Research - College Students and Sexual Pleasure

INTRO

A part of our project was doing our own sociological research at Clark University. We created a short survey to measure responses quantitatively and used convenience sampling in recruiting our participants. A link of the study and recruitment information were posted on Clark University groups on a social media service. The study was inspired by a similar study looking at determinants of sexual enjoyment and an article assessing the gender inequality in hook up culture. Receiving oral sex, a skilled partner and intimacy between partners helped women achieve orgasms more often (446, 448, 453). However, our current culture of hooking up is inequal, women are much more likely to give than to receive oral sex. They also have difficulty communicating their desires to partners in short term relationships. 

DATA

Our sample consisted of 79 participants: 73% women, 26% men, 1% transgender and 1% gender queer.

Most participants identified as heterosexual: 81% straight, 8% gay and lesbian, 8% bisexual, 2% pansexual, 1% queer.

88% engaged in sexual activities (oral, vaginal, anal, digital), 91% of those who are sexually active also engaged in sexual activities while in college

51% have been in long term relationships and 50% have been in short term relationships

In long term relationships: 63% experienced orgasms frequently, 100% valued their partner's experience and 84% valued their own experience

In short term relationships: only 31% experienced orgasms frequently, 81% valued their partner's experience and 72% valued their own experience

BARRIERS

There were several limitations to our study. Firstly, we lacked a qualitative component that could have gone more in depth about the experiences college students have. We could have conducted interviews, but we believed subjects would be reluctant in openly talking about their experiences to researchers who went to the same school. Confidentiality could be maintained, but participants might not feel comfortable discussing a taboo subject in such detail.

Another issue was the female skew we saw in participants. Our study was not aimed at the experiences of women only, but rather wanted to compare results across genders, sexual identities and orientations. Having a heavily female sample can give us more distribution in the data on women, but it also limits us by keeping all other groups in small proportions.

The sampling may also reflect issues. Since sexuality is such a taboo subject in many societies, it would not be a surprise if several students decided not to participate due to the subject matter of the survey. This discourages participants from making their behaviors and attitudes known for study.

Designing the study also posed problems when we were collecting data. Not agreeing on what a word or phrase means can provide inaccurate results that do not reflect the true image of the population, in this case, Clark University students. Terms such as relationship (long and short term) had to be clearly defined in the study. Short term relationships were considered to be shorter than a month and included hook ups and one night stands, long term relationships were those lasting for more than 6 months. 

CONCLUSIONS

The most surprising discovery is that both male and female participants seems to care more about the experience of their partner than their own. This may be due to not wanting to seem inexperienced. 

The data show what we have expected. Women experience fewer orgasms and give more than they get compared to men. Long term relationships allow women and men to experience more orgasms, more communication, less judgement, more giving and receiving and an increased value attached to sexual enjoyment. 

References

Armstrong, EA.; England, P.; Fogarty, ACK. Accounting for women's orgasm and sexual enjoyment in college hookups and relationships. American Sociological Review, 77(3), 435-462. 2012 

In Hookups, Inequality Still Reigns (Well In Hookups Inequality Still Reigns Comments)

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/women-find-orgasms-elusive-in-hookups/?_r=0

Where do we learn about this?

A subject as rich as sexuality would surely be discussed in theory on gender. Students studying social sciences would surely come across chapter deconstructing the meaning of sex as a social behavior. It turns out that not so much, in fact. Our assigned texts did a fantastic job at showing gender in social institutions, however there is no topic dealing exclusively with human sexuality. The issue of the orgasm, male and female, is not tackled either although it stands at the center of our definition of sexual activity.

Mentions of sexuality are present in Kimmel's book in various sections, however there is no concentrated chapter looking into the matter. The Weitz reader has some chapters that almost touch upon the issue of female orgasm and sexual pleasure, however, the perspective of these articles is more specialized in looking at other issues in sexuality, such as breasts, the body, black femininity and sexuality and subcultures. 

