A CBC radio program called "One Sex or Two?" that focussed
on female ejaculation was broadcast on IDEAS on 15 February 1995.
Some listeners liked the program and others didn't. A
"review" appeared in the Toronto Sun on April 2nd. Letters were written to the
CRTC and to CBC officials. They are reproduced here, together with a transcript
of the program.
As the producer of this program, I'd like to hear your
reactions to the program, the letters, and the controversy. I'd especially like
to know what you think ought to be done next. The net seems like a good place
for listeners and program-makers to talk about contentious issues. Any ideas?
Our e-mail address is ideas@toronto.cbc.ca.
- Max Allen, producer, IDEAS
"One Sex or Two" is available as an audio cassette from IDEAS Transcripts for $14.95 plus tax and shipping. The transcript is $7.49 which includes GST. You can order from: IDEAS Transcripts, P.O. Box 500, Station A, Toronto M5W 1E6
****** THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE
CBC HAS BECOME AN EXERCISE IN SELF-ABUSE
by Peter Stockland
The Toronto Sun and The Calgary Sun
2 April 1995
Gee, what will the geniuses at CBC try next?
It's a question being asked with anger by listeners subjected
to Mother Corp.'s airing of a radio documentary on female orgasm, complete with
graphic anatomical descriptions of the so-called G-spot whose deft manipulation
reportedly lets some women ejaculate as men do.
How graphic was it? Believe it or not, they actually
had a woman named Shannon Bell masturbate herself to orgasm on air using a "little
yellow vibrator" whilst giving play-by-play about her bodily fluid.
"It tastes fairly good. You can taste your own, but don't
taste anybody else's because that's not safe sex," Bell told listeners who hadn't
thrown their radios out the kitchen window by that point.
I count myself lucky to have missed the original when
it aired last month on the prime time series IDEAS. Reading a transcript of
the show was enough. The raw language used, the crudity of the themes pursued,
would have been right at home in the letters section of the more scurrilous
skin magazines.
Equally bilious, though, was the pseudo-intellectual,
feminist clap-trap wrapped around the more prurient parts for a veneer of academic
respectability to justify such aural soft-core porn.
One who was not fooled by this trickery was Calgary MP
Jan Brown, Reform Party critic for the CBC, who's demanding Mother Corp. explain
airing such vulgarity.
"It's so far outside the bounds of acceptable community
standard [sic] it's beyond belief," Brown told me.
She stressed she has no prudish qualms about such topics
being discussed in appropriate settings -- e.g. a doctor's office or counselling
session. She just doesn't think her constituents -- or other Canadians -- want
it boomed at them by the tax-funded national broadcaster.
"I don't advocate censorship, but what happened to basic
judgment? Is this what we want our public radio to do?" she demanded.
Brown's hopeful other citizens who detest such tasteless,
de-humanizing material will let her know so she can bring pressure to bear on
the CBC powers that be.
"It's got to be the population at large that demands
accountability or it will just be worse the next time."
Ironically, the program's conclusion not only justified
that concern, but detailed why she's correct. After all the bathroom-talk about
sexual appendages and orifices was completed, after Sharon [sic] Bell's little
vibrator hummed its last, a University of Toronto chap explained why our enlightened
age encourages women to masturbate on public radio while our less progressive
ancestors would have blanched at the whole notion.
"These were profoundly prudish societies and the idea...would
have seemed to them absolutely obscene," said Edward Shorter, who directs U
of T's history of medicine program.
But why, an intensely-progressive CBC interviewer asked,
were these earlier societies so prudish?
"They had a sense of human transcendence that we don't,
a sense of man-God relations -- the fact that we are put on this Earth to do
something else than achieve our own self-actualization," Shorter said.
"If one sees religious fulfillment as the purpose of
life, then things like human sexuality decidedly take a second rank because
they direct one's attention toward one's self, toward one's inner workings rather
than outwards toward the Godhead as it's supposed to be."
He did not worry that the loss of our "human transcendence,"
our "sense of man-God relations," lets us debase a fellow human being by exploiting
her sexuality as raw material for a radio program.
He did not fear that our newfound "self-actualization"
dumps the unitive and procreative beauty of human sexual relations into the
mire of masturbatory fantasy. On the contrary, he said, we're better freed of
such "artificial" moral constraints.
We must, he said, "accept (that) the rules of the game
in 1995" mean there are no rules of the game anymore.
Gee, doesn't that hint at what the geniuses at CBC will
try next -- i.e. anything they can get away with unless they're stopped.
[PRODUCER'S NOTE: In fairness to Edward Shorter, Stockland misstates by omission, revision, and outright invention what Professor Shorter said on the program, a complete transcript of which is included at the end of this posting.]
THE LETTERS:
* [[1]] To the producers of IDEAS:
On Wednesday evenings when I tune into the program IDEAS
I am, for the most part, pleasantly surprised at the content--which usually
promises me an hour of interesting and informative radio.
On Wednesday evening last, February 15th, I was surprised
all right, but not pleasantly! Granted I did not hear the introductory comments
to the program, but as the hour passed I became more and more disgusted and
angry that I and countless others across Canada should be saddled with such
appalling junk. In my opinion this material might have some place in a pulp
magazine, but not on a national radio program.
Was I to believe that there was some cultural or artistic
merit in the woman's description of the female ejaculatory processes when she
has been sexually aroused? Moreover, did we need to have a detailed description
of the "how-to-do-it" masturbation--complete with some orgasmic heavy breathing
sequences? Frankly, I failed to find any redeeming features in this so-called
documentary whatsoever. I write to register my protest at the subject matter
chosen for this segment. I am disappointed in you.
Murray ...
British Columbia
* [[2]] To Lister Sinclair:
The IDEAS program on female ejaculation was great! I
applaud CBC for its willingness to enter risky territory. I came home and turned
on the radio (a conditioned response) about half way into the program--to the
surprise and confusion of my ears! The commentator returned shortly and told
newcomers that the woman we had just heard was alright, she had just had an
orgasm!! Instead of going to bed, I sat down and thoroughly enjoyed the rest
of the program. Please find my cheque enclosed for $7 for a transcript and also
the reading list.
Lana ...
Ontario
* [[3]] To the CBC:
My full attention was not on the radio on Wed. evening
after the 10 pm news so I do not know the name of the program.
However, after hearing the pornography of the airwaves
with a moment by moment graphic description of ongoing female masturbation,
I am disgusted that such obscenity was permitted, and STRONGLY protest again
it ever happening again.
What people do and say in private is their own affair.
Love between people is good but is not to be aired or viewed by others.
Your standards have fallen to the gutter.
Patricia ...
Nova Scotia
* [[4]] To Lister Sinclair and IDEAS:
I would like to congratulate you on your programming
in general. It is almost always fascinating. (A few too many classical music
programs--we can listen to it all evening on every weeknight and there is no
shortage of classical music on weekends either). In particular I wish to commend
you on your program on female ejaculation. It was extremely respectful of women
as a celebration of female sexuality. I appreciate this because it was not pornographic
and belittling like so much of our media is. So a big pat on the back for that!
Could you please mail me the reading list. And could
I please have a schedule of IDEAS for the 1995 season.
Thank you very much and keep up the excellent work. In
little towns like mine where there is not much in the way of "culture" it keeps
our minds hopping. I love to listen to CBC when I am sitting at my spinning
wheel in the evening.
Kirsten ...
British Columbia
* [[5]] To Allan Darling, Secretary General,
CRTC:
I am writing this letter to you to lodge a formal complaint
at the highest level.
On Wednesday February 15, 1995, The CBC Radio station
in my home town broadcasted a show called "IDEAS". This was the first time I
listened to this program so I don't know what it's mandate is nor do I really
care at this point. Because what I had listened to has appalled me.
