Clitoral accidence or penile omnipotence?
on insufficiency of research that determines female pleasure
I'm a big fan of Professor Robert Sapolsky - a neuroendocrinology researcher. I watched his entire series of lectures on human behavior (including sexual behavior) years ago and consumed everything I could find on YouTube. I am amazed by his intellect and passion. I may not agree with everything he says, although my knowledge in the field is just a tiny particle of his. He's not just a theorist; every summer for 30 years, he observed baboons in Africa. He's an atheist, whereas I would describe myself as leaning more towards agnosticism. While I have immense respect for his observations, I haven't heard any recent updates on the importance of female orgasms in the human species. Recent studies suggest a change in this theory. I don't accuse Sapolsky of sexism or misogyny, but I would love to hear his current thoughts on the matter and it seems no male interviewer challenging him with that.
I honestly just copied and pasted the arguments from my favorite clitoris activist Jessica Pin - hahaha - not funny - we live in the penis-dominated world, and some amazing people still need to fight for anatomical justice.
First of all, evolution doesn’t care about your pleasure. The point of pleasure is to motivate you towards some action that raises the probability of successfully passing on your genes.
Some argue the clitoris is just vestigial. But natural selection acts separately on the penis and clitoris. Clitoral morphology varies widely among mammals, all of which have a clitoris.
Clitoral stimulation has been shown to induce physiological changes that make conception more likely. See the paper by Roy Levin.
Anyone who has ever had sex should know that clitoral stimulation is useful for getting women wet and ready for penetration. This is rookie stuff and one of many reasons for the convenience of the glans’ external location.
A lot of people point to how more women have “responsive desire.” Whether or not this is a biological difference or an effect of culture is debatable. But clitoral stimulation, best indirect at first, is one obvious way to trigger desire.
The #1 reason women have sex is because they are attracted. The #2 and #3 reasons women have sex are “for pleasure” and “it feels good.” These are the same as the top reasons for men. Just as penile stimulation motivates sex, so does clitoral stimulation.
Some women say, “But my clitoris isn’t stimulated during intercourse.” A penis cannot penetrate a vagina without making contact with the surrounding vulva, which moves in such a way that even external clitoral stimulation is inevitable. The clitoris is also internal.
The clitoris is the organ most responsible for female orgasm. Orgasm rate is correlated with relationship satisfaction. There is a biological reason men want you to orgasm: it’s a mate retention strategy.
As the organ most responsible for female orgasm, the clitoris is the organ most instrumental in facilitating oxytocin release. Oxytocin is the bonding hormone.
Puts et al. evaluated the evidence for the role of female orgasm and found the most support for sire choice and pair bonding functions. A pair-bonding function is also an essential sire choice function.
Oxytocin release also facilitates sperm transport. Again, as the primary somatosensory organ of female sexual response, the clitoris is the organ most responsible for oxytocin release during heterosexual encounters
“But the most sensitive part of the clitoris, the glans, is not in a good location.” Yes, it is. Human babies have uniquely giant skulls. Note how the clitoral body can bend so the glans can get even farther out of harm’s way. Even so, childbirth can damage the clitoris.
Humans have far more sex than is necessary for reproduction. Why do we waste so much time with non-reproductive sex? The reason is that most sex serves a bonding function. This is why we have hidden estrus. Clitoris -> orgasm -> oxytocin -> bonding.
Even non-partnered sex serves a function for women. Masturbating, which for 98.5% of women involves clitoral stimulation (external location convenient), flushes out bacteria, increases self-esteem, boosts the immune system, and reduces stress, blood pressure, and pain.
Not all sex involves penetration. That we have defined sex as penetration is cultural. Non-penetrative sex, made possible by a sexually responsive vulva/clitoris, serves the primary bonding role without the risk of pregnancy.
Our closest primate relatives, Bonobos, are female-dominated even though the males are larger. Females stay dominant by forming bonds with each other with lesbian sex. One CDC report found 26% of human females 18-24 reported same-sex attraction. Could there be utility here?
The way women don’t orgasm easily from penetration alone may be a feature, not a bug. In the context of a traumatic event, oxytocin has been implicated in the formation of intrusive memories, a hallmark symptom of PTSD. Again, it also facilitates sperm transport.
I challenge anyone to come up with a better design for an organ with the following specs:
facilitates penetration
elicits desire
facilitates bonding
doesn’t get rekt in childbirth
covert sire choice
“self-care” ease
FF utility
Patriarchy leads to the devaluation of the clitoris because it represents:
the possibility of lesbian sex
sexual independence
female desire and thus female mate choice
a loyalty determinant not entirely under male control
female sexual agency, seen as a threat.
Concluding
Men & women report having sex for the same top 3 reasons.
An emotional connection makes sex better for both men & women.
Sex differences in feelings about casual sex disappear when female orgasm is present.