The lack of information on female orgasms in the literature, in itself, seems to be a bigger statement that may emphasize that even scholars have a difficult time stepping out of ideology. 
It also raises questions about sexual education, especially in a country where sex ed is not always offered or is not medically accurate. The missing conversation on the topics of sexuality and sexual pleasure carries on the notion that sexual activity is centered around reproduction, reinforcing the male-dominated heteronormative views of society. 

References
Kimmel, Michael S. The Gendered Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Weitz, Rose, and Samantha Kwan. The Politics of Women's Bodies: Sexuality, Appearance, and Behavior. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.

A Sociological Sexuality Model

The paper starts by listing the critiques for popular human sexuality theories. Freud's theory is rejected for being too psychological in approach and being centered a specific time and place (early 20th century Vienna), Marxist perspectives do not follow because gender roles are not influenced exclusively by the mode of production, and sociobiological discoveries fail to account for cross-cultural differences noted by anthropologists (Reiss, 233). His view emphasizes comparative sociology and connections to cultural anthropology.

http://modernpsychologist.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Sociobiology-Times.jpg

Having rejected there theoretical perspectives, the author constructs his own human sexuality model. His approach is at the macro-level, looking for patterns in aggregates, as micro-level interactions may contaminate the data since it wouldn't provide clear distinctions between separate categories (Reiss, 234). He then defines sex, gender role and sexuality as follows: sex is the genetic sex, gender role is what theorists referred to incorrectly as sex role-learned social behaviors, and sexuality is composed of "those cultural scripts aimed at erotic arousal that produce genitalia responses" (Reiss, 234). Furthermore, the process is not innate, but learned behavior (Reiss, 234).

Sexuality is important is all cultures as a process of human interactions; societies will either encourage or restrict it (Reiss, 235). However, the author does not think reproduction has a significant role in this cross-cultural interest in sexuality. Looking at nonindustrial cultures, he noted that becoming pregnant is not the center of sexuality, but rather the effect of a particular type of sexual interaction, "repetitive coitus with one's marriage partner", and raising children is a collective activity, not the independent responsibility of one woman (Reiss, 235).

http://en.slovoidilo.ua/uploads/news/7a941704bd72667a788eab044cbe4b24.png

Next, Reiss looks at ideology as the fundamental general perspective, "our ideological beliefs [...] promote our popular perspectives on sexual normality" (Reiss, 237). Opinion polls from the era suggest that women were much more in favor of economic, political, religious and social equality, but were not as accepting of equal sexual rights (Reiss, 237). On the other hand, men were accepting sexual equality, but were reluctant to embrace overall gender equality.

Reiss talks about the male premature ejaculation again. This time he compares it to the fact that a woman being able to achieve orgasms in a short amount of time is praised for being responsive and her orgasm can help her male partner feel like an adequate lover (Reiss, 238).

Reference:
Ira L. Reiss, "A Sociological Journey into Sexuality" Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 48, No. 2 (pp. 233-242) , May, 1986

Ideology, Sociology, Sexuality

Reiss's paper analyzes the origin and relation of certain ideas concerning sexuality.

Firstly, he discusses biological differences, based on hormones and states that androgen is related to aggressiveness and sexual motivation and is more present in males than females (Reiss, 273). While the average male has more androgen, there are many differences within sex categories. Also, learning behaviors can alter our hormonal tendencies, showing that in this case nurture wins over nature (Reiss, 273).

Discussing normative behavior, the author analyzes a series of cultural phenomena present in our society.

http://www.joshreads.com/images/09/11/i091123shoe.gif

He chooses to start his discussion with the issue of premature ejaculation, noting that our construction of the word references the female orgasm as the central one since the male ejaculation is said to be achieved before this culturally imposed standard (Reiss, 276). The author notes that some South African, male-dominated societies do not have this concept of premature ejaculation. Further on, he asks why the typical response from therapists for men who encountered premature ejaculation isn't to tell them to "bring the female to orgasm orally or manually"(Reiss, 276). He suggests that our current sexual ideology focuses on penetrative, heterosexual intercourse that reinforces traditional sexuality .(Reiss, 276). According to him, our culture is aimed at promoting the male orgasm more than the female orgasm (Reiss, 276). The man is the one who directs the sexual encounters, who initiates, who decides within our cultural sex ideology (Reiss, 276). These hegemonic ideas pressure our bodies, behaviors and attitudes into conforming roles (Reiss, 278).

