It’s the lie that will not die. I’m referring to the notion that there are two types of female orgasm, vaginal and clitoral, and that vaginal orgasm is “superior.” Not superior in the sense of being preferable to the woman experiencing orgasm (evidently a woman’s opinion on the subject does not count), but “superior” in authenticity and intrinsic value.
I’ve seen a lot of supposed scientific research on this topic, some of it inane, some of it offensive and some of it simply amusing. After 25 years of regularly reading the woman’s health literature, I think I have identified the most ridiculous paper of all.
A woman’s history of orgasm is discernible from her walk was published last year in the Journal of Sexual Medicine. Conducted jointly in at universities in Belgium and Scotland, the authors claim to have found:
The discerning observer may infer women’s experience of vaginal orgasm from a gait that comprises fluidity, energy, sensuality, freedom, and absence of both flaccid and locked muscles. Results are discussed with regard to previous research on gait, the effect of the musculature on sexual function, the special nature of vaginal orgasm, and implications for sexual therapy.
And just what is the “special nature” of vaginal orgasm that inspired the research? The authors apparently believe:
Compared to women who have had vaginal orgasm (triggered solely by penile–vaginal stimulation), vaginally anorgasmic women display more use of immature psychological defense mechanisms, are less satisfied with their relationships, mental health, and life in general, and are more likely to suffer from global sexual dysfunction.
Really? If those claims were not absurd enough, the authors make a claim that is even more ridiculous:
The primary hypothesis in the present study is that clinical sexologists appropriately trained in the relationship between personality, sexology, and body movement will be able to differentiate between women with and without a history of vaginal orgasm purely on the basis of observing the women walking.
How did the authors test their hypothesis? They recruited 16 female psychology students who agreed to fill out a questionnaire and then consented to be videotaped walking 100 meters. According to the questionnaires, 7 women were vaginally orgasmic and 9 were vaginally anorgasmic.
Then (and this is the hard part), the videotapes were analyzed:
The basis for judgment was a global impression of the women’s free, fluid, energetic, sensual manner of walking (with an emphasis on energy flow through the rotation of the pelvis and the spine). The raters conferred and agreed on the vaginal orgasm status of the women, and the results were recorded.
Wow, how scientific!
I am trying to stop laughing long enough to type the results. Here goes: The authors “diagnosed” 8 of the 16 women as vaginally orgasmic and they were only wrong 25% of the time. But, don’t worry, they were probably right even though it appears they were wrong:
Although the couple of incorrect diagnoses could simply be that, it is also possible that in the case of the two false positives, it might be that the women have the capacity for vaginal orgasm, but have not yet had sufficient experience or met a man of sufficient quality to induce vaginal orgasm.
Why?
In addition to the possible anatomical issue of whether her man has a penis of sufficient length to produce cervical buffeting, and the issue of whether the man maintains his erection for a sufficient duration .., studies have indicated that women are most likely to have an intercourse orgasm with men displaying indicators of greater genetic fitness …
Congratulations to the authors are in order. They have managed the rare feat of a stupidity trifecta. They concocted a stupid study to test a stupid theory and stupidly interpreted the results.
Hmmm, I wonder if you can discern the stupidity of certain sexologists by their walk. Maybe we could do a study to find out.
