THE lights are dimmed, the music swells. I鈥檓 in a conference hall at the , awaiting the start of a series of talks on the mysteries of the female orgasm. So why am I in semi-darkness listening to a lounge version of Me and Mrs Jones?
This is the kind of thing I鈥檝e got used to over the past three days: a strange blend of science and erotica, including presentations littered with gratuitous images of naked women.
It鈥檚 not really what I expected from a scientific conference. The world is awash with sexualised images and misinformation about female sexuality. I expect it from the tabloid press, but I hoped scientific research would be above that kind of thing. Now I鈥檓 starting to wonder if some of the blame can鈥檛 be laid at its door.
Advertisement
Take the dispute on the evolutionary purpose of the female orgasm. There is a genuine mystery here. While it seems obvious that men鈥檚 orgasms are important for reproduction, a woman doesn鈥檛 need to orgasm to get pregnant. Only about 25 per cent of women say they regularly orgasm via vaginal intercourse alone. If orgasm were vital for reproduction, or for generating a lasting bond between lovers, you might expect them to be more common.
So what is the female orgasm for? I came hoping to hear some ground-breaking science. But many of the ideas were tired old theories with no convincing evidence to support them. For example, that women orgasm purely for the enjoyment and arousal of their male partner, or in order to be immobilised to let the man finish.
鈥淒iscussions about female sexual pleasure involve men arguing about the size of their pet theories鈥�
Another persistent idea is that muscle contractions associated with orgasm aid the passage of sperm cells to the egg. A couple of studies provide evidence for this idea. In 1998, one team showed that a dose of oxytocin 鈥� a hormone thought to be released during orgasm 鈥� seems to . Another study published the same year suggested that women who orgasm during sex . Neither study has been replicated and both have been criticised for their methodology.
Whether there is such a thing as a vaginal orgasm was also debated at the conference, as was the claim that such orgasms are 鈥渂etter鈥� than clitoral ones. The Freudian idea that women鈥檚 ability to have vaginal orgasms is a measure of their psychological development still has currency in some quarters.
Some people are trying to redress the balance 鈥� by attempting to replicate some of these findings and putting forward new theories. One woman鈥檚 presentation on evidence dismissing some of the less palatable theories on female orgasm was met with applause, particularly from the women in the audience. But such work is still rare.
Sexual medicine isn鈥檛 unusual in science in that it is dominated by men, nor that many of its practitioners are wedded to theories where belief can trump data. But it makes me uncomfortable that scientific discussions about female sexual pleasure largely involve men arguing about the size of their pet theories.
Society is already sexist and saturated with myths about female sexuality. If we can鈥檛 rely on the scientists who study this area to approach it without prejudice, who will challenge the stereotypes and bust the myths?
This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淪exism, and the case of the female orgasm鈥�
