Tuana Coming To Understand Orgasm and The Epistemology of Ignorance

Hypatia, Inc.
Coming to Understand: Orgasm and the Epistemology of Ignorance

Author(s): Nancy Tuana
Source: Hypatia, Vol. 19, No. 1, Feminist Science Studies (Winter, 2004), pp. 194-232
Published by: Wiley on behalf of Hypatia, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3810938 .
Accessed: 14/05/2014 09:41
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Hypatia, Inc. and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hypatia.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Comingto Understand:Orgasm
and the Epistemology
of Ignorance
NANCY TUANA
andscientificaccountsof femalesexualityand orgasmprovidea

Layunderstanding
theimportanceof includingepistemologies
of ignorance
fertilesitefordemonstrating
withinfeministepistemologies.
Ignoranceis not a simplelack.It is oftenconstructed,
maintained,and disseminatedand is linkedto issuesof cognitiveauthority,doubt,
trust,silencing,anduncertainty.Studyingbothfeministandnonfeministunderstandings of female orgasmrevealspracticesthat suppressor erasebodiesof knowledge
concerningwomen'ssexualpleasures.
It is a common tenet of theorists workingin the sociology of scientificknowledge (SSK) that an account of the conditions that resultin scientistsaccepting
apparentlytrue beliefs and theories is as crucial as an analysis of those that
resultin their holding to apparentlyfalse theories and beliefs. In outlining the
StrongProgrammein SSK studies,David Bloor(1976)arguesagainstthe asymmetry position common to philosophies of science. On such a position, only
false beliefs that have had a history of influence upon science, such as views
about ether, humors,or phlogiston, are in need of a sociologicalaccount. True
beliefs or theories, however,are viewed as in need of no such explanation in
that their acceptance can be accounted for simply by their truth. Bloor and
other SSK theorists arguethat such appealsto truth are inadequate,insisting
that the acceptance of a belief as true, even in science, involves social factors.
The appealto realitythus does not sufficein explaining why a belief has come
to be accepted by scientists.
In a similarfashionit is importantthat ourepistemologiesnot limit attention
simplyto what is known or believed to be known. If we are to fully understand
the complex practicesof knowledgeproductionand the varietyof featuresthat
Hypatia vol. 19, no. 1 (Winter 2004) ? by Nancy Tuana

Nancy Tuana
195
accountforwhysomethingis known,we mustalso understandthe practicesthat

account for not knowing, that is, for our lackof knowledgeabout a phenomena
or, in some cases, an account of the practicesthat resultedin a groupunlearning
what was once a realmof knowledge.In other words,those who wouldstriveto
understandhow we know must also develop epistemologiesof ignorance.1
Ignorance,farfrombeing a simplelack of knowledgethat good science aims
to banish, is better understoodas a practice with supportingsocial causes as
complex as those involved in knowledgepractices.As Robert Proctorargued
in his studyof the politics of cancer researchand dissemination,CancerWars,
we must"studythe social constructionof ignorance.The persistenceof controversyis often not a naturalconsequenceof imperfectknowledgebut a political
consequence of conflicting interestsand structuralapathies.Controversycan
be engineered:ignorance and uncertainty can be manufactured,maintained,
and disseminated"(1995, 8).
An importantaspect of an epistemologyof ignoranceis the realizationthat
ignoranceshould not be theorizedas a simple omission or gap but is, in many
cases, an active production.Ignoranceis frequentlyconstructed and actively
preserved,and is linked to issuesof cognitive authority,doubt, trust,silencing,
and uncertainty.CharlesMills, for example,arguesthat mattersrelatedto race
in Europeand the United States involve an active productionand preservation of ignorance:"On mattersrelatedto race, the Racial Contract prescribes
for its signatoriesan inverted epistemology,an epistemologyof ignorance, a
particularpattern of localized and global cognitive dysfunctions (which are
psychologicallyand socially functional), producing the ironic outcome that
whites will in generalbe unable to understandthe worldthey themselveshave
made"(1997, 18).
Although such productionsare not alwayslinked to systemsof oppression,
it is importantto be awareof how often oppressionworksthroughand is shadowed by ignorance.As Eve KosofskySedgwickarguesin her Epistemology
of the
effects
can
be
and
on
a
mass
Closet,"ignorance
harnessed,licensed,
regulated
scale for striking enforcements"(1990, 5). Indeed, tracing what is not known
and the politics of such ignorance should be a key element of epistemological
and social/politicalanalyses,for it has the potential to reveal the role of power
in the construction of what is known and to provide a lens for the political
values at workin our knowledgepractices.
Epistemologiesthat view ignoranceas an arenaof not-yet-knowingwill also
overlookthose instances where knowledgeonce had has been lost. What was
once common knowledgeor even common scientificknowledgecan be transferredto the realm of ignorancenot because it is refutedand seen as false, but
becausesuch knowledgeis no longerseen as valuable,important,or functional.
Obstetriciansin the United States, for example, no longer know how to turn
a breech, not because such knowledge, in this case a knowing-how,is seen as

196
Hypatia
false, but because medical practices,which are in largepart fueled by business

and malpracticeconcerns, have shifted knowledgepracticesin cases of breech
births to Caesareans.Midwivesin most settings and physiciansin many other
countries still possess this knowledge and employ it regularly.Epistemologies
of ignorance must focus not only on cases where bodies of knowledge have
been completelyerased,or where a realmhas never been subjectto knowledge
production,but also on these in-betweencases wherewhat was once common
knowledgehas been actively "disappeared"amongst certain groups.We must
also ask the question now common to feminist and postcolonialist science
studies of who benefits and who is disadvantagedby such ignorance (see, for
example, Harding 1998;Tuana 1996b).
While we must abandon the assumptionthat ignorance is a passivegap in
what we know, awaiting scientific progressand discovery,it would be premature to seek out a theory of ignorance with the expectation of finding some
universalcalculus of the "justifiedtrue belief" model. Why we do not know
something, whether it has remainedor been made unknown, who knows and
who is ignorant,and how each of these shift historicallyor fromrealmto realm,
areall open to question.Furthermore,while the movementsand productionsof
ignorance often paralleland track particularknowledgepractices,we cannot
assume that their logic is similar to the knowledges that they shadow. The
question of how ignoranceis sustained,cultivated,or allowed is one that must
be asked explicitly and without assuming that the epistemic tools cultivated
for understandingknowledge will be sufficient to understandingignorance.
The generalpoint, however,still holds that we cannot fully account for what
we know without also offeringan account of what we do not know and who is
privilegedand disadvantagedby such knowledge/ignorance.
Femalesexualityis a particularlyfertileareafortrackingthe intersectionsof
Scientificand common-senseknowledgeof female
power/knowledge-ignorance.2
orgasmhas a historythat providesa rich lens forunderstandingthe importance
of explicitly including epistemologiesof ignorance alongside our theories of
knowledge.And so it is women'sbodies and pleasuresthat I embrace.
EPISTEMOLOGIES
OF ORGASM
Followingin the footstepsof foremothersas interestinglydiverseas MaryDaly

(1978) and Donna Haraway(2000), I adopt the habit of invoking a materialsemiotic presence. I write under the sign of Inanna, the SumerianQueen of
Heaven and Earth.3Let her be a reminderthat sign and flesh are profoundly
interconnected.4
What I tellyou
Let thesingerweaveinto song.
What I tellyou,

