My informants did have a cultural model of menstruation that was different from that of the mainstream. Their model did not necessarily assume menstruation was a zero sum game that only ended in dread and disenchantment with their bodies, as compared to the American one. There were two things that happened in order for the cultural model to change:
First, cup users had access to different informational channels from the mainstream. These channels did not relate specifically to menstruation or hygiene but straddled the same discourses as the cup. A distrust of commercially-manufactured food and consumer products was likely to lead to the cup, as individuals became more
suspicious of mainstream products and the chemicals and toxins they harbored. Increased participation in environmental causes may lead to the cup, but activities requiring less consumer waste, more reuse of products and less reliance on water and sanitation facilities emphasized the need for it. Camping, backpacking, trekking and even living in parts of the world with no access to sanitation facilities- like being in the Peace Corps- had communities with more education and availability of the cup, specifically for functional purposes. Feminist groups and communities as well often promoted more awareness and support of the cup. Alternative consumer outlets, like catalogues featuring non-mainstream personal products like specialty-bras and post-natal feminine care were likely to feature the cup, or items related to it.
Second, cup users felt an overall closer connection with their bodies, and felt more comfortable interacting with it and its processes. Being in situations involving
increased exposure to bodily processes and fluids before using the cup, like raising animals, pregnancy and birth, midwifery, and aspects of the medical community, greatly increased some women’s comfort level with their own bodies. My informants and I felt that having used inserted products before, whether tampons, birth control, or sex toys successfully meant a higher probability that an individual would be able to use a menstrual cup comfortably than if she had never inserted anything herself.
These two aspects can be thought of like a flow chart. First, an individual must learn about the menstrual cup, and second she must feel comfortable enough with her body to use it. Both of these are at odds with both the current American menstrual model, and the American bodily etiology. The American menstrual model does not encourage research, exploration or experimentation with menstruation, menstrual products or women’s sexual anatomy. It instead encourages bodily insecurity, hyper-vigilant hygiene and consumerism.
Menstruation as an experience is structured through the cultural frameworks of a rigid bodily etiology. Menstruating women have little to expect about their period other than inconvenience and added hygiene practices, and are not set up to expect anything different, though my informants certainly did. Nagawa enthusiastically said of the cup, “I just put it in and it’s just great. It’s like I’m not even having a period… It’s a great
invention, it’s fantastic.”
A particularly salient point to make is that menstrual cups engage in the same tactics in marketing and word of mouth as do conventional disposable products. They assume that menstruation is undesirable, and that they offer individuals freedom from the inconvenience of the mess, worry and conspicuousness of getting their period. And they
have the added benefit of a market full of disposable products to contrast with. Though there are many discourses unrelated to the American menstrual cultural model that the cup is relevant to, like environmentalism, frugality, and consumer safety, these discourses still take a back seat to the tired themes of hygiene, discreetness and “freshness” of the conventional model. My informants and I certainly believed that the cup was definitely better than conventional products at their goals of making menstruation easier to manage, but the fact that this was the main point acknowledged by most manufacturers and
discussion outlets is definitely disappointing.
This all signifies that, as a society, we are still not free of some of the lingering assumptions about menstruation and women’s bodies that are tied up in the politics of gender, identity and sexuality. Tally was of the same opinion, “Talking about
menstruation in new ways. Ways that are cost-effective and environmentally friendly, and I don’t think we’re there yet.”
While the cup itself is not empowering, its mechanism of removing the barriers to hygiene, convenience and inconspicuousness certainly count for something. Personally, I have felt as if bypassing all of the problems, anxieties and physical un-pleasantries of tampons and pads has been nothing short of liberating. For women who bleed a lot, for whatever reason, the cup is a godsend. For women who shun the toxicity of commercially manufactured cotton products, the cup is a safe haven. For women who passionately care about the environment and their impact on it, the cup is an agent of change. For women who require a better standard of hygiene, the cup is no-brainer. And for women who aren’t afraid to get their hands dirty, the cup isn’t anything more than a step closer to the actualities of physical life, “it is what it is.”