The orgasm gap closes when women are assertive.
Men do not see sex as just a pleasurable experience alone, as vasopressin and oxytocin released with male orgasm play important roles in pair bonding.
Most notably, the sexual double standards are associated with a number of harmful effects, including increased proneness to sexual violence among men, increased risk of experiencing sexual violence among women, and sexual problems among women.
There are way more things that patriarchal bias needs to be revisited. Like in Untrue Why Nearly Everything We Believe About Women, Lust, and Adultery is Wrong and How the New Science Can Set Us Free” Ph.D. Wednesday Martin presents studies that prove how female pleasure plays a role in sexual selection. Another fundamental myth to debunk - is that human males are more prone to visual sexual stimuli. I will elaborate another time on the influence of male porn in our culture and the correlation between female objectification to male violence towards them. Yet it is important to mention that studies show that The brains of men and women react to erotic images in the same way While a woman gets to watch the porn she enjoys, she gets as aroused as a man. So what is crucial is not her visual ability but her visual preferences (which are neglected in mainstream porn produced in the male-dominated industry).
Coming back to Sapolsky, he seems to think outside of the box. Maybe his view has changed over the years and sadly there was nobody challenging him with the right questions. I recently ordered Sapolsky’s newly published book "Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will" and I'm curious to familiarize myself with his arguments. To the occasion of reaching possibly a higher number of readers, he's giving numerous interviews which most of I already watched. However, to my disappointment, despite Sapolsky's apparent opposition to violent cultures, I haven't come across any female interviewers asking him questions about the function of clitoris and female orgasm (which he used to claim are unimportant from an evolutionary perspective ) or a number of other female matters. Those things certainly determine female behavior... (every brain likes rewards surely). But those questions will not be asked by guys perhaps because they have different perspectives/experiences in their bodies, or they lack simply curiosity. So why there's no female interviewer? This could be a great opportunity to ask a brilliant mind, no matter his sex. Even if he doesn't have personal experience with these matters, he is undoubtedly an excellent observer and a promoter of empathy. I understand that YouTube creators are predominantly male, but I am eager to see intelligent female voices engaging in meaningful discussions with his ingenious intellect.
Because I am open-minded and don't judge the book by its cover, I even watched Sapolsky being interviewed by Jordan Peterson (who I criticized for pseudo-intellectual gibberish). JBP is the type of man who uses suggestive, grandiloquent language, and his entire production seems like pure marketing of patriarchal values. Sapolsky comes across as the most ordinary guy with low-quality video, the surface doesn't matter. He is humble. However, his wit and simple yet groundbreaking observations are thought-provoking and eye-opening. I appreciate how he engages in a conversation without prejudice toward Peterson and still challenges him.
I particularly enjoyed the part where they discussed the change in baboon culture in one troop over one generation that Sapolsky had a chance to observe himself. The most aggressive males went extinct because they were competing for human junk leftovers and ended up killing themselves. The kinder males were the ones left, which created a more peaceful environment, leading to a significant drop in stress hormones in females and, therefore, less aggressive offspring. It was a powerful demonstration of how culture and environment impact us and how we, knowing that, can improve that culture. This was a subtle suggestion against violent patriarchy.
I advocate for promoting civil discourse and open conversations free from hate or censorship, as these are crucial for reshaping deeply ingrained beliefs. Diverse perspectives are indispensable in all aspects of our culture, spanning fields like science, medicine, media, art, and religion—these elements collectively shape our coexistence. My core belief is rooted in a simple principle: given that roughly half the population is female, we should strive for equal representation. For instance, male figures such as Peterson may not fully grasp the challenges of childbirth, yet they often assert what's best for women—reducing their role to mere childbearing, which is a glaring double standard, as parenting necessitates both parents' involvement. It's important that no one imposes their will on another, as this amounts to a form of violence.
As a contented single mother, appreciative of my personal journey, it's imperative to me that, beyond deterministic explanations like those from Sapolsky, my body and mind remain autonomous, and others should not dictate choices regarding my body. It's essential that our voices are not only heard but also believed. My message underscores the importance of open dialogue, diversity, a commitment to dispelling antiquated myths and biases, eliminating double standards, and fostering informed discussions in various aspects of life.
MEET ME IN PARIS: I’ll be talking with Marc Feustel from The Eyes about the importance of the female perspective in the context of my debut artist photobook Alltagsfantasie at Paris Photo on Thursday, November 9 at 3 p.m. and signing my book at André Frère’s SE4 stand on Friday, November 10 at 4:45 pm.
Hi, I am Joanna Szproch, a middle-aged woman, a mother of an adult daughter, and an empiricist, and thinker. I am from Generation X, I was born and lived in communist Poland, experienced its transformation, and more than a decade ago I left to become a Berlin resident. Here is where I create, teach, and explore the mystery of life.