The show's topic was Women's sexuality. The show was
bordering pornography at the first but during the last part they took a full
turn and was to me pornography.
I was sitting at my kitchen table when I heard the host
of the program comment, "if you are not open to new ideas or are a bit squamish,
you can wash your dishes now or put the children to bed." This many not be the
exact comment but it is as close that I can remember. The next thing I was listening
to a lady MASTURBATING on the air!! This lady was explaining exactly what she
was doing in very graphic detail.
This whole ordeal took about fifteen minutes. Then she
did the whole thing over again. She was explaining what she was doing and spoke
how much she was enjoying herself pleasure.
Mr. Secretary, is this where my tax dollars are going
to?
Where are the morals of the journalist who covered this
story?
Is this type of pornography allowed on the public airways?
Is this the next new program for the CBC Television?
Mr. Darling I'm appalled that this type of program with
this sexual conduct would get pass the C.R.T.C. Just what is your job?
Please Mr. Darling I am asking for your immediate attention
with this matter. I will be looking forward to your reply in the very near future.
Please be advised that I have forwarded a copy of this
letter to the Ombudsman for CBC, my federal member of parliament and my provincial
member in St. John's Newfoundland.
Thank you for giving this matter top priority.
Todd ...
Newfoundland
* [[6]] To IDEAS:
A regular CBC Radio fan, I have the radio tuned to CBC
all the time and often enjoy jumping into the middle of a conversation or programme.
Such was the case this past Wednesday, February 15. I had just finished my evening
swim and had jumped into a cold car and was driving out of the parking lot.
Imagine my reaction to have tuned into the middle of
a woman's orgasm. Delighted as I was to be there during her climax, I was amazed
as the woman continued to extol the merits and preferred technique of using
her vibrator to achieve ejaculation. The whole subject fascinated me and I wish
I had the courage to order a cassette copy of the programme. Alas, I don't.
But please send me a copy of the reading list. I feel a little like I'm pretending
to buy Playboy for the articles but I'll be damned if I'm going to pass up an
opportunity to know more about such a subject. Frankly, I suspect CBC will soon
be self financing once word of the programme gets out. Imagine if this had been
a co-production with CBC television!
Sandy ...
Nova Scotia
* [[7]] To Lister Sinclair, host of IDEAS:
In a recent letter to the CBC I deplored the decline
from the significant to the trivial in such programs as Morningside and As It
Happens. I also stated that other programs, including yours, maintain a high
standard of excellence in terms both of host and content.
This is still true of programs which you host yourself.
(I did appreciate Ideas in the Summer). But those programs hosted and developed
by others leave something to be desired. But last night's program on female
ejaculation knocks the bottom out of the barrel. Oh, I am not prudish. I was
very interested. But they failed to distinguish between lubrication fluid and
ejaculate at the beginning, which left me confused through more than half the
program.
Secondly, you said that there would be no foul language.
Well, there was. One of the women used the f... word to designate intercourse,
which made me wonder what, precisely, the whole program was about. One of the
women masturbated on the air. I do not see a reasonable purpose in this. I find
it offensive. If a man had done this, the feminists would have raised a storm.
Do women have special privileges?
Certain ideas, or rather statements, were repeated several
times, hammered in, generally statements that blamed men. It seems to me that
men acted more from ignorance than ill-will or desire to dominate, even the
ignorance created by the biologist's obsession with (species) survival function.
But the worst of it was the frequent emotional tone of accusation and hostility
against men. I find that disturbing and insulting. No man could get away with
such a tone Once more I must ask, Do women have special privileges?
I am sick and tired of being emotionally battered by
feminists. I am a man of liberal and humanistic principles. Indeed, I am a man
of compassion. I have a natural tendency to side with the underdog. I have always
treated women as equals and have stood for equality. I do not deserve such treatment.
Yet I have to suffer it, when I want to hear an informative broadcast on the
CBC.
But it is not only women who demonstrate to me that the
oppressed can easily turn into oppressors. I have been the target of discrimination
and prejudice also in Quebec simply because I couldn't speak French. This is
even carried into other countries. A native of the Dominican Republic (national
language is Spanish) addressed a Quebecer in English and was scolded for his
pain and lectured that he should speak French instead of English. And when I
worked on northern Manitoba Indian settlement with Native self-government and
school board I, and the other white teachers, had to take daily verbal abuse.
In one case it was even life-threatening. What I have disclosed here, is not
politically correct. Is my experience not politically correct? Do we live in
a dictatorship?
When I arrived in Canada in 1957, thirty-eight years
ago, I fell in love with country and people. That lasted 15-20 years. Since
then it has been one disappointment and one disillusionment after another, and
painful experiences piled on other painful experiences. Rudeness, intolerance
to independent thinking, impotence vis-a-vis corporate business, utter lack
of empathy, fads and fashions even in education and the individual's need to
jump on the bandwagon, only to throw it out utterly when the fashion changes.
I have had it, Sir. Later this year, when my money comes, I shall leave Canada
for good, not to go to my European country of origin but to a Spanish-speaking
country. I have sometimes been told, Why don't you go back to where you come
from, if you don't like it. Well, I am now ready to take that intolerant and
inhospitable advice.
Rougard ...
Manitoba
* [[8]] To IDEAS:
Please send a copy of your reading list for last night's
IDEAS program on women's sexual arousal techniques and history.
You will no doubt receive negative opinions about your
program. But I found it wonderfully fascinating and enlightening and indeed
expect to find it an aid to better living.
Canadian ignorance about the body, both female and male,
is appalling. The way to learn about ourselves is not through blackboard lecture,
encyclopaedic writings or mumbling embarrassees.
Your personalized straight talk and honest, open, unabashed
description of what really goes on--and how to make it happen yourself--or in
my case with a partner, remains in the mind like the images of good poetry.
Your truly sensitive probing (sorry, I couldn't resist)
of one of life's great mysteries and most powerful pleasures is the kind of
thing I have come to expect from Lister Sinclair and all of you at IDEAS. It
is the reason I am a regularly fascinated listener to this my favourite of CBC
radio's first class offerings. Thank you. Again and again.
Joe ...
British Columbia
* [[9]] To Anthony Manera, Acting Chair, President
and CEO of the CBC. cc: Keith Spicer, CRTC; Rosemarie Ur, MP, Lambton Middlesex;
Rosanne Skoke, MP, Central Nova.
I have long been a fan of CBC radio and television and
have never been in favour of budget cuts that may affect their programming.
However, on Wednesday evening, February 15, as I was driving home with my car
radio set to CBC, the program IDEAS was airing. The topic was sexuality and
I didn't pay much attention for a while. Then I couldn't believe my ears as
a woman (she was leading a workshop) started to explain in great detail how
to achieve female ejaculation. She actually went through a verbal demonstration,
complete with heavy breathing ("I'm really getting turned on" she told us) and
then her shriek when she achieved her goal. She went through this not once,
but twice. We were told that she liked to do this to herself using a mirror
so she could watch, and she felt she should let us know that it tasted nice.
But (perhaps to be politically correct) she did let us know we shouldn't taste
anyone else's (ejaculate) as that was not "practicing safe sex".
I do not believe that I am a prude and I'm not shocked
very easily, but I say in my garage in disbelief at what I was hearing. Did
the CBC really feel it was necessary to tell women how to masturbate? Are most
of the women in this country looking for this kind of information? (I am sure
there are plenty of books available to those who want to learn about this.)
I can't help but feel this is aimed at the lesbian population.
I feel this program was in extremely poor taste. If it
were on a private station, one could boycott the sponsor. What can we do when
it is on our national station? Perhaps only express our anger that tax money
is spent on the production of this extremely offensive material.
I hope you will investigate my complaint and give me
the courtesy of a reply.
Jane ...
