Sexology of the Vaginal Orgasm (11 page)

As women also have a functioning prostate, if should come as no surprise that they, too, experience some sort of ejacu- lation. Most of the fluid which women expel in varying amounts shortly before orgasm stems from the prostate gland. Since 95% of women possess such a glandular struc- ture, one could logically conclude that just as many ejacu- late. While some ejaculate so little fluid that it is hardly noticeable, others release enough to soak a mattress. But regardless of the volume, for many women it is precisely this feeling of gushing forth which constitutes a key com- ponent and characteristic of the deep “orgasmic sensation”.

Fig. 38

External female genital glands

But for even more women the feeling is just the opposite: The moments prior to ejaculation are experienced as a sen- sation similar to the urge to urinate. Thus, if out of igno- rance the “orgasmic love juice” is confused with involunta-

ry leakage of urine, this often inhibits orgasm (Stifter, 1991). In such a case, the woman doesn’t allow herself to let go and automatically holds back, preferring to forego orgasm rath- er than wet the bed! Especially in the presence of her sex partner. The female orgasm and how a woman deals with it thus play a central role in therapy for coital anorgasmia.

The orgasmic secretion of the prostate is just as often mista- ken for vaginal lubrication. This, however, usually accu- mulates at the onset of sexual arousal and serves to lubricate the vagina and vulva, the latter being the vestibule to the vagina. It is formed primarily by the vagina’s mucous membrane and the two pea-size Bartholin’s glands located on either side of the vulva. Due to their microscopic size, the vestibular glands situated around the urethral opening are virtually inconsequential as a source of lubrication.

The term “female ejaculation” may at first sound as con- tradictory as “future past” and just as incongruous as a “fe- male prostate”. After all, you don’t have to be a biology pro- fessor to know that only men ejaculate semen. But we have been saddled with numerous fallacies, because we can’t tell the false paradoxes from the real ones and have consequently reached a conceptual and linguistic impasse. The field of sexology, itself, has become ensnarled in such a paradox, one from which it has not yet completely emerged. The results of research conducted over the last 20 years clearly confirm what was widely known some 200 years ago but has long since been forgotten, namely that in the course of sexual response women also ejaculate a fluid, one which naturally does not contain any sperm, but which nevertheless close- ly resembles male seminal fluid in its chemical properties. According to a survey conducted by American women scien- tists, 54% of all women surveyed have experienced this phe-

nomenon themselves (cf. Bullough et al., 1984) and out of 1,230 women participating in a Canadian study, 40% indi- cated that they ejaculated during orgasm (Darling, 1990). A number of women experienced it rarely, while others almost always ejaculated and then mainly right before cli- maxing. This was regardless of whether the orgasm was achieved by petting, masturbation or intercourse.

It wasn’t until relatively recently that sexual medicine began to simply forget or repress the fact that women expel fluid. The reason why this circumstance comes as such a surprise is that one would think that in the last forty years, and at the latest since Masters & Johnson, since every bodily ori- fice has been explored and the sexual response of even the tiniest pore and glandular opening has been so minutely studied and recorded in the laboratory, that nothing sub- stantial could possibly slip past the ever-attentive scrutiny of sexologists and naturalists. But the fact remains that the following case study taken from sexual therapy continues to cause confusion for many people even today and is incom- patible with some of the prevalent doctrines.

Case study: Renate, 40 years old, married, two daughters

“The first time it happened was about two years ago. It’s not the kind of thing you forget. I was having intercourse with my boy- friend. I was lying on top of him when he suddenly felt a warm sensation running across his stomach. I just remember that I was mad that he had waited so long to ejaculate and wanted to “squirt” to get him to come, too. Somehow I pressed in the process. It was dark and at first he thought it was menstrual blood. There was just so much of it. The bed was completely soaked. When we turned on the light we realized that it was something else. It wasn’t urine, either, more like water. Don’t laugh, but it kind of smelled

