History of the Female Orgasm: Part 5: Looking to the Future

   Today, I'm finishing my summary and review of Rachel P. Maines' book, The Technology of Orgasm. In her last chapter, which is fairly short, only a little over twenty pages, she looks at more contemporary discussions about orgasm, and looks toward the future.


In doing so, she returns to her original idea about the androcentric model in heterosexual relations- that "real sex" is vaginal penetration, male erection, and then male orgasm, and nothing else (116). She talks about how it's only in the 60s that we began even questioning that model, and even as she wrote this, in the 90s, women who admitted to needing clitoral stimulation were still pathologized, and seen as asking too much of their men, inconveniencing them and making their sexual experience less fun because they couldn't "relax" (112, 113, 115).

 And pressure was- and is- put on women to fake orgasms, in order to make sure their husband didn't feel badly, with seventy percent of women admitting to faking orgasms regularly, rather than to try to explain to their husbands that they needed other stimulation (117-118). It was to the point that faking orgasm was seen as a "common courtesy" for women to do (119). On the other hand, men are expected by society to be automatically sexually talented, which obviously is a lot of pressure, but it also hurts women, in that men therefore often don't actually want to know the truth about whether their girlfriends are enjoying sex, and therefore don't ask, because they don't want to know, or don't question when it appears that maybe an orgasm wasn't "real" (117). It also results in men blaming women for not orgasming, for insisting that there's something wrong with her, not with his method (117).

She also brings up the vibrator again, and discusses the way that though many women do like it, it's also more or less the only socially acceptable means of masturbation for women, and she doesn't think that's unrelated to the way that it's seen as really only a substitute for a penis, or even "the imagined male accompanying every dildo" in the eyes of many men (122).


Men's sexual needs, and egos,  were still clearly elevated above women's, and Maines wants us to ask ourselves why we think that is- it may be clear, given the history she covered in the rest of the book, why this androcentric model would be put forth, but she wants us to question why we actively participate in its maintenance now, through not being honest in our relationships, or faking orgasms.
She sees us at a point where we have a choice- maintain the model through silence, or talk to our partners, communicate, and address this issue.




I think this is a strong way to end, and in general I thought this was one of her better chapters in awhile. Overall, I think this book provided a lot of interesting and important information, and I only wish that it was less repetitive,  and as I've discussed at length in earlier posts, I wish there was greater effort to take into account women's emotional experiences, and emotion in general.

History of Orgasm: Part 3: Masturbation

For part 1 in this series: http://femgasmproject.blogspot.com/2014/11/history-of-technology-and-female-orgasm.html
For part 2 in this series: http://femgasmproject.blogspot.com/2014/11/history-of-orgasm-part-2-hysteria.html.

    I'm continuing my multi-part review and summary of Rachel P. Maines' oft-cited book, The Technology of Orgasm: "Hysteria", the Vibrator, and Women's Sexual Satisfaction, published in 1998, by the John Hopkins University Press, this time turning the third section of her book, entitled, "My God, What Does She Want?". (A clear reference to Freud's infamous line.) As this section is relatively short, and quite repetitive, mostly going over what was already discussed or implied in previous sections, this will be a relatively short summary. There are some new (if disorganized) facts about the way doctors viewed sexuality, and I'll be listing them here, but the sub-section that does introduce new material in a coherent way, is focused on masturbation, and is very interesting! So I'll spend some time on that.

First, some quick  facts, before I turn to masturbation:

-She reminds us that doctors have historically confused women's reported satisfaction or enjoyment of sex- or even just their willingness to participate in heterosexual sexual relations- with experiencing orgasm, and thus often overestimated women's sexual enjoyment. (51). (This probably comes as no surprise to any woman anywhere.)