Ontario
* [[10]] To Max Allen, IDEAS producer:
Well, there I was, in my faded flannelette nightie and
my woolly slippers, padding wearily around the kitchen with a mug of hot milk
about to fill my hot water bottle and betake myself to bed early, when I thought,
"No no no, Margaret, what you need is some intellectual stimulation. Stir yourself!
Make an effort! Stay up late tonight and listen to IDEAS! Whatever is on is
bound to expand your horizons." So I turned on the radio, mid-programme, trusting
IDEAS, as always to provide the much needed stimulation.
It was female ejaculation night.
My first thought was "Who produced this? and my second
was "I should have done it when I had the chance!" Some years ago in London
I was invited to a female orgasm (and I think ejaculation) workshop, which my
producer cheerfully assured me meant sitting on top of mirrors with dildos.
And you know, I didn't have the nerve. And NOW look what's happened. A whole
show about it on IDEAS. Oh the great missed opportunities in my reporting career.
...
What I want to know is, are you SURE your ejaculating
contributor is all right? I was glad of the reassurance, but a bit unconvinced.
Mind you, I though two raccoons were killing each other in a tree the other
night, but they were just mating and I'm sure they're all right now, too.
So I thought I would write to thank you for the intellectual
stimulation. I expect the letters are just pouring in!
Margaret ...
British Columbia
(The writer is a BBC and CBC reporter and documentary
maker, whose work includes six series for IDEAS including The Dead Sea Scrolls,
Seven Deadly Sins, The Burning Books, The Book of Job, etc., and the book "Beyond
Golgotha" published in 1993.)
* [[11]] To Keith Spicer, Chairman, CRTC:
On Wednesday, February 15, 1995, my wife and I tuned
into the CBC broadcast IDEAS.
We heard a very emotional female, full of sexual passion,
teaching the public how woman would masturbate and then ejaculate: and seemed
to be preforming the very act on our public broadcasting system - If unchecked,
we foresee this appearing on CBC TV. We found this subject to be very offensive,
outrageous, and of extreme pornographic nature. Some people may call this type
of material erotica, but to us, the word, erotica, was fostered by those who
condone pornography.
We believe this material is the product of a few reprobates
that have not the love of God before their eyes, and do not care about the plight
or state of the many abused women, children, disabled, and elderly citizens
of our country.
We wholeheartedly believe that this type of disgraceful
material should be completely prohibited from being aired; not only on our public
broadcasting systems: but also on all the other broadcasting systems in our
country - CANADA: A nation fading into the depths of iniquity, immorality, and
ungodliness. May God grant CANADA the grace to recover from this evil, and keep
her glorious and free. Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled:
but whoremongers God will judge.
Where we feel very strongly about this matter, we have
sent a copy of this letter to the following: President of the CBC Ottawa, Ont.
- Regional Director, CBC, St. John's, NF - VOCM Radio Station, St. John's, NF
- Read Admiral Fred Mifflin, MP, Ottawa, Ont. - Preston Manning, leader of The
Reform Party, Ottawa, Ont.
We are expecting a written reply stating your position
on this subject.
David & Josephine ...
Newfoundland
* [[12]] To IDEAS:
As per my telephone conversation of today, I am submitting
a cheque in the amount of $7.49 for a copy of the transcripts of a program aired
Wednesday 15 February 1995, which I was lucky enough to hear (midway) over my
car radio. Being a frequent listener to IDEAS, I can only assume that the program,
which your colleague informs me was titled "One Sex or Two" came under that
series.
Discussion between the genders are, to say the least,
guarded in this area and I feel that you are to be complimented in the frank
but tasteful way that it was executed. Since this subject is basic to the animal
world and even humans fit this category, it is hoped that further focus can
be devoted to similar subjects. Congratulations!
David ...
Manitoba
* [[13]] To CBC Radio:
I am a regular listener to CBC Radio, starting with the
8 a.m. news then Peter Gzowski throughout the rest of the morning. I find the
news and feature stories to be of superior quality, however I was appalled and
disgusted by Lister Sinclair's programme on Wednesday, February 15 at 10 p.m.
I tuned in rather late and didn't pay too much attention
until I heard a segment of the programme discussing the clinical aspects of
ejaculation by both males and females. One female in particular gave a live
demonstration of how the so-called "G" spot can be located, by going through
masturbatory steps to achieve an orgasm of monumental proportions.
I am a liberal-minded person, but I must say that I found
this a bit much to stomach. No doubt the programme has its merits by enlightening
listeners as to what the human body is capable of doing. However, I think this
segment in particular could have been presented in a different venue such as,
perhaps, a learning centre of sexual practices.
Mrs. M. ...
Ontario
* [[14]] To Whom It May Concern:
I just happened to tune into the IDEAS show on female
ejaculation and sexuality. Unfortunately I missed the first part of the show.
Of what I did hear, I thought it was fascinating and very educating (my partner
agrees wholeheartedly). This is a new topic for me and I hadn't realized such
a thing was possible. It's about time that things like these were brought out
into the open.
Female sexuality is an important and wonderful thing.
Thank you CBC for yet another timely and educational show.
Could you please send me a reading list from the show.
Keep up the great work!
Lisa ...
Ontario
* [[15]] To IDEAS:
Please send two copies of the reading list related to
the February 15 program on female ejaculation. Congratulations on the program.
Mary ..., Ph.D
Certified Sex Educator, Counselor and Therapist/AASECT
Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary
* [[16]] To Max Allen, IDEAS producer:
I am writing in response to our phone conversation on
February 22 regarding the show "One Sex or Two", aired February 15, 1995. When
I called you, I did not expect you to agree with my point of view but I was
pleased to find you willing to discuss it with me. Thank you.
You had asked me to follow up my arguments with a letter
so I will summarize them as follows:
1. It is not the tope (female ejaculation) that I have
a problem with. Obviously from the amount of mail you received thanking you
for addressing this topic, it made a difference to a lot of people. The part
of the show I missed was the medical debate but from the sound of it, it was
good, helpful dialogue on the subject.
2. Your argument for airing the segment where a woman
at a workshop is masturbating and providing ongoing monologue, is that it "proves"
that female ejaculation actually occurs. Apparently there are people that remain
sceptical in spite of the women who claim it happens to them. If I am not convinced
by intelligent debate between people who are medical experts and claims by women
who say it does happen to them, do you think I would be swayed by "hearing"
it happen?
3. Are you justified in doing whatever it takes to "prove"
an unusual phenomenon? Is there integrity in having a good debate and then proving
one side is true? Would it not be better to have a good quality debate and let
people make up their own minds?
4. Unless you are a doctor or a therapist, does it matter
whether you believe that female ejaculation exists? If it happens to me I know
it exists, and my partner also knows it exists. The debate would be enough for
me to realise that it happens to others. If I have not experienced it, is it
that important that you bring a private act into the public arena just to "prove"
that it happens by having a woman masturbate? What if I didn't believe it unless
I saw it? Are you then justified in putting it on TV?
5. Finally, I do believe that sex in all its forms (unless
illegal or hurtful) is private. Should it ever be brought into the public arena?
As far as the act itself, I can't think of a circumstance where it would be
therapeutic and appropriate to put it out for public consumption. An example
of what I mean: If someone brought up the subject of sexual dysfunction on the
radio, I do not think I would need to hear the couple having sex and experiencing
the dysfunction in order to believe it exists. As a therapist myself, I think
it is important not to look at the subject of sex as taboo, but to allow ourselves
to leave the act itself with the dignity of privacy. I can't think of any therapist
who would ask a couple with a sexual dysfunction to have sex in her office so
she could see it for herself.
Please feel free to contact me and discuss this further.
I appreciate the time you took to respond to my concerns.
Janet ..., M.A.