like cat. Not unpleasant. When I come home after such a love- making session, my dog is always especially happy to see me and sniffs me a lot. Someday he’s going to give me away to my husband by doing that. The odor stays with me for hours even though I wash. Meanwhile, my boyfriend knows shortly beforehand when I’m going to come. He probably notices that everything swells up inside. “Come on, squirt!” he tells me. Apparently he likes it because it shows him he did a good job. I ejaculate 90% of the time. But everything has to be harmonious. If we’re fighting I can’t do it. With my husband I’ve never ejaculated. And except for my boyfriend I’ve never been unfaithful. I hardly ever masturbate and when I do I don’t usu- ally squirt and if I do it’s only a little bit. During my fertile peri- od the volume is the greatest and that is when I have the strongest sexual appetite. My ejaculation has nothing to do with orgasm itself; rather it is a third sexual dimension in addition to clitoral and vaginal orgasm. Of the first two, induced by masturbation and intercourse, I only need one and after that I don’t want any more and can’t even go on. But when I ejaculate without reaching orgasm afterwards I don’t feel at all satiated. If my boyfriend could keep it up, I think I could actually go on flowing forever practi- cally non-stop. I can only turn off the fountain if I stop pressing. In fact, we certainly wouldn’t want to do without this whole expe- rience. Something would be missing.
(quoted from Stifter, 1988, p. 11).

It needs to be emphatically stated that female ejaculation is a completely normal sexual occurrence. But to infer that if a woman does not ejaculate at all or only ejaculates a negli- gible amount there is something wrong with her sexually would be completely erroneous. This is not a matter of esta- blishing new standards, but rather of giving the freedom of uninhibited sexual expression a chance, which ultimately increases the likelihood of achieving orgasm. Female ejacu- lation should no longer be a burden to love relationships

and under no circumstances should it lead to any alleged attempts at “curing” it, which would be, at the very least, unnecessary and a perversion of nature, if not downright damaging.

1. Long History of Fallacies
   

   The history of female ejaculation is actually the history of orgasm. Not only is it quite an adventure in terms of medi- cal history, it also reflects our cultural history as we observe how the attitude toward female sexuality has changed over the last 2,000 years. Knowledge and comprehension of this development is a precondition for understanding and advancing ourselves. In order to render the background information and sentiments presented in the following foray into the past more transparent, I will be including a num- ber of anecdotes to give you a closer look at just how the world of science has dealt with female sexuality over the years, alternating between being human and inhuman, adoring and vicious, laboriously exhaustive and then utter- ly blind.
   

   In antiquity, the prevailing doctrine held that women also expelled semen, which had to mix with the male semen in order to conceive. According to Empedocles (495–435 B.C.), the components of the future fetus are contained sepa- rately in male and female semen. To follow this logic, the urge to copulate would be an expression of the aspiration of the components to unite (cf. Galenus, IV, p. 616). Aristo- tle (384–322 B.C.) was convinced that the two secretions had to merge in order to create life. Nevertheless, Aristo- tle’s scientific observations of sexual matters were more accurate than those of other Greek philosophers before him.
   

   In one particular rant he stated, “Heradot is wrong in claim- ing that Negroes have black seminal fluid, as if to say that just because their skin is black that everything else has to be black, too. And he dares to say that given their white teeth!” (Aristotle 1, p. 85). Aristotle still believed so firm- ly in the inherent power of the female ejaculate that he even considered a sort of virgin conception to be possible, where- by the woman could somehow impregnate herself with her genital secretion. As regards the volume of fluid, he said, “
   This far exceeds the amount of male semen produced.”
   (translated from Aristotle 2, fol. 93)
   

   In the writings of Galenus (129–199 A.D.) there is no more mention of this conception theory. The evidence that he knew about female ejaculation is unquestionable: “But because the woman is colder than the man, the fluid in her ‘prostate’ is unfinished and thin and thus does not contri- bute to the conception of a human being. As such, it is quite rightly expelled … whereas the other fluid, that of the man, is sucked up into the womb
   … It visibly flows out of the woman and spills onto the man’s pubis when they experience the height of ecstasy during intercourse.
   ” (trans. from Galenus, vol. 14, ch. 11; p. 189)
   

   Similar evidence of this can also be found in India. Kukko- ka or Koka pandit was a poet and advisor to a maharaja around the year 900. In his work entitled
   Ratirahasya
   (Secrets of Love) he describes the organs which allow a woman to ejaculate. He then goes on to say, “…
   But in the end, like the man, upon her seed flowing she experiences a sensa- tion of pure bliss to the point of swooning.
   “ (trans. from Kukko- ka, p. 267)
   

   Another court sexologist, Kalyanamalla, drew up a sex edu-
   

   cation text in 1500 for the son of a duke. This work was entitled
   The Ananga Ranga
   . In the course of a journey through India undertaken in the19th century, the English scholar Sir Richard F. Burton discovered a copy of the text in Sanskrit, which he translated into English. As the public’s attitude toward sexual matters at the time made it too risky to have it printed, only a few copies were made. Kalyana- malla, too, was well acquainted with female ejaculation: “
   The woman who allows the water of the love goddess to flow at the end of congress thrashes about amidst much screaming and cry- ing, grows weak, closes her lovely eyes and is so content that she can not tolerate any more
   ” (Schmidt, 1922; p. 268). The author can scarcely have meant urine when he spoke of the “water of the love goddess”. And he must also have been aware that the vagina usually becomes moist long before “the end of congress” and thus could not have been referring to lubri- cation.
   