-Generally, doctors who did notice that few women orgasmed via intercourse,  believed that most women were incapable of true sexual feeling, and did not care to investigate further. William Hammond in 1887 wrote,  for example, that even 10% of all women orgasmed. Curiously, in ancient times, there was debate about whether women had to orgasm in order to conceive, which means they were aware women (and most women at that, if all mothers must have orgasmed, according to that logic), were capable of orgasm. Perhaps they, like the doctors mentioned in the above fact, equated reported satisfaction with orgasm? In the contemporary period, it was clearly believed that orgasm was unnecessary and even impossible or unlikely in women, and that was largely used as an excuse to not try at all.  (51, 61)

-In Tudor and Stuart England, many works do discuss the clitoris as being very important, which shows that history is not just a single forward progression. Apparently, the clitoris was already discovered, and then buried again. By the late nineteenth century, doctors were giving dire warnings about anyone, male or female, who dared to touch a clitoris. (52, 55)

- In the 1980s, some interesting observations were made about a study of women's orgasms, where masturbation was shown to be overwhelmingly a women's best bet at orgasm.  Women seemed defensive about their ability to orgasm during intercourse and their ability to be pleased in heterosexual intercourse. 80% were not disappointed if they didn't orgasm during sex, 75% felt that their partner's pleasure was more important. 54% said that they happy with sex, with our without orgasm. (64).

Now, about masturbation:

   Masturbation was generally discouraged not only for women, but for men as well (54).

In both sexes it was believed to cause all kinds of diseases and disorders, and it was far from encouraged, but most of the literature and ire and punishment was directed at masturbation in women (56). It was believed that masturbation caused "marital aversion" in women, especially by doctors who were deeply uncomfortable because they thought that women masturbated because they couldn't be properly satisfied through traditional intercourse (56). They tended to diagnose any woman suffering from physical or mental illness with either hysteria, or with a sort of karmic punishment for not only drinking alcohol or caffeine, wearing corsets, or reading "French novels", but especially for masturbation or sexual thought (57). Generally, it was believed (and discussed with panic) that anything that seemed to point into the vagina, from speculums to bikes, which demonstrated not only male doctors' fear and revulsion towards women masturbating, but also their belief, by the nineteenth century, that normal woman really were supposed to get pleasure from things going inside the vagina, not clitoral stimulation (58-59). Maines makes an interesting note here about the present day (or, the late 90s, when this was published): 97% of men and 76% of women reported that they masturbated in a 90s study, but less than 20% of that 76% said that they often used dildos, or any other masturbatory tool that went inside the vagina (59). This is especially interesting, because I observe that now, on the rare occasions in which we ever do talk publically about women masturbating, it's always with dildos, or dildo-like devices. We don't talk about women rubbing their vulvas, or anything like that, which at least in the 90s, was the more common form of masturbation. I don't think this is unrelated to the long-standing belief that women were satisfied with traditional intercourse, and the shaming of clitoral simulation.

Summary: Gerhard on Koedt's Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm

 In her article, “Revisiting ‘The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm’: The Female Orgasm in American Sexual Thought and Second-Wave Feminism” published in 2000 in vol. 26 of Feminist Studies, Jane Gerhard, PhD, describes the trends, conversations, and  controversies amongdoctors, psychologists, and feminists in 20^th century America, surrounding women’s orgasms.  The titular ‘Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm’ was a 1968 treatise written by Anne Koedt and published by New York Radical Women (449). An instant success, it argued against the common assertion that women received intercourse exclusively through intercourse, and explored women’s sexuality. In Gerhard’s article, she places this piece in its historical context.

Book by Anne Koedt.

        In her first section, “Woman as Vaginal”, she discusses the beliefs about the orgasm that existed in the first half of the 20^th century. At this time, a “companion marriage” where a heterosexual couple would love and care for one another, and have sex, was considered the proper and “normal” thing to do (451). It was agreed upon, amongst psychologists and sexologists, that intercourse was normal for women, but most strongly discouraged clitoral stimulation, warning that it would lead women to reject intercourse, and begin masturbating (452). As discussed in my other posts, Freud associated the clitoris with immaturity, and the vagina with maturity in women (452). In the 30s, 40s, and 50s America, his beliefs were solidified, and his followers placed an emphasis on this that even he did not- in those decades, sexologists strongly emphasized that naturalness of intercourse and heterosexuality, and the “masculine” and “immature” nature of the clitoris (454).  

        His student, Helene Deutsch, especially argued that female sexuality was rooted in the vagina, and that a normal, proper woman neither had sex too much or too little, and was subordinate, passive, dependent, and maternal- a female sexuality rooted in the clitoris, she argued, is associated with improper sexuality and improper femininity in general (455-457). A woman, she argued, could adapt to any sexual practice, and enjoy it- even rape (456). Certainly, no effort should be made to please her.  Hischmann and Berger agreed, connecting vaginal orgasm not only to proper femininity, but heterosexuality as well (459). Thus, when Koedt and other feminists attacked the “vaginal orgasm”, they were arguing against not only the idea that orgasms in women were mostly vaginal, but also the expectations for femininity associated with them.