Manitoba
* [[17]] via e-mail - To Max Allen, IDEAS producer:
I'm responding to your website invitation to comment
on the controversy surrounding the Female Ejaculation piece. I listened to the
documentary on tape, after hearing a bit about the debate. I have worked as
a radio journalist and I'm back at university studying journalism. I'm also
a feminist and a lesbian. You'd think all of that would make me the perfect
fan.
I was interested to see how I'd actually FEEL listening
to the piece. While the topic is interesting enough, I discovered I don't want
to know how Shannon Bell sounds when she "comes". My enjoyment of the piece
was also ruined at that point by the thought of male listeners' titillation.
In a society steeped in pornographic imagery, I don't
think it's possible to DEMONSTRATE female sexuality to a mass audience without
feeding misogyny. Discussing female sexuality is another matter. I would have
been happier if this piece was edited in such a way as to disappoint listeners
who tuned in just for their own ejaculatory pleasure.
Female ejaculation is hardly the most interesting or
important IDEA feminists have come up with in recent years. I'd like to see
much more serious feminist (and lesbian) content on the program.
As for what should be done as a follow-up to the Ejaculation
piece, why not a documentary on the commodification of sexuality? Has the feminist
movement been undermined as lesbians take on gay male values? I think such a
piece would also provide needed balance for your Trials of London documentary.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I hope someone
from Ideas will have time to respond.
Helen ...
Ontario
* [[18]] via e-mail
I just ran into the letters about this program.
I listen to Christian radio in the US now and then.
I heard an exorcism.
I heard a man's voice and a women's voice.
If you didn't know it was religious you would swear that
he brought her to climax.
He was kind of violent about it.
So you broadcast the real thing. Perhaps it helped some
people. My friend says her teenage daughters were listening. I wish I had some
real information at that age.
Lance ...
* [[19]] via e-mail
In trying to find some information on female ejaculation on the World Wide Web, I found the transcript for the IDEAS program on this subject, along with the letters and press coverage it got. By far, it was the most informative piece that I found on the web. Thanks for making it available to the world.
Kristen ...
THE RADIO PROGRAM:
(c)1995 The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
All rights reserved
Lister Sinclair
I'm Lister Sinclair. The Valentine cards were on sale
at half price today, with their velvet messages of lust and sentiment.
Yesterday (February 14th) no matter where you looked,
those messages were in evidence. On radio and television, and in every newspaper,
men and women were talking about their deep and enduring affection for one another.
An affection which seems to us to represent a fundamental part of life -- until
you examine the divorce statistics, or look back in history.
Ideas tonight is going to examine a mystery: two mysteries
actually, one inside the other. The first is a sexual phenomenon that, in public
discourse at least, is almost completely a secret. And the second is why it's
a secret.
Some background. Everybody knows there are two sexes.
It's one of those simple facts of life that are self-evident. Sexual dimorphism,
it's called: female and male, and they're as different as night and day. We're
talking about body structures here, not psychological yearnings or socially
conditioned behaviours, which are much more varied. And recognized.
But it could be argued that there are not in fact two
sexes. Some scholars (for example the anthropologist Gilbert Herdt, whose recent
book is called "Third Sex, Third Gender") have presented convincing evidence
that two sexes aren't enough to account for human experience.
On the other hand, it used to be thought by philosophers,
moralists, and natural scientists that there was fundamentally only one sex,
though the basic equipment was organized differently in different people. A
conclusion that could be drawn from this was that since, in men, the obvious
result of sexual excitement was ejaculation, it must also be the result in women.
But if this is the case, then why don't we notice it, or admit it, today?
And so here we come to the first part of tonight's programme.
It's about sex of course; you'll have to decide for yourself whether you or
your family, if you have one, want to listen. There's no dirty language, but
the ideas may be unfamiliar and startling. They're presented by journalist Sue
Campbell, who works for CBC Radio News.
Beverly Whipple
There are women who ejaculate a fluid. It comes out the
urethra, the tube through which you urinate. And the fluid is different in chemical
composition than urine, which is what most people think comes out the urethra.
Kathy Daymond
There's a sort of notion of female sexuality as very
interior. The nice thing about female ejaculation is that it exteriorizes female
sexuality. It moves female sexuality and female pleasure into public space.
Shannon Bell
It's something that people recognize as being quite powerful,
something that's got a politics to it. And the politics it's got to it is control
over your own body.
Sue Johannson
The idea is to learn everything you can about sex. Because
sexuality is a part of us. And as human beings we are the only ones who enjoy
sex. Animals do not enjoy sex, they have an urge for sex. It's like the hunger
urge to eat because you're hungry. It's like the urge to go to the bathroom.
It's like other urges. And it's a need but it's not pleasure, it's not an enjoyment,
there's no sense of satisfaction there, there's no unity, no bonding, no closeness,
no intimacy. It's just something you do and then you walk away contented. So
if we are given this then it's a gift, and we have an obligation to learn about
all of these gifts that God gave us. And to enjoy them to the fullest. Because
that's why we were given them, not to be denied.
Sue Campbell
I'm Sue Campbell. Female ejaculation, and speculation
about it, has a long history. You can find references to it dating back 2000
years. The Greek philosopher Aristotle wrote:
"...there are some who think that the female contributes
semen during intercourse because women sometimes derive pleasure from it comparable
to that of the male and also produce a fluid secretion. But this fluid is not
semen. And sometimes it's on quite a different scale from the semen discharged
by the male, and greatly exceeds it..."
In the second century, Galen described a female prostate
that produced a fluid that was expelled after orgasm:
"...the fluid in her prostate is poured out when it has
done its service. This liquid not only encourages the sexual act but also is
able to give pleasure and moisten the passageway as it escapes. It flows from
women as they experience the greatest pleasure in intercourse..."
Then in the 16th century, the Italian anatomist Renaldus
Columbus referred to female ejaculate while he was explaining the function of
the clitoris:
"...if you rub it vigorously with a penis, or touch it
even with a little finger, semen swifter than air flies this way and that on
account of the pleasure..."
And in the 17th century, the Dutch anatomist Regnier
de Graff wrote a book about female anatomy and spoke of female fluid "rushing
out" and "coming in one gush" during sexual excitement.
So female ejaculation was observed, and accepted, and
talked about for centuries. But in modern times references to it by both medical
practitioners and by moralists are scarce. Historian Thomas Laqueur:
Thomas Laqueur
In the 18th century, that whole way of understanding
the body disappears and one has a much more mechanistic, reductionist view of
the body. And certainly for whatever the female does, pleasure is just irrelevant.
Sue Campbell
Professor Laqueur teaches at the University of California
in Berkeley. He's written a book called "Making Sex: Body and Gender from the
Greeks to Freud".
Thomas Laqueur
What I discovered in doing this research is that prior
to the 18th century it was taken as a matter of fact that women as well as men
had an orgasm and more specifically "ejaculated" during intercourse. And specifically
that some form of female ejaculation was necessary for conception.
Sue Campbell
Laqueur calls this view of the sexes the "one sex" model.
Thomas Laqueur
I coined that phrase to account for a view of sexual
difference which I thought was dominant from the Greeks to sometime in the 18th
century in which the male and female are seen as versions of one another, both
anatomically in the sense that the vagina is an internal penis, and physiologically
in the sense that the fluids in men and women are fungible -- that sperm can
become blood, can become urine, can become milk -- and that that system is roughly
possible in both sexes. And finally, that the actual phenomenology of pleasure
is comparable in men and women.
Sue Campbell
To us the idea that the fluids of men and women are fungible
-- that they can turn into one another -- seems fantastic. But it was consistent
with the old idea that men and women were anatomically more similar than different.
The modern view of sexuality is based not on this kind of "one sex" model, but
on a "two sex" model.
Thomas Laqueur
It's a model of opposition and complementarity, in which
anatomically the male has a penis which is outside and the vagina is a quite
different thing that's inside. The testes and the ovaries are entirely different.