Our sexual history maintains the myth of absolute virginity, especially during the Puritan period, however, data shows that the a large number of people, men and women, engaged in premarital sex

(Reiss, 278). Male nonvirginity is rarely celebrated and in almost all known cultures most of the males reaching the age of physical maturity are not virgins (Reiss, 278). This has been influenced by men's position of authority in society. Their access to power allowed them to define a sexual code at their advantage, with cultural practices and beliefs enforced by socialization and enculturation. 

In the conclusion of his article, Reiss talks about the clash of two opposing ideologies in 1980s American society. Traditional Romantic ideology, emphasizing female sexual subservience and inferiority, is opposing the Modern-Naturalistic view that embraces gender equality and values sexual experiences of both men and women in various expressions (Reiss, 280). He notes that while tolerance and equality in sex were increasing, this ideology of acceptance and equality was not in a dominant position in society, hence unable to change the status quo (Reiss, 281).

Reference: 

Ira L. Reiss, "Some Observations on Ideology and Sexuality in America" Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 43, No. 2 (pp. 271-283), May, 1981

Women in Gynecology Textbooks

The Scully and Bart piece published in 1973 analyses 27 gynecology texts written from 1943 to 1972 by looking at the viewpoint presented. The scholars conclude that the literature remains oriented towards maintaining the male-dominated, traditional views of sexuality despite the revolutionary findings of Kinsey, Masters and Johnson (Scully and Bart, 1048). Overall, ideas of the centrality of motherhood in women's lives persists, while men as defined by their active sexual responses and desires.

The authors note that "one's perspectives are constrained by one's place in the social structure and thus gynecologists may not adequately represent the interests of the group they are supposed to attend and advocate" (Scully and Bart, 1045). An overwhelming majority of male practitioners would mean that the field lacks a female perspective on what is a female health issue.  Considering that 40 years ago, when this article was published, over 90% of gynecologists were male, it is not hard to imagine that their academic writings on the subject reflected their male perspectives and portrayed female sexuality in a way that maintained traditional sex-role stereotypes (Scully and Bart, 1045). 

MOTHERHOOD
Gynecology texts from 1943 to 1972 revolve around the idea that women as "anatomically destined to reproduce, nurture" (Scully and Bart, 1045). One text refers to the experience of motherhood as an "urge" (Scully and Bart, 1046). This biological explanation is used to define the role of females in a very strict way which does not allow for possible deviant behaviors and attitudes. In the medical literature, the natural inclination for motherhood is balanced by sexual pleasure, considered "entirely secondary or even absent" (Scully and Bart, 1046). In other words, the automatic, biological female response is seeking motherhood, while sexual response is not important or present as women as frigid.

FRIGIDITY
The texts dating from this period assume that women are "almost universally generally frigid" (Scully and Bart, 1046). Their role in sexual health is defined as constricted to motherhood, while men are defined as active and pursuing their sexual drives. This was done, in the case of women, by reporting that the vagina was the main erogenous zone, even after Kinsey debunked the myth of vaginal orgasms (Scully and Bart, 1047). The vagina was considered the "mature response", while the role of the clitoris was greatly diminished and linked to immaturity and frigidity (Scully and Bart, 1047). This generalized female sexual unresponsiveness, the passivity, was for some authors part of the core of the female personality (Scully and Bart, 1048). The construction of the myth of female frigidity was in opposition to the active male sex, who had an insatiable appetite for intercourse (Scully and Bart, 1046).