Nancy Tuana
197
Let it flow fromear to mouth,

Let it passfromold to young:
My vulva, the horn,
The Boatof Heaven,
Is full of eagernesslikethe youngmoon.
My untilledland liesfallow.
As for me, Inanna,
Who willplow my vulva?
Who willplowmy highfield?
Who willplowmy wet ground?(Inanna1983, 36-37)
No doubt it sounds strangeto ears schooled by a Foucaultiansensitivity to
things sexual for me to frame an epistemologyof ignorance aroundwomen's
sexualityin general,and their orgasmsin particular.Indeed,it was Michel Foucault who warnedthat the discipliningpracticesof the nineteenth centuryhad
constructedsex as "aproblemof truth":"IT]hetruth of sex became something
fundamental,useful, or dangerous,preciousor formidable;in short, that sex
was constitutedas a problemof truth"(1990, 56). Can my investigationsof the
powerdimensionsof ignoranceconcerning women'sorgasmsnot fall preyto a
constructeddesirefor the "truthof sex?"
One might suggestthat I follow Foucault'sadmonition to attend to bodies
and pleasuresratherthan sexualdesireto avoidthis epistemictrap.And indeed,
I do desire to trace bodies and pleasuresas a source of subversion.The bodies
of my attention are those of women, the pleasuresthose of orgasm.But bodies
and pleasuresare not outside the history and deploymentof sex-desire.Bodies
and pleasureswill not remove me, the epistemic subject,from the practiceof
desiring truth. Bodies and pleasures,as Foucault well knew, have histories.
Indeed the bodies that I trace are material-semioticinteractionsof organisms/
Bodies and their pleasuresare not naturalgivens, not
environments/cultures.5
even deep down.Nor do I believe in a truefemalesexualityhiddendeepbeneath
the layersof oppressivesocialization.But women'sbodies and pleasuresprovide
a fertile lens for understandingthe workingsof power/knowledge-ignorance
in
which we can trace who desireswhat knowledge;that is, we can glimpse the
construction of desire (or lack thereof) for knowledgeof women'ssexuality.I
also believe that women'sbodies and pleasurescan, at this historical moment,
be a wellspringfor resistingsexual normalization.6Although my focus in this
paperwill be on the formerconcern, I hope to providesufficientdevelopment
of the latter to tantalize.
I have no desire in this essay to trace the normalizingand pathologizingof
sexual subjectivities.My goal is to understandwhat "we"do and do not know
aboutwomen'sorgasms,and why.My "we"sincludescientificcommunities,both

198
Hypatia
feminist and nonfeminist, and the common knowledgesof everydayfolk, both

feminist and nonfeminist. Of course I cannot divorce normalizingsexualities
fromsuch a studyof women'sorgasms,for,as we will see, what we do and do not
know of women'sbodies and pleasuresinteractwith these practices.Although
part of my goal is to trace an epistemologyof orgasm,I do so because of a firm
belief that as we come to understandour orgasms,we will find a site of pleasure
that servesas a resourceforresistingsexualnormalizationthroughthe practices
of becoming sexual.
In coming to understand,I suggestthat we begin at the site of the clitoris.
UNVEILING
THE CLITORIS
Inannaplacedthe shugurra,thecrownof thesteppe,on herhead.

Shewent to thesheepfold,to the shepherd.
She leanedbackagainsttheappletree.
Whenshe leanedagainsttheappletree,
hervulvawas wondrousto behold.
Rejoicingat herwondrousvulva,
the youngwomanInannaapplaudedherself.
-Inanna: Queen of Heavenand Earth:
Her Storiesand HymmsfromSummer
What we do and do not know about women'sgenitalia is a case study of the
politicsof ignorance.The "we"sI speakof here areboth the "we"sof the general
populationin the United States7and the "we"sof scientists.Let me begin with
the former.I teach a popular,largelecturecourseon sexuality.I have discovered
that the students in the class know far more about male genitals than they do
about female genitals. Take, for example, the clitoris.The vast majorityof my
female students have no idea how big their clitoris is, or how big the average
clitoris is, or what types of variations exist among women. Compare to this
the fact that most of my male studentscan tell you the length and diameterof
their penis both flaccid and erect, though their informationabout the average size of erect penises is sometimes shockingly inflated-a consequence, I
suspect, of the size of male erections in porn movies. An analogous pattern
of knowledge-ignorancealso holds acrossthe sexes. That is, both women and
men alike typicallyknow far more about the structuresof the penis than they
do about those of the clitoris.
This is not to say that women do not know anything about their genitalia.
But what they, and the typical male student, know consists primarilyin a
more or less detailed knowledge of the menstrualcycle and the reproductive
organs.Women and men can typically drawa relativelyaccuraterenditionof
the vagina, uterus,fallopian tubes, and ovaries,but when askedto provideme
with a drawing(from memory)of an external and an internal view of female