Sperm is active and eggs are passive and sit there. Menstruation is a specific
function of women, men don't have it. And in terms of orgasm, it's not wildly
relevant specific to the physiology of reproduction at all in this model.
So the two sex model, you might say, is just about difference
and complementarity. It's apples and oranges. The one-sex model is a model of
hierarchy, apples and crabapples. But the notion that men and women differ not
as apples and crabapples, so to speak (that is to say the same thing arrayed
along an axis), but rather as apples and oranges (that is to say they're different
and complementary) -- and that this difference and complementarity is defined
by anatomy, that is to say by egg and sperm, penis and vagina, ovary and testicles
-- that's really an 18th century development. In other words it's somewhere
in the early 18th century that anatomy books quit depicting the penis as a vagina,
somewhere around 1760-1780 that they quit calling the ovaries testes.
So it's in the 18th century that doctors, political theorists,
philosophers and midwives come to construe men and women as different. And it's
roughly then when the notion of the frigid woman, the possibility of the frigid
woman, or the notion that women are less sexually engaged than men, makes its
appearance in both medical and popular literature.
Sue Campbell
In other words, until that time the sexual activities
of men and women, and the equipment they employed to perform them, were accepted
as equal. Then the tide turned:
Beverly Whipple
If you look back in the ancient literature, from de Graff
in the 1600s back to Aristotle, you'll find that there are references in their
writings to the female ejaculation. However, from our looking at the literature,
it seems that during the period of time that the microscope was invented, they
looked at the fluids from both the male and the female, and saw that the female
ejaculate did not contribute anything to procreation, and it seemed to be left
out of the literature after that.
Now that's just our reading of the literature. But it
seemed that there was no sperm in the female ejaculate so therefore they didn't
see it as contributing anything to procreation.
Sue Campbell
This is Beverly Whipple from the Rutgers College of Nursing
in New Jersey. Dr. Whipple and her colleagues were among the first to "rediscover"
the phenomenon of female ejaculation in the 1980s. They did laboratory tests
of the fluid, and gathered reports from women about what it felt like to ejaculate.
Beverly Whipple
We found through doing laboratory analysis comparing
the ejaculate that was expelled through the urethra to the women's urine, that
the ejaculate had high levels of something called prostatic acid phosphatase,
and it had low levels of urea and creatinine which are found in urine -- these
are byproducts of protein metabolism. And also it had high levels of glucose.
The samples of female ejaculate were significantly statistically different from
the samples of urine.
Sue Campbell
So, if female ejaculation exists, how does it work?
Beverly Whipple
That's a very good question. We know that female ejaculation
does exist, but where it comes from and what is it? We know the chemical composition
of the fluid, and we just talked about that. It has prostatic acid phosphatase
and glucose, and some tests have shown fructose, and a little bit of urea and
creatinine. Where it comes from, that's another question. We believe it comes
from the female prostate or the prostatic tissue, the glands and ducts that
surround the urethra. They're called the Skene's glands or the paraurethral
glands. But we're not sure because you can't do an autopsy and have the fluid
come out. But we believe in terms of studies that have been done, the immuno-histochemical
studies that have been done, that this is where the fluid is coming from.
We do know that there's a sensitive area that's felt
through the vagina, and that it swells when it's sexually stimulated. In some
women stimulation of this area produces an orgasm and during that orgasm the
woman has an expulsion of fluid from the urethra. In other women stimulation
of this area produces an expulsion of fluid but with no orgasm. And some women
have an expulsion of fluid without stimulation of the area of the Graffenberg
spot. So my contention is that in some women these two phenomena are related
or correlated, and in other women they are not.
Sue Campbell
Could you explain the G-spot? You've written a book on
the G-spot; could you give us a quick idea of what this is?
Beverly Whipple
The Graffenberg spot, or G-spot, is a sensitive area
that is felt through the upper or front vaginal wall, the interior vaginal wall.
You feel it through this wall about halfway between the back of the pubic bone
and the cervix. And you have to use a motion of two fingers -- a sort of "come
here" motion. You have to use quite a bit of pressure to feel it. What will
happen is that there's an area there that will begin to swell as it is sexually
stimulated. A woman can also put her hand on the abdomen right above the pubic
hair line and she can feel this sensitive area swelling between her fingers
and the fingers of her partner who is stimulating this area. It can also be
stimulated with a dildo or with a penis, depending on the position of intercourse.
The first publication we did was of a women whose fluid
we analyzed, but she also reported that she had this expulsion of fluid with
oral sex from her partner when she had an orgasm, and that was not in any way
stimulating the area of the Graffenberg spot. So these two phenomena may be
related, and may not.
Sue Campbell
You're calling it a "phenomenon". Why?
Beverly Whipple
Because it's something that occurs.
Sue Campbell
Is it something out of the ordinary, would you say?
Beverly Whipple
No, not necessarily. It's just a way of describing something
that occurs. It's not necessarily out of the ordinary. We don't know what percentage
of women do experience female ejaculation. Nor do we know what percentage of
women have a Graffenberg spot.
Everyone that we examined in our study did have this
sensitive area that swelled when it was stimulated. But we don't know if everyone
has a Graffenberg spot. And we don't know what percentage of women do ejaculate
because, as you know, most sex research that is done--whether it's a person
filling out a questionnaire or someone coming into a laboratory--is biased by
the people who volunteer either to fill out the questionnaire or come to the
laboratory. So it's very difficult to get a cross-section of people when you're
doing sex research because there's a group of people who just won't fill out
a questionnaire.
Sue Campbell
Female ejaculation still isn't talked about much in scientific
circles, and what talk there is tends to focus, still, on the issue of whether
the fluid women expel is really "ejaculate fluid" or whether it's just urine.
The idea that it's really just urine can often lead to medical intervention.
Beverly Whipple
We have stated that we're very concerned because prior
to our publications, some women had surgery to correct this "problem", which
is just a normal phenomenon that occurs. These women thought that they were
urinating. Other women have been told to just stop having orgasm and that would
stop the fluid from coming out. Since we've conducted our studies and published
them, we know that we've helped a lot of women not to have surgery for something
that's a perfectly normal phenomenon.
Sue Campbell
The majority of modern sexologists have dismissed the
existence of female ejaculation altogether. In the 1950s Havelock Ellis reported
that muscular contractions of the vagina did produce genital secretions, but
he said that female ejaculation was an erroneous term for it. In 1964, Wayland
Young published an influential book called Eros Denied: Sex in Western Society.
Referring to female ejaculation, he said:
"...women were thought to diffuse an actual fertile fluid
at the moment of orgasm exactly as men ejaculated. The old erotic books are
full of descriptions of the mingling of these vital fluids. Man does this at
the moment of pleasure, so presumably that little passive counterpart of himself
which is his woman does exactly the same. We wonder now how this can ever have
been believed..."
In the 1960s, the eminent sex researchers Masters and
Johnson concluded that female ejaculation was a myth, an "erroneous but widespread
concept." When I called Dr. Masters to find out what he thought today, he told
me he's changed his mind. He now believes that female ejaculation does occur,
but only in the "rare female."
Information about female ejaculation is nowhere to be
found in most medical texts. Most sex guides don't mention it either. The indexes
are full of references to male ejaculation, of course; when women are mentioned,
it's in terms of how the ejaculatory abilities of their male partners affect
their chances of conceiving.
So, how could something as significant as female ejaculation
go unnoticed by the sex professionals? Well, for one thing, if your field is
anatomy you tend to study dead bodies. And a cadaver is not sexually aroused,
so you won't find any evidence for what you're looking for. Another problem
is that women have to be taught how to do it -- or at least be encouraged to
allow it to happen.
On her radio and television call-in shows, sex counsellor
Sue Johannson often finds herself explaining the "how to" to both men and women.