MALE SEXUAL DRIVE
These texts in a woman-oriented field claimed that women are biologically designed to keep their husbands happy, they are to at the control of their male counterparts (Scully and Bart, 1045). Sexually, women are frigid, unable to perceive or care about pleasure, but men have a much greater appetite and capacity for intercourse. So, their sexual contacts already have a paradoxical nature, however they were greatly encouraged. Gynecologists were told to suggest that patients, unresponsive in nature, should deceive their partners by using innocent simulation (Scully and Bart, 1046). Faking sexual interest or an orgasm was part of making your husband happy. 

"The frequency of intercourse depends entirely upon the male sex drive ... The bride should be advised to allow her husband's sex drive to set their pace and she should attempt to gear hers satisfactorily to his."(Scully and Bart, 1048).

This was advice given to young women in 1970, a time was less than 30% of women had premarital sex (CDC, 1991). Men were described in the literature as wanting to dominate and subjugate women(Scully and Bart, 1048). It means that the submissive behavior was natural, but for women it was also learned behavior, as a means of social control. The norm was that women had to adapt to the male response their husbands exhibited or else there was a "real [medical] problem" (Scully and Bart, 1048).

INTENTIONAL SELECTIVITY
The article notes the rigidity in textbooks along the studied decades. After Kinsey, Masters and Johnson made their discoveries in human sexuality, most textbooks cherry-picked the data to present their points of view. Result? Most books included some details pertaining to male sexuality, but failed to include any of the discoveries on female sexuality such as the myth of the vaginal orgasm or the existence of female multiple orgasms (Scully and Bart, 1047). This level of selectivity of results leads the authors to characterize the general tone of gynecology literature as having a male bias (Scully and Bart, 1048). The evidence does indeed point to severe opposition to change in mentalities concerning human sexuality. Women's sexuality is barely researched and discussed, although the lack of knowledge can be detrimental for public health. 

FOREVER MALE FIELD?
The article dates back from 1973 and we are seeing changes. While almost two thirds of ob-gyn doctors are male, the majority of those training are women.The increased supply of female doctors can benefit research and policy making by bringing a new perspective and patients can feel like their doctors can empathize with them. However, the current demand for ob-gyn doctors is skewed towards the female applicants, their male counterparts feel unwelcome in a job market that is searching for female doctors.  http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/07/us/women-s-health-is-no-longer-a-man-s-world.html


RELATION TO ORGASMS
The literature has changed from the 1970s, but many of these deeply embedded beliefs have carried over to this generation, some have turned into other forms of controlling and underplaying female sexuality. Female orgasms are not discussed, are considered nonexistent, unimportant. The problem with medical literature that is not accurate is that is reinforces gendered social behaviors and attitudes, instead of objective results. Beliefs and stereotypes are heavily used used in social interactions, thus it is no surprise that these are some of the most popular ideas in regards to female orgasms we currently hold seem to stem back from a few generations ago  http://www.everydayhealth.com/sexual-health-pictures/dr-laura-berman-top-10-female-orgasm-myths.aspx#01



Reference:
Scully, Diana, and Pauline Bart. "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Orifice: Women in Gynecology Textbooks." In American Journal of Sociology, 1045-1050. Jan. 1973 ed. Vol. 78. University of Chicago Press.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

Current Trends Premarital Sexual Experience Among Adolescent Women -- United States, 1970-1988. 1991

 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001869.htm

Reproduce "Positions to make female orgasm easier during intercourse"

The CAT position

(This stands for coital adjusted technique, but don't let that rather technical and boring title put you off!)

Basically this is a face-to-face position, but the man 'rides much higher' than he would in the missionary position so that his shoulders and head are about six inches higher up the bed than normal.

What this means is that his penis doesn't go all the way into the vagina. Instead, the stem or root of it is pulled hard against the clitoris – producing great sensations in that all-important little organ.

The other difference is that instead of taking his weight on his elbows, the man should simply let his bulk slump onto his partner's upper chest.

Clearly if he's a heavy bloke, this might be a problem!

You can experiment with this position to get it absolutely right for you. Some people do it with the man's legs outside the woman, but you can also try it with his legs inside yours.