199
Nancy Tuana
sexual organs,they often do not include a sketch of the clitoris;and when they
do, it is seldom detailed.
This pattern of knowledge-ignorancemirrorsa similarpattern in scientific
representationsof female and male genitalia. Although the role of the clitoris
in female sexual satisfactionis scientificallyacknowledged,and well known by
most of us, the anatomyand physiologyof the clitoris,particularlyits beginnings
and ends, is still a contested terrain.A brief history of representationsof the
clitorisprovidesan interestinginitial entry into this epistemologyof ignorance.
Let me begin with the "facts."
As I and many other theorists have argued,until the nineteenth century,
men'sbodies were believed to be the true formof human biology and the standardagainstwhich femalestructures-bones, brains,and genitaliaalike-were
to be compared( see Laqueur1990;Gallagherand Laqueur1987;Schiebinger
1989;and Tuana 1993).The clitoris faredno differently.Medical science held
the male genitals to be the true form,of which women'sgenitals were a colder,
interiorversion (see Illustration1). As Luce Irigaray(1985) wouldsay,through
this speculumwomen'sgenitalsweresimplythose of a man turnedinsideout and
upsidedown. It thus comes as no surprisethat the clitoriswouldbe depictedas,
?e t4O fd Fri r
.kv,
.... %
thi w,
Illustration 1: The workes
of thatfamouschirurgion
AmbrosePare,translated
out of Latine and compared
with the Frenchby Thomas
Johnson. London, Printedby
T. Cotes and R. Young,Anno
1634. Page 127.

200
Hypatia
at best, a diminutivehomologueto the penis. A historyof medicalviews of the

clitoris is not a simple tale. It includes those of AmbroisePare,the sixteenthcenturybiologist,who, while quitecontent to chronicleand describethe various
partsand functions of women'sreproductiveorgans,refusedto discusswhat he
called this "obscenepart,"and admonished"thosewhich desireto know more
of it" to read the work of anatomists such as RenaldusColumbusand Gabriello Fallopius(Pare 1968, 130). A history of the clitoris must also include the
subject,well dissected by Thomas Laqueur(1989, 1986), whether,despite the
proliferationof terms such as kleitoris,columnella,virga(rod), and nymphain
texts from Hippocratesto the sixteenth century, these meant anything quite
like what "clitoris"meant after the sixteenth century when the link between
it and pleasurewas bridged.
What was so "discovered"was,of course,complex.RenaldusColumbus,selfheraldedas he who discoveredthe clitoris,refersus to "protuberances,
emerging
fromthe uterusnearthat openingwhich is called the mouthof the womb"(1559,
11.16.447;Laqueur1989,103).He describedthe function of these protuberances
as "theseat of women'sdelight"which "whilewomen are eagerfor sex and very
excited as if in a frenzyand arousedto lust... you will find it a little harderand
oblong to such a degree that it shows itself a sort of male member,"and when
rubbedor touched "semenswifterthan air flowsthis way and that on account
of the pleasureeven with them unwilling"(1559, 11.16.447-8;Laqueur1989,
103). Though a different clitoris than we are used to, I will later argue that
Columbusprovidesan interestingrendition of this emergingflesh relevant to
an epistemologyof knowledge-ignorance.
While much pleasurecan resultfrom a thoroughhistory of the clitoris, let
me forebearand leap ahead to more contemporaryrenditionsof this seat of
pleasure.Even after the "two-sex"model became dominant in the nineteenth
century, with its view of the female not as an underdevelopedmale but as a
second genderwith distinctive genderdifferences,the clitoris got short shrift.
It was often rendereda simplenub, which though carefullylabeled,was seldom
fleshedout or made a focus of attention (see Illustration2). Even morestriking
is the emergingpractice from the 1940s to the 1970s of simplyomitting even
the nub of this seat of pleasurewhen offeringa cross-sectionalimage of female
genitalia(see Illustrations3 and 4). It is importantto rememberthat this display,
or lack thereof,is happeningat a time when displaysof the penis are becoming
ever more complex (see Illustration5).
Enter the women'shealth movement, and illustrationsof women'sgenitals
shift yet again, at least in some locations. Participantsin the self-helpwomen's
movement,ever believersin taking mattersinto our own hands, not only took
up the speculumas an instrumentof knowledgeand liberationbut questioned
standardrepresentationsof our anatomy.The nub that tended to disappearin
standardanatomical texts took on complexity and structurein the hands of
these feminists. In the 1984 edition of the Boston Women Health Collective's