Sue Johannson
When I talk about it I describe it in living colour,
a blow by blow description so that they know exactly what to do. It's kind of
like "face front, raise right hand."
There are a few things that you need to do. You need
to be very very relaxed. You need to like your own body, really be comfortable
with your own body. So you're not worried about cellulite; you're not worried
about stretch marks; you're not worried about vaginal farts; you don't care
what your hair looks like, your mascara is running. You can make noise and you
can do what you want to do. So if you're lying there with your heels behind
your ears this is absolutely wonderful. Go for it.
Sue Campbell
And then there's the more technical advice:
Sue Johannson
Generally women, in the beginning, will experience G-spot
orgasm with manual stimulation. When they get good at it they'll learn how to
get a position where penile thrusting will achieve the same end. But generally,
in the beginning, it's manual stimulation, two fingers. She has to be very sexually
aroused: she's had one orgasm, two orgasms, three orgasms -- she's on a roll.
Then he will insert two fingers into her vagina and just kind of crook those
two fingers forward and very very gently but firmly stroke the wall of the vagina.
She must have permission to tell him whether that feels
good: "oh that's wonderful -- you're right on; ah, that's marvellous," and give
him instructions. So he can't feel threatened or intimidated by her saying,
"A little to the left, a little to the right, a little harder, a little softer."
Then she will notice the sexual excitement level rising
and rising and rising and all of a sudden she will have this tremendous urge
to push. It's the same feeling that women have when they're going to have a
baby. They just take a deep breath and they push down right to the bottom, they
just bear right down. And all of a sudden this fluid literally shoots out. And
you do not have control. You cannot say "Ooh! I gotta stop this." You can't.
The first time I heard about this -- I'd heard about the G-spot and I, like
most other people at that time (this was the late '70s) pooh-poohed the whole
idea -- I was working at the Clark Institute in a forensic sciences unit with
prisoners. One of the guys was talking about being out on a weekend pass, and
his girlfriend "shooting." He literally described it as "shooting." And of course
in my superior smug way I said, "Oh no, no; females do not ejaculate. Males
ejaculate. Females lubricate but they do not ejaculate."
Well, I lived to eat crow, believe me, because we soon
found out of course that females do ejaculate. I found out that females do ejaculate
and it was quite a shocker for me. And that's when I decided that I've really
got to find out a whole lot more information about this, because if it's happening
for me, it's happening to other women. I have access to information; I have
an obligation to make sure that that information gets out there, regardless
of whether some doctors, some medical professionals, and some sex therapists
say that it just does not exist. It does.
Sue Campbell
Shannon Bell has given dozens of lectures on the subject
and has lots of experience holding "ejaculation workshops." In her day job,
Dr. Bell is a professor of feminist theory and political philosophy:
Shannon Bell
If you've seen a woman ejaculate and you've seen a man
ejaculate, the female experience is much more powerful. There's a lot more fluid.
As a woman you can keep ejaculating. A man has one ejaculation and he sort of
has to take a rest for a couple of hours, or longer. Whereas, with a woman,
you can ejaculate again in five minutes.
Sue Campbell
We're going to sit in on one of Shannon Bell's demonstrations.
I should warn you that if you're uncomfortable with frank sexual language, you
might want to listen to some music, or wash the dishes for the next six or seven
minutes.
Shannon Bell
[at workshop] It's fairly easy to ejaculate. One of the
things you have to do, though -- and what I tell people when I'm doing the class
-- is that in order to ejaculate you have to build up your vaginal muscles.
The way to build them up is doing what is called the Kegel exercise. The Kegel
exercise -- I'm doing it right now -- is just closing and opening the top wall
against the bottom wall of your vagina. It's basically opening and closing your
vagina, touching the top wall to the bottom wall.
It's good to start off doing about twenty-five of them
a couple of times a day, and moving up to fifty a couple of times a day. In
a couple of months, I built up really strong vaginal muscles: before this, I
actually couldn't contract. It's one of the easiest muscles to build up, and
the payoffs are great.
You can do [the exercise] almost anywhere. You can also
contract against your finger, or a dildo, or your companion's hand, or a penis.
That's good, too, because it provides resistance. And it feels good.
If you're looking in your vagina, it's always good to
have a surgical glove around, because a surgical glove with lubricant on it
feels great when you're massaging the top wall of the vagina.
Now, where the ejaculate comes from is the glands and
ducts that surround the urethra. There are about thirty-three glands and ducts
that are between the top wall of the vagina and the urethra. It's called the
urethral sponge area. I think it's been renamed, by a feminist health collective,
as "the urethral sponge of the clitoris." So it's like a woman's clitoris has
gotten really, really big now: it's not just that little thing on the outside;
it's the top wall of the vagina and the bottom wall, and it's like the whole
can be really erect. It's no longer separated from the rest of the sex organ
-- which I think is really cool.
I'm just looking for my yellow vibrator. [vibrator switches
on]
In order to get an internal erection, one of the best
things is a really small vibrator, just to ride on the top of your lips. Just
place it between your two lips, sort of just below your clit. What it does is
-- it really feels nice, you get little vibrations -- it starts the erection
happening inside.
The other thing is, that in order to ejaculate, you really
have to push out. The feeling that a lot of people have when they're making
love -- that they have to pee -- that's usually a sign that you feel that you
are ready to ejaculate. What you need to do is to push out. We've been training
ourselves not to push out, but to hold back because we think we have to pee;
and if you actually push out, train yourself to push out, you can push the fluid
out. It's really an incredible high.
I'm going to do that right now.
What I find happening is, I can feel fluid building in
the glands and ducts surrounding my urethral sponge. I can actually feel it
from the outside. If you put your hands from where my clit is up to where my
ovaries are, you can actually feel the glands and ducts filling up with fluid.
Now, I normally ejaculate pretty easily. I'm in the scientific
group that they call the "easy expulsors": it takes me from one to three minutes
at the most. I can usually ejaculate a lot, and repeatedly. There's a middle
category where it takes women longer before they can ejaculate with stimulation;
and there's also a group where it's harder to induce but it's a really powerful
ejaculation. I try to have a lot of them, and powerful too.
What I'm doing here is, I'm getting somewhat turned on.
I'm feeling like I'm starting to have to ejaculate. I can feel internal contractions.
That was just kind of warming up.
I actually like to ejaculate on mirrors. I've written
about it. The reason I like to do it is that it's got this phenomenal sound;
you can actually see yourself ejaculating really well; and it's just very very
beautiful. So I'm going to do that.
What I'm doing now is getting ready to ejaculate. I'm
masturbating, the way I normally masturbate: I've got my fingers between my
two lips that pull on my clit; and I'm also pushing on the ducts that surround
my urethral sponge. From the outside, I can feel them getting full of fluid.
...
...The thing about having a penis inside of you and ejaculating
is that, often, the penis is too big and you can't really push out. So you have
to take the penis out to do it, because you need room to be able to push out.
I like to have mirrors around, so I can see what I'm
doing. I also like to ejaculate on mirrors, because you can see yourself ejaculating;
and when the ejaculate dries, you can see that female ejaculate isn't all that
much different from male ejaculate. It's a bit thinner, of course, because it
doesn't have the semen properties. But we do have an equivalent to the prostate
gland, so the fluid is there, and if you were to have both side by side, you
could see that female fluid is a white fluid on the mirror -- when it dries;
it's clear, usually, when you ejaculate -- and it's got a lot of minerals in
it.
Also, it tastes fairly good. You can taste your own,
but don't taste anybody else's, because that's not safe sex.
Breathing is important, because you're channeling a power
and energy. It's good to circulate your breath.
Sue Campbell
If you came in in the middle of that, you're probably
wondering if she's okay. She is. That was Shannon Bell, in one of her workshop
demonstrations of female ejaculation.