Helene Deutsch.

    Her second section, “Clitoral Visions”, examines sexual thought, as it pertains to women, from 1953-1966. Kinsey, Masters, and Johnson all challenged the existence of vaginal orgasm, and argued for an understanding of sexuality that was based in pleasure, not reproduction- and thus, they focused on clitoral orgasm (460). They discovered that vaginal intercourse was not what was most pleasurable for most women, and that in fact, women behave sexually like men, and enjoy clitoral simulation (461-462). Both feminists and sex revolutionaries found these findings useful, but feminists also criticized the sexologists for being focused solely on the body, not on psychological responses, and being unconcerned with politics, and both criticized their maintenance of the status quo, as Kinsey, Masters, and Johnson  were mostly concerned with improving marital sex.  (461, 463).

     Her third section, “The Politics of Sexual Freedom”, explores sexual thought from 1968-1973, which is the era in which Koedt wrote her text. Like the sexologists from the earlier period, most sex revolutionaries emphasized the bodily (464). Much to the frustration of feminists, and women in general, the “radical” men of this period, looked at sex in an entirely ungendered way, and put forth an idea of freedom that only amounted to , “I have the right to have sex with women whenever I want, and they have the right to have sex with men whenever they want.” (465). There was little to no advocacy for  the social or political freedom that was badly needed for women to truly have a liberated sexuality, and women were subjected to sexism, objectification, and assault in the pursuit of this particular kind of sexual “freedom” (465, 468).  Black women, and other women of color, were especially subjected to sexual exploitation and violence, and they found that many white feminists  instead of working with them, were unwilling to examine these consequences of racism (471).

            Feminists in this period, including Koedt, were part of a productive dialogue, in which “a range of perspectives” were put forward. They agreed on little, but the conversation had not yet transformed into the divisive Sex Wars of the 1980s (450). Agreed upon goals were to emphasize the importance of the clitoris, see women’s sexuality as “female sexuality”, not heterosexual or homosexual sexuality, and to criticize the two main constructions of women’s sexuality in a way that would allow for the development of  women's sexual empowerment and agency (451). These two constructions were the original construction of sexuality, advanced by Freud and still present, which approved only of sexually passive women, and the modern construction of sexuality, advanced by the sexual revolutionaries, that defined women primarily by her sexuality, and expected women to be sexual only with men (451).  Many of these ideas were originally Koedt’s, or formed with her help, and all are highlighted in the treatise.

    Koedt, in her text, emphasizes that these constructions of female sexuality resulted in women experiencing feelings of guilt, inadequacy, and shame, and were constantly receiving messages how they should be behaving, sexually, everywhere, and especially from the therapists who they turned to for help (459). She advanced the idea that if women were unhappy with their sex lives, it was not because of anything they were doing or not doing, but because of sexism, homophobia, and mandatory heterosexuality (466). She wanted women to be able to “full sexual agents” who could be responsible for their own sexual pleasure, and she believed that the clitoris was integral here, because anyone, the woman herself, or a partner of any gender, could pleasure her via the clitoris (466-467). Feminists in general, in this period emphasized intimacy, love, psychological pleasure, and lesbianism and bisexuality, as important components of women’s sexuality (469-471).

    Overall, I was really impressed by this article, which I found through, helpful, and attentive to many other women’s experiences- unlike in other articles, queer women and women of color are not ignored, although more attention to Black women’s criticism of not only “radical” men, but white feminists as well, would have been good, and I am also interested in how trans women figured into all of this. But as a whole, the argue provided a good, cursory overview of the period that incorporated multiple views and experiences.

    

"The Moral Significance of Female Orgasm" Review

    In her article, "The Moral Significance of the Female Orgasm: Toward Sexual Ethics That Celebrates Women’s Sexuality”, published in a 1993, in volume 9 of Journal of Feminist Studies of Religion, Mary D. Pellauer suggests important questions concerning the orgasm that she believes the feminist movement and women working on women’s sexuality and experiences in academia, should address. Published in 1993, this is the earliest of the academic articles that I will be reviewing, which is why it is also the first I am reviewing. It will be interesting, moving forward, to see the extent to which the questions Pellauer suggests here, are addressed and answered. In this particular piece, she does not attempt to answer many of the questions she poses, leaving it largely open for other writers and researchers.