Ovary
Fallopiantube
OvarianRgament
Illustration2: Figure4.3, Sagittal section of female internal anatomy (Rosen

and Rosen 1981, 138).
Illustration3: Figure24-6, Median sagittal section of female pelvis (Kimber,

Gray,Stackpole,Leavell,and Miller 1966, 712).

Uterovesical
space
Ipouch)
Retropubic
Pubicsymophy;is
Illustration4: Figure 5-13, Female pelvic organs (Christensen and Telford

1978, 182).
Pubic symphysis
Prostotic hlrethro
]Bladder
CorpuJscvmou
spongiosum or urethrae
Ampulla of vas deferens

Seminal vesicle
Ut'riculus
/
X~
~JifL-~
Corpus
Prostate gland
bulbourethral
(Cowper's) gland
Bulbus urethrae
paernosum
Penile urethra
Vas deferens
Membranous urethra
Head of epididymis
Glans penis.
Scrotum
Testis
Prepuc
Opening of urethra
Tunica vaginalis propria
Illustration5: Figure24-3, Diagramof midsagittalsection of male reproductive

organs (Kimber,Gray,Stackpole, Leavell,and Miller 1966, 708).

203
Nancy Tuana
book, Our Bodies,Ourselves,the clitoris expanded in size and configurationto

include three structures:the shaft, the glans, and the crura.This new model
receivedits most loving renditionthanks to the leadershipof the Federationof
FeministWomen'sHealth Centers and the illustrativehands of Suzann Gage
(1981) in A New Viewof Woman'sBody(see Illustration6).
On such accounts, the lowertwo-thirdsof the clitoris is hidden beneath the
skin of the vulva. The clitoralglans surmountsthe shaft, or body of the clitoris,
which is partlyvisible, and then extends under the muscle tissue of the vulva
(see Illustration7). To this is attachedthe crura,two stemsof tissue,the corpora
cavernosa,which arc out towardthe thighs and obliquelytowardthe vagina.
The glans of the clitoris, they explain, is a bundle of nerves containing 8,000
nerve fibers,twice the numberin the penis, and which, as you know,respondto
pressure,temperature,and touch. The "newview"presentedto us providesnot
only farmoredetail about the clitoralstructures,but also depicts the clitorisas
largeand largelyinternal.Unlike typical nonfeminist depictionsof the clitoris
as largelyan external genitalia (see Illustration8), the new view renderedvisible the divide between external and internal (see Illustration9).
Now to be fair,someveryrecentnonfeministanatomicaltexts have included
this trinity of shaft, glans, and crura.8But none of these texts focus attention
on coming to understand the sexual response patterns of these and other
bits.9Feminist imagerydivergessignificantlyfromnonfeminist in providingus
::
,, ' ..'t"
Egggtube
O:
RbUnd
Nlimg
>^
JA-
vagina
Uet
',ethra
V8ufehratnpir(t
ByJureth,l.s,
pubicb..ono
W
SupHe
PIlsttitbon:Fgre3.,
ahorligameI
Arter an
=5
er,
_s
oeine
secio tecltrs(eeryan
o
Anal sphincter
Shaft
Glans
Anus
Urotenital diaphragm
Cle
itoral-openin.
g to the ,rag'iira
;
71~
.
aginal gland,
UtJethrasurro:unded by urethral sponge
Illustration6: Figure3.9, A cross section of the clitoris (Federationof Feminist

Women'sHealth Centers 1981,41).