Beverly Whipple
It's not okay or comfortable in most societies to talk
about sexuality. Sexuality is considered very private. And it's very difficult
for most people to speak about sexuality. Male ejaculation is something that
has been out there and seen, and it also has to do with procreation. So, therefore,
male ejaculation is more acceptable to talk about because it has a purpose and
the purpose is to supply the sperm for procreation.
Whereas with female ejaculation, is there a purpose for
it other than pleasurable? This is something we're looking into.
Shannon Bell
It's had different codings. I mean, it's had codings
of whether it contributed to fecundity, whether it contributed to childbirth,
whether it was pathological.
I think what's really interesting now, is now it's really
being talked about by women as pleasure. It's not a debate about whether it's
pathological, whether it contributes to fertility; what it is is it's recognized
as being a pleasurable sexual experience and it's there simply for sexual pleasure.
It's something that someone who wants to enhance their sexual pleasure can pursue.
Sue Campbell
But, and this was emphasized by everybody I talked to,
it's not mandatory. Dr. Whipple:
Beverly Whipple
In providing this information to women, I hope that we're
not going to see people set up a new goal that they have to achieve: that they
have to find their G-spot or they have to experience female ejaculation. Each
women is a unique individual who has the capacity of responding sexually in
many ways. I'm always concerned when I talk about this information because I
don't want to set up a new goal for people to achieve.
I think of sexuality as being pleasure-oriented rather
than goal oriented. When I teach I used the analogy, for goal-oriented sexual
activity, of the staircase where each step on that staircase leads to the next
step. So if a person is goal-oriented, they would start off with a look, a kiss,
a touch, a caress, penis-and-vagina intercourse, leading to the top step of
orgasm. And if they don't reach that top step they don't feel good about what's
happened along the way. Or that top step may be the G-spot and they have to
find that. And if they don't, there's something wrong with all the pleasurable
experiences they've had.
Whereas if you think of pleasure oriented sexual experiences,
use the analogy of the circle, where each thing on the circumference of the
circle, whether it's touch, holding, holding hands, kissing, oral sex, whatever
it is -- can be an end in itself. It doesn't have to lead on to something else.
I'm sure many of your listeners have felt completely
satisfied holding hands with someone or being held or cuddled; and every experience
doesn't have to lead to something else. And that's why I don't want to see the
G-spot or female ejaculation set up as a goal that women feel they have to achieve
or men feel they have to find for the women.
Sue Campbell
Sex counsellor Sue Johannson:
Sue Johannson
We see ejaculation as something males do. So there's
almost that feeling that this is a poor second, when in actual fact, in terms
of quantity of fluid, it is absolutely amazing.
Sometimes we are afraid to let go and afraid to do that
because we've been brought up to be very conscious of a male fragile ego, particularly
in the area of sex and sexuality. So we are afraid that once again we are walking
all over him, we are bulldozing him down and we can do everything better than
men. So we generally tread very cautiously, trying again to protect males, which
is unfortunate. It would be much better to be comfortable with ourselves and
make this a joint experience, a shared experience and a shared pleasure.
Sue Campbell
This is still, in the late years of the twentieth century,
not an easy project. There's a very long history of hiding female sexuality.
Thomas Laqueur
I think women came to be seen as less sexual beings for
a variety of, essentially, political reasons, some of which women shared. It's
basically a kind of, you might say, Republican political view -- that the public
space is a male space and a space of reason and public action; and that the
female space is a space of moral education and moral guidance; and that space
is one in which sexual excitement and energy and lust are inappropriate.
Kathy Daymond
You know Aristotle was writing about female ejaculation
and there was a debate about whether it had a part in reproduction or whether
it was purely about women's pleasure. So this discourse has existed at various
moments in history. Then it just disappears, it gets buried. It crops up here
and there, and in the 19th century it reappears again in Victorian pornography.
But it also appears then in medical discourse as some kind of pathology. That
kind of discourse has continued, where women who do this and don't know what
it is and go to the doctor are told this is abnormal and it's dysfunctional
and it should be surgically dealt with.
So you have to understand it's been a part of female
experience throughout history and partly because of the way discourse has been
constituted -- and by whom and in whose interests -- we're now at a moment where
male ejaculation is considered some kind of a norm, but anything female is "other"
in relation to that.
Sue Campbell
In 1990 Kathy Daymond produced a thirteen-minute film
on female ejaculation called "Nice Girls Don't Do It". She's been surprised
by people's reactions to the film:
Kathy Daymond
Dramatic things like bursting into tears and saying "Oh
geez, God, thank you; I'd stopped fucking because this weird thing happens to
me; and, I went to the doctor and the doctor said that they could fix it by
performing some kind of surgery on me; and, my boyfriend trashed me out and
basically said don't do this, stop doing this". There was all this kind of real
shame and real secrecy and really serious misinformation about it.
It's not like everyone has to embrace female ejaculation
as the most important part of their sexual experience, but for those women for
whom it does happen, it needs to be taken back as something that's exciting
and pleasurable and powerful. And perfectly acceptable. It needs to be normalized,
I think.
Sue Campbell
I asked Sue Johannson to read some of the letters she's
received from her radio listeners:
Sue Johannson
This is a wonderful letter from a lady. Her boyfriend
of three years knows exactly where her G-spot is, and he knows exactly how to
"work it." He only needs to use one finger, and together, she reached "forty-three
orgasmic expulsions in a matter of fifteen minutes." The trick? Simple: she
pushes, like giving birth, to the count of about four seconds. Then she relaxes
for about eight seconds. Then she repeats it, until a "tickling sensation" begins.
She tells him about that, and then he moves his finger; he wiggles it faster
until she "comes." Those are her words: "I completely soak the bed. It shoots
out."
There's another letter here; this lady signs herself
"G-Whiz" (that's a wonderful way to describe the G-spot orgasm). It is only
now that she has discovered the difference between clitoral and vaginal orgasms.
She has a great "bearing down" sensation, followed by the release of "copious
amounts of clear, sweet-smelling fluid from the urethra. This expulsion of fluid
can take place for several hours; it was unbelievable, the amount of fluid.
My box-spring and my mattress dried out for one week after our first G-spot
encounter."
I'd encourage them to relax and enjoy, and just let it
happen. Don't worry about peeing the bed; because once it's happened a few times,
they'll realize that this is not urine.
Everybody who's had a child who peed the bed knows that
urine stains the mattress: you get this big, ugly, yellow ring. Then you get
another ring, and another ring, and another ring, and by that time you have
to throw the mattress out. G-spot fluid does not stain the bed. It does not
stain sheets. There is no odour, once it's dried. Urine has a very strong odour.
The sheet will be a little stiff; it's just a little
stiffer. It needs some fabric softener or something like that in the dryer.
The only problem is, it takes a long time for it to dry
on an ordinary mattress, because the fluid soaks in. So I always tell females:
once you've hit the G-spot, and once you know that you can do this--you can
do this!--then you're in control. You can decide when you want to do it. If
you're going to do it, make sure you do it on his side of the bed. Let him have
the wet spot for a change.
Women who do hit the G-spot get very smart. They'll take
a green garbage bag and open it up on one side and across the top and stretch
it out, and then they'll take a beach-towel or a big flannelette sheet and pin
the four corners to the green garbage bag.
She'll keep that rolled up under the bed, and when she
want to hit the G-spot, she just hauls this out -- of course, her partner gets
the message: okay, tonight's the night, big boy, pant-pant, we're going to go
all the way -- and she slides this under her hips and down to her heels. Then
she's free and can just relax.
Other women get even smarter -- and they buy a waterbed.
This is the ultimate, because then you never have to worry about a wet mattress
whatsoever, and you do not have to plan ahead. If it happens: "Oh, well, isn't
that wonderful? What's a little bit more water around here?"
Shannon Bell
Will all women ejaculate the same way as all guys ejaculate?