        I don’t know that this diminishes the article’s significance, as some of the questions posed, just by nature of them being asked, complicate or nuance the traditional narrative that surrounds woman’s orgasm. Some of these questions are: What are the differences between women who find talk of orgasm exciting, and are willing to participate in discussions, and those who feel that they’ve talked about it too much, and do not want to hear about it? (165). Does the ability to have orgasms confer moral status? (165). Can sex without orgasm still be good sex? (165). Is orgasm a male-dominated standard for evaluating sex? (165). How do your backgrounds inform our orgasmic experiences? (167-170). Should we ask “should woman have orgasms?” and should the answer be yes? (177). Should women take orgasms more for granted, or should men take them less for granted? (179). Interestingly, in 2014, over twenty years later, I don’t think there are conclusive answers to any of these questions. These are all still relevant today.

     She does attempt to make some assertions, in the form of guidelines for discussions about orgasm, which can be briefly laid out. She argues that as important as it is to correct misconceptions about the female orgasm, it is also imperative that we “create more adequate accounts of female sexuality”. (161). And that is what she begins to do here. She also emphases the importance of the fact that women, unlike men, do not take orgasm for granted in their sexual relations, and encourages us to investigate the causes and consequences for this. (162-165). She stresses that is important when we discuss the significance of orgasm, to remember women who have not or cannot orgasm, and not marginalize their experience or shame them for it. (181).

       She also suggests “six important elements” in orgasmic experience, that she feels are important both to the experience, and investigations of that experience. There are: (1) “being here-and-now” (how “in the moment” one is during sex, and how varied sexual likes/dislikes/needs can be depending on specific circumstances), (2) the varieties of the orgasmic sensation, (3) the experience of ecstasy, (4) vulnerability, (5) power, and (6) the fact that, again, none of this, for women, is taken for granted.  (170-175).

      She makes a second list as well, of four “phonological problems”, or problems that she experiences or anticipates in discussing the female orgasm. They are: (1) that orgasms are brief and overwhelming, and thus hard to describe, (2) in order to describe it one must also be able to remember a single orgasm and keep it separate from other orgasms one has experienced which she says is difficult, (3) orgasms are very different from one another, both between women, and in the same woman, and finally (4) that woman do not talk about orgasmic experience enough for women to have an idea of whether their experience of orgasm is different from other women’s experiences. (167-168).

          At each point, while she writes about these elements, she discusses her own personal experience with these things, as she experiences them in her sexual relations with her husband. She admits that, in focusing on her personal experiences with her husband, she is focusing only on sexual relations with men, and ignoring personal fantasy and masturbation-to-orgasm (176). She is also ignoring sex with women, though she doesn’t explicitly state that. In general, Pellauer frequently emphases that she wants a “multiplicity” of women’s stories, and that she does not speak for other women, cannot do so, and therefore does not universalize, focusing only on her own personal, individual experience. She stresses that she is a “1” on the Kinsey scale (very heterosexual), white, Lutheran, highly educated, and well-off financially, and that her (very privileged) experience cannot speak for all women (168).

      The Kinsey scale.

     Of course, this perspective is also the most commonly discussed narrative. In some ways, this is good, as she is right that her experience is not all women’s experience, and she shouldn’t assume that it is. However, I wished she had then done some research into other women’s experiences, so that she could speak to that, instead of just accepting that she can’t and leaving it at that, so she provide us with some useful answers to her questions and ideas.  Her own personal experiences alone, regardless of her background, really don’t tell us too much about women’s orgasmic experience in general (not even about all WASP straight women, as she focuses so strongly on details specific  to her as an individual), which is why I am not discussing them here- although when we write about the collection of individual narratives we’ve read, her perspective will of course be included.

        Some important statistics given this article: 10% of women, in 1990, had never experienced orgasm, and of the 90% that had, 50-70% did not have orgasms by “penile thrusting” alone (163). 23% of women who have orgasmed experienced their first orgasm before the age of fifteen, and 90% of the woman who have orgasmed, experienced their first orgasm before the age of thirty-five.