Many couples find they can't thrust much in this position so they kind of 'rock' together.

The CAT certainly produces very different sensations from many other positions, so it's worth a try, and it might just take you to the heights of ecstasy. I hope it does.

The free-as-air position

The man lies down on his back. The woman faces the other way and sits down on his penis. Then, in her own time, she gradually lowers herself so that – with his penis inside her – her back is lying fully outstretched on the front of his body.

The woman can feel genuinely weightless and free-as-air – which is quite a novel sensation. Another bonus is that either partner can touch the clitoris easily. So it's different and fun – and usually a great time is had by all.

The Pinner position

This is a particularly good position if you feel nervous about touching your own clitoris. You shouldn't be of course because it's yours – and you should feel perfectly free to stimulate it yourself if you want to.

But the thing about this position is that many men can't really tell if you are touching it or not.

What happens is this.

You lie flat on your front and he lies, face down, on top of you. He then penetrates you from behind.

But because you are flat on the bed, you get very different sensations from any rear-entry position where your bottom is up in the air. And you can slip your hand in between the bed and your body and rub your own clitoris.

Plenty of women who have never 'come' during intercourse have found that they climaxed in the Pinner position.

The spoons position

Finally, 'the spoons'.

This is the position where you lie on your side and your man lies curled up round your bottom (like spoons in a drawer) and penetrates you from behind.

Lots of women like this, though not all of them find it easy to orgasm on their sides. But the great advantage here is that either partner can reach round and rub the clitoris. Also, neither of you is having to take the weight of the other.

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.

    

Orgasm Inc. - Medicalizing Sexual Pleasure

Orgasm Inc., the 2009 documentary, sets out on a journey that explores the intricate industry banking on Female Sexual Dysfunction. It aims to introduce the new gadgets and pharmaceuticals that guarantee sexual fulfillment, while exposing the risks and false communication of research results. This documentary brings together an unexplored market for Big Pharma, cultural gendered norms and women who fall victims of society's mores and customs regarding expression of sexuality. 

Front Cover of Documentary

An important first question raised by the film is the medicalization of orgasm (or lack thereof) - more specifically, where do we draw the line between normal and abnormal, "healthy" and "diseased. The medicalization of sexual pleasure is based on vague symptoms that are not necessarily signs of a dysfunction, but may be natural, temporary imbalances in the organism. The ability to orgasm is impaired by body image issues, psychological barriers or affections, a history of abuse or stress; moreover, a female's libido may be influenced by relationship problems (such as lack of communication), use of antidepressants or contraceptive pills and hysterectomies. The complex biological and psychological dynamics paint a more nuanced picture than what companies trying to capitalize on sexually-unfulfilled women convey in their black-and-white definitions of what an orgasm is.

Screenshot from Orgasm Inc.

Personally, the very definition of this disease is essential, as the construction of the Female Sexual Dysfunction allows companies and practitioners to engage in a battle of leading the development of "cures" and securing a strong market share for such products that claim to dramatically reduce lack of sexual pleasure. The competition for research, FDA approval and release is stiff, as the documentary portrays the efforts of businesses in the field. It is not a surprise that Big Pharma, one of the leading industries of the United States, encourages the aggressive promotion of its cures for sexual dysfunction. The United States are well-known for leading in terms of consumption of prescribed medication, so market estimates for products that guarantee orgasms surely appear optimistic enough for these companies.

Moreover, let's consider the linguistic implications of the Female Sexual Dysfunction. The language employed by companies and advocates of such products is constructed by associating lack of orgasms to a disease, something that is sick in the organism and is in need of a cure. The psychological effect of such language creates fear and confusion around women who are still trying to understand their sexual lives and may not have access to non-biased, accurate information.

Screenshot from Orgasm Inc.

 One of the experts interviewed, owner of "Good Vibrations" refers to the Female Sexual Dysfunction as the hysteria of our ages. A small historical analysis can point to the early 1900s as one essential moment in the medicalization of the orgasm - the hysteria epidemic (click here for an article on hysteria and the first vibrators).