I think the potential's there. I would say that once anybody has ejaculated
a few times they're not going to go back to not ejaculating. It's too pleasurable.
It's too much fun. And it gives you a different consciousness in terms of sexuality.
Thomas Laqueur
There's been a recent and rather elaborate book written
by a group of women who hired a medical illustrator to draw, for the first time,
detailed anatomical drawings of the clitoris and particularly the clitoris'
internal structures. That book -- Carol Dowler is the author -- is very specific
in seeing the clitoris not as a smaller penis, but as an "inside" penis. The
argument is that most of the erectile organ of the male is outside, but most
of the erectile spongy tissues of the female are inside.
The authors rightly point out that most previous anatomical
drawings of the cross section of the female pelvis just sketch in, in a very
broad and hazy way, what the female internal genitals of pleasure might be.
But if you draw these in, one can see structures which are very much isomorphic
to the penis. So if you look at this book -- and they're very explicit about
this -- the clitoris is as big as the penis, only it's inside.
The point of this is -- or I think the point of it is
-- that women should imagine their sexuality to be as phallic, that is to say,
as aggressive, as authoritative, as male sexuality. It seems to me it's a way
of imagining, in the body, a particular version of what female sexuality should
be.
Sue Johannson
I want people to be able to enjoy their sexuality and
to relax and to be able to do what is comfortable for them. And if they are
in a sexual relationship and they feel like pushing down, don't hold back, don't
stop and think "oh I can't let go, I can't do that because I'll pee the bed."
What's the worst thing that could happen? You could have an accident. You could
pee the bed. It is possible. It's unlikely, but it is possible. Let go, try
it. And just relax and enjoy. But don't make it your homework for the weekend:
something I've got to do, add it to the must-do chores for the weekend. No,
just let it happen. Relax and enjoy. And celebrate sex.
Lister Sinclair
On Ideas tonight, you've been listening to Sue Campbell's
documentary about female ejaculation.
To find out why we know the things we "know" about women
and sex, and how other "facts" are ignored or disbelieved, it's helpful to look
at history. And so Ideas producer Max Allen went to talk to Edward Shorter,
a historian of the family and head of the history of medicine program at the
University of Toronto.
Among the books he's written is A History of Women's
Bodies, which is also about women's lives in European societies from about 1600
onwards.
Edward Shorter
Sex is defined in cultural and social terms as well as
in physiological terms, and I think that one can argue that before the beginning
of the Romantic period of family life, women really did not enjoy sex all that
much because the consequences of it were so devastating for them in terms of
the endless pregnancies they would have to endure, each pregnancy placing the
mother's life very much at risk. So universally one finds that whenever women
reached the age of menopause, they were entitled not to have intercourse with
their husbands any more, they were entitled to drop out; and they cherished
this right. This suggests that there was at least a certain differential in
the sexual experience of men and women in past times.
Max Allen
Is it your observation that it's more likely that men
had fun than women, or didn't they enjoy it either?
Edward Shorter
No, these were the days of a double standard in which
men were permitted to enjoy not just their lawful wives, but the servant girls
and the barmaids and anybody whom they might find upon the High Road and rape.
It was perfectly acceptable for men to have a wide variety of sexual experiences
throughout their lives; it was not acceptable to a women to have anything more
than one man, ever.
The idea of using sex as a means of personal discovery
or self-actualization is really a very post-modern idea -- for women, not for
men.
Max Allen
Why?
Edward Shorter
Well, the world has really changed. The post-modern world
has fundamentally different playing rules than the modern world did, and sex
and family life are just part and parcel of that larger package. There are just
so many aspects of relations between the sexes and about women's lives that
have changed since the 1960s, that to boil this down to sex and ask why sex
has changed is really to beg the rest of these really very interesting questions.
Women are now driving fire trucks, for example, and they weren't before the
Second World War. Now they're multiorgasmic and people are discussing on talk
shows women ejaculating during orgasm, which is a kind of dialogue that one
didn't even find in the medical literature before the Second World War. So:
everything has changed, and with it, female sexuality.
Max Allen
Well, one found that kind of dialogue if one went back
far enough. Starting from 1600 on, perhaps one didn't hear about it, but Aristotle
talked about it and Galen talked about it.
Edward Shorter
They talked about it in theoretical terms. They were
interested in the philosophical differences between men and women, and postulated
a female ejaculation. However, did they actually take the microscopes and video
cameras and record exactly what happened in those crucial four seconds? No,
they didn't.
Max Allen
Why do you suppose it is that, assuming that female orgasm
is fun for women, why didn't they pursue it more? I'm asking a question for
which there's probably no evidence, and you'll have to guess from the skimpy
historical data you can find --
Edward Shorter
They didn't pursue it any more because these were profoundly
prudish societies, and the idea of digging into women's physiology would have
seemed to them absolutely obscene. So it's for that reason that they didn't
do it.
Max Allen
And the question beyond that is: Why were these societies
prudish?
Edward Shorter
They had a sense of human transcendence that we don't
have.
Max Allen
What do you mean?
Edward Shorter
A sense of man-God relations. The fact that we are put on this world to do something else than achieve our own self-actualization. If one sees some kind of religious fulfilment as the purpose of life, then things like human sexuality decidedly take a second rank, because they direct one's attention toward one's self, toward one's inner workings rather than outwards toward the Godhead as it's supposed to be.
Women who, themselves, might very well have been aware
of ejaculation would have been much too embarrassed ever to discuss this in
presence of men or to put it down on paper.
There was once this whole female subculture of women's
special knowledge that was transmitted from generation to generation in oral
tradition, and men didn't find out about it. When this female subculture finally
vanished, much of its special knowledge simply vanished as well, including presumably
all kinds of intimate information about female ejaculation. It's not described
in medical literature because of course male doctors would never have seen it
and would have, a priori, considered it to be unlikely.
Max Allen
You have a section of your book called "The Quality of
Intercourse," speaking of the time before 1900. Say something about it.
Edward Shorter
The quality of intercourse was brutish, nasty and short,
as Hobbes described life in Britain generally once, simply because there was
no foreplay and because men had very little sense of the importance of their
female partner's pleasure. Indeed, women were feared by men to be, deep down,
raging volcanos of desire who could easily get out of control and overwhelm
a man if they were turned on too much. So for many men is was positively important
not to loose this volcano, this satanic streak which men feared lay just beneath
the surface of the women's group. And so there was almost a calculation about
seeing to it that women didn't derive too much pleasure from sex.
Max Allen
I've read this before, not only in your work but in others
too. This seems inconceivable to me. It seems to me that if what you were faced
with was the possibility of a volcano, that would be good and not bad.
Edward Shorter
But women's sexuality was seen as basically satanic,
rather than life-giving or fulfilling. Historically there are all these images
of Satan associated with the effluvia from a woman's pudendum. Under these circumstances
you can see why men would fear women and see something sulphurous and hellish
underneath the surface.
Max Allen
Today if you described a group of people who were thought
by another group to be in that situation, I would say: Well, why don't they
do something about it?
Edward Shorter
Well, Max, you say that because you're a post-modern
guy and your first thought is: Hey, we've got a problem here, let's fix it.
The people who lived in past times didn't see their lives as problematical,
any more than we see our lives as problematical. In parts of Africa today, clitoridectomy
is important and desirable, and the way we lead our lives in Toronto is seen
as somehow awful and having gone off the rails. Similarly, women who lived in
the seventeenth century saw themselves as leading completely normal lives. They
accepted the rules of the game as given, just as we accept the rules of the
game in 1995 as given.
Lister Sinclair
Edward Shorter, from the University of Toronto, author of A History of Women's Bodies, published in paperback by Penguin Books. Ideas tonight was produced by Max Allen and Sue Campbell, with Kathy VonBezold and Liz Nagy. I'm Lister Sinclair.