   At around the same time, in 1497, the Italian physician Alessandro Benedetti wrote Historia
   corporis humani
   (The History of the Human Body), a work in which he spoke out on the phenomenon of female ejaculation: “The flows ori- ginate
   at the mouth of the urethra. During intercourse the infer- tile semen is expelled by this female body part, in most cases with such pressure that it shoots out farther than is usually the case for men
   ” (trans. from Benedetti, 1497). One could hardly hope to find a more conclusive or unmistakable text passage to prove that the female ejaculation was definitely medical knowledge half a century ago.
   

   In the course of the Middle Ages medicine did not make any significant progress. The conception theories of anti- quity even reemerged. Rodrigo a Castro, a physician who practiced in Hamburg from 1594 to 1627 wrote, “But if
   

   the woman notices that the stimulation of sensual desire is about to cause her seed to flow, she will let the man know, so that he can ejaculate his semen at the decisive moment and allow the semen to flow together and trigger concep- tion, thus resulting in a fetus” (trans. from Castro, 1617; p. 118).
   

   This doctrine held on so tenaciously that not even the most revered and open-minded “sexologist” of the day, the Itali- an physician and priest Carlo Musitano (1635–1714) could shake it. He was one of this era’s most adamant defenders of progress of his era, which accounts for his vigorous de- fense of William Harvey’s discovery of blood circulation despite the nasty polemics surrounding it. As he, too, held the view that the man and woman have to ejaculate at the same time for conception to be possible, Musitano felt com- pelled to provide detailed lovemaking directions for this pur- pose. Consequently, despite all of the author’s assurances about not wanting to offend virgin ears or cast doubt on his celibacy, his writings entail more elaborate and manifold suggestions for arousing sexual desire than any other ear- lier gynecological writings. His instructions are not only amusing reading, they also reflect just how abundant the sexual potency of women was considered to be back then. For this reason, a rather lengthy excerpt has been included here:
   

   “When a man desires to lie with his wife in the conjugal bed, he ought not to do so in the way of ignorant animals, to suddenly attack her, rather before mounting her he should make use of all sensual caresses to gradually arouse, stimu- late and excite her. To awaken her desire he may engage in all manner of salacious conversation, recite erotic tales and anecdotes, to extol her beauty over that of all other women.
   

   And when she comes to you, hold her gently, fondle her lustfully…and…then caress her breasts…After this he should move, as lovers are wont to do, to the haven of all love’s desires and the object of all rapturous concupiscence, namely to the vulva of the woman, using his hands to stroke and tickle it, this touching engendering in the woman an exquisite, indefinable cupidity … The vulva is quite fer- vid, virtually giving off sparks; it froths, trickles, parting its lips in impatient anticipation of the father of all men, namely the man’s rod (penis) … When all this is done, the man shall take his rod, which he may coat with saliva, and thrust it into the woman’s vulva … gently rubbing the in- side of the vulva, of which Ovid said, ‘Believe me that it is not good to perform the love act too hastily.’ Consequent- ly, overly fervid coitus should be avoided, as it is without fruit. During the act the woman should not draw back or move her buttocks as the Spanish women are wont to do, who, when they are made ready, begin to agitate their en- tire body and practically dance, carried away by excessive desire … and are … as a result … so infertile. During coitus one must abstain from all mourning, sorrow, fear and exces- sive rage, as these passions cause infertility … Thus when performing the love act all other passions of the mind must be set aside, for a calm mind promotes not only conception itself, but also the production of properly developed chil- dren. Thus it should come as no surprise that the children of whores are generally of a dissolute nature, because they were conceived when their parents, as a result of their apo- cryphal deed, were either fearful or not of uncluttered mind or entertaining forbidden thoughts. Thus it can also come to pass that the children of intelligent people often have stupid, oafish and foolish children, as was said of Hippo- crates’ son, for when scholars partake in love’s delights they almost always have great thoughts in their minds. Thus, in
   