Roundligament
I
,/k
^W^^Bj^
(r
^^^^^^
pI=x,ylnf veins
1,^/~ bladderand vagina
encir.clina
Pudendal atery
Pudendal vein
Illustration7: Figure3.10, How the clitoris is situated in the pelvis (Federation

of Feminist Women'sHealth Centers 1981,42).
^^^
.l+
\^^ Posterior labial commissure

A....
r1'nU
Illustration8: Figure24-8, Externalfemalegenitalia (Kimber,Gray,Stackpole,

Leavell,and Miller 1966, 717).

205
Nancy Tuana
far more detailed views of the impact of sexual stimulationon the glans and
cruraof the clitoris, as well as the labia majoraand the bulbsof the vestibule,
the latter of which possess a very extensive blood vessel system that becomes
very engorged during arousal, doubling, even tripling in size, we are told,
during sexual arousal (see Illustration 10). The always-foundillustrationsof
male erections (see Illustration 11), are now accompanied by an illustration
of female erections (see Illustration 12), something absent in nonfeminist
texts. Feministtexts also lovingly detail the other bits that are part of our seat
of delight. Reminding us that the clitoris, impressivethough it be, is not our
only sensitive bit, feminists also provideus with imagesof the urethralsponge
that lies between the front wall of the vagina and the urethra,which expands
with blood duringsexual arousal(see Illustration13). It was this structurethat
was allegedly"discovered"with Columbus-likegusto (Christopher,this time,
not Renaldus)by Ernst Graffenburg(1950) and popularizedas the "G-spot."
Although a few nonfeminist anatomicalillustrators,post-Graffenburg,
provide
us glimpsesof this pleasurablesponge (see Illustration14), apparentlyneither
they nor Graffenburghave gotten the hang of the feminist speculum,for they
continue to overlookfeminist presentationsof the other sponge, the perineal
sponge located between the vagina and the rectum,which also engorgeswhen
a woman is sexually aroused (see Illustration 15). Pressureon any of these
engorgedstructurescan resultin pleasureand orgasm.
shaft
suspensorylht
whole
clitoris
bulb of
(pubococcyge s
l
msl
evator ani
the vestibule
ilhococcygeus
. sol
mu
::!scle........."''Bartholin's
gland
coccygeusmuscle
anus
PELVIC FLOOR
Christine
Bondante
Illustration9: Figureof the pelvic floor,clitoris, etc. (Boston Women'sHealth

Book Collective 1984, 206).

~f
,~~~/ ^'
/
\
~~\
^\\1
/i,
^"
sR,
"/
^i~,,
/)
Illustration10: Figure 3.23, An inner view of the clitoris during the plateau
phase (Federationof FeministWomen'sHealth Centers 1981,51).
Illustration11: Figure 3.17, Side view of the penis (Federationof Feminist


Illustration12: Figure3-16, Side view of the clitoris (Federationof Feminist

1?'>';^.^ -I
9
...
*X
.
Perineal sponge
of the clitoris
..
Vagina
Illustration13: Figure3.12, Urethral sponge (Federationof Feminist Women's

Health Centers 1981,43).

Illustration14: Figure5.7, The Grafenbergspot (Rathus, Nevid, and FichnerRathus 2002, 167).
/
?Ci
,?
E:1
.-v.,.,.-.L..
. ;
. .
M.
~~~~~~
?;
Illustration15:Figure3.14,Self-examinationof the perinealsponge (Federation

of FeministWomen'sHealth Centers 1981,45).

Nancy Tuana
209
We have a classic case of separateand unequal when it comes to contemporarynonfeminist depictionsof female and male genitals.All the abovementioned contemporaryanatomy textbooks include detailed renditions of the
structuresof the penis, with the corpuscavernosumand the corpusspongiosum,
importantsitesof male engorgement,carefullydrawnand labeled,while offering
only the merestbit of a nub as a