done without the patient’s explicit consent, and everything that is done is performed with incredible sensitivity to their current situation.

For example: have you ever had a gynecologist gently push your knees open at the start of a pelvic exam? It’s not a big deal when you’re just there for a PAP, but when you’ve just been assaulted, that innocuous and medically universal gesture is threatening. The medical professionals I was assisting were practicing holding their arms out wide: “Open your knees to my hands whenever you’re ready.” What a difference the wording change makes! From there, every step was talked through: “These are my hands-” as she moved her hands down my thighs- “and now you’ll feel my fingers on your labia. I’m checking for external injury. How are you feeling right now?” The constant check-ins, which minimize the triggering of a startle response during an actual exam, continue to give the patient control. The subtext of the “This is what I’m doing” speech is always, without fail, “Are you still okay with this?”

When I told friends what I was doing for the hospital, most of them looked some degree of horrified. It wasn’t the idea of being bare-arsed to the world that bothered them, but rather that the first day of the two-day live practice was entirely pelvic exams. For many cis women, and I’m sure some trans women too, pelvic exams are incredibly uncomfortable experiences best kept at one per year. The idea of novices repeatedly poking at us with speculums is certainly nerve-wracking. It was for me, although I tried not to show it. The students themselves were already so afraid of hurting me that some of them were examining me with shaking hands. And for the most part, they did fine; not spectacularly well, although they certainly improved by the end of the day, but I walked away without injury or any real pain.

What I did walk away with, however, was an incredible sense of empowerment. So many of us walk into those pelvic exams with only a minimal comprehension of what goes on: speculum goes in, brush goes in, everything hurts for a moment, and then speculum goes back out. Watching my instructor train the other students meant that every step of that exam was broken down as it was performed on me: speculum goes in at an angle to avoid crushing the urethra and is then angled down toward the cervix, speculum opens around the cervix and essentially “rests” on it for the exam, and in a forensic exam, it’s a swab instead of a brush which goes in and collects potential evidence from around- not on- the cervix. Then speculum opens and “scoops” the cervix back down, and speculum slowly closes as it’s pulled out at that same angle it entered with. By the end of the third exam, I could tell where the students needed to go to find my cervix- not because I was sore, but because I’d been shown how it should feel. I had the vocabulary to explain what went wrong when one student forgot to open the speculum before trying to take it out. All those biological structures that so readily remain mysterious were, over the course of that day, rendered familiar. If only all pelvic exam patients could leave the room feeling that good!

To me, forensic nurses do some incredibly important work in our communities. It is their efforts that tie perpetrators to their crimes and which give victims that first step back towards regaining control over their bodies. Many of them also take the time to educate the public (and certainly juries) to dispel some of the more pernicious myths around sexual assault- for example, that a victim will always be injured. They advocate for policy changes in their hospitals, states, and nations to give victims as many rights as possible. When training each other, too, they even educate their models. What I hope is that the twenty-odd students I worked with that day will walk away to fill that role in their communities. Based on what I saw from my vantage point on the table, they’re well on their way.