   performing the procreational love act, joy, pleasure, cares- sing and whatever else makes people happy are desirable, whereas shame, fear, sorrow, distress, contemplating one’s studies and whatever else plagues the mind must be ba- nished, which explains why for married couples as well, reci- procated love can produce the best children. When a man and a woman of such stature lie together and the man gent- ly plows the woman’s vulva to plant the seed that will grow into a being and the woman realizes
   that from the titillating sensual delight her seed is about to flow, may she tell the man as much so that he may do likewise at the same time and thus, if pos- sible, achieve conception through the flowing together of the two
   . In performing this pleasant task, the woman should take firm hold on the man’s loins and squeeze them hard, while the man is to take the woman’s buttocks in both hands, thus holding each other tight and becoming one flesh. And during this sweet delight, they shall hold each other tight until their seeds have mixed together in the womb. And after allowing his seed to flow, the man should not loosen himself too soon from the woman’s embrace so that the air does not enter into the still open vulva and ruin their seed before they have been able to intermingle” (Musitano, 1711; p. 390 f.).
   

   What is so impressive about Musitano is his great insight into sex psychology. Compared to him, most of his col- leagues at the time were incredibly clueless. Even by today’s standards some of these contemporaries provide what is pro- bably the most original evidence of female ejaculation. The physiologist Linden and the anatomist Diemerbroeck, who were considered to be two of the most revered medical experts of their day are a case in point. Both attribute to the female an appendage which is not only penis-like, but also capable of ejaculation, whereby the authors hardly see any
   

   distinction from the male’s. The former wrote the following about the clitoris in
   Medicina physiologica
   , which was pub- lished in 1653: “In the top part of it there is a tiny head which is identical to the male glans and has an opening … It must enlarge incredibly when the female ejects her semen through it” (van der Linden, 1653; p. 320).
   

   Indeed, incredible is the right word! Evidence that anato- mists believed that the clitoris had an opening at its tip through which ejaculation could occur can be found as late as the first half of the 18
   ^th
   century (Storch, 1746; p. 16).
   

   There are just as many documents in medical literature alluding to an overly fantasized similarity of the clitoris to the penis. In 1780 the Swiss universal scholar Albrecht von Haller summed up the knowledge of his age in the following manner:
   

   “The woman’s rod (clitoris) is highly sensitive; her thighs quiver when it is touched. Women become delirious and can no longer refuse their lovers. …While it is only small in chaste persons not engaged in coitus, this rod then, accor- ding to its kind, stands up straight, bloats and seems to imi- tate untimely copulation. Verily its size increases with fre- quent use in that shameful trade, like any member in fre- quent use, growing to half the length of a middle finger, the little finger, like the rod of a twelve-year-old boy or the neck of a goose; two, three inches long, seven inches, a span long, the length of a medium-sized male member, the breadth of four fingers, seven inches and larger still up to twelve inches long; but all this is a rare occurrence in our mode- rate part of the world. …It is for this reason that women with this member, partially in days of yore, partially in more recent times, have played such a role intended by nature
   

   only for men …” (Haller, 1775; p. 978 f.)
   

   The first scientist to take a closer look, to actually dissect a corpse to gain true insight, was the Dutchman Reinier de Graaf. In 1672 he also provided the earliest illustration of the female prostate and a faithful depiction of this organ and its emission:
   

   “The entire length of the urethra is completely encased in a white, membrane-like substance one finger wide … The function of this prostate is to produce a fluid which renders women more lascivious by dint of its tingling and saltiness
   

   …” (trans. from de Graaf, 101; p. 67 f.). De Graaf sees a strong similarity between male and female ejaculation: “It should be noted here
   that the emission from the female prostate is just as pleasurable as that of the man
   ” (trans. from de Graaf, 1672; p. 81).
   

   It was in de Graaf’s day that fellow Dutchman Anthonie van Leeuwenhoeck built the first microscope and discove- red sperm in 1690. This triggered a remarkable chain reac- tion in terms of both linguistic psychology and scientific logic: Due to the fact that sperm cells can only be found in male ejaculate and not in that of the female, use of the term “female seed” became increasingly rare. And where there is no semen, there can be no seminal emission, rather at most vaginal lubrication. Hence the only substance which a woman can eject from her urethra is urine. This is the fatal, albeit temptingly adjacent, fallacy, which still misleads so many even today. And what is more, when a term disap- pears from a language, that which is no longer named also soon fades from our consciousness. And this lack of aware- ness is bound to impact behavior. In the course of my histo- rical research, I was struck by the fact that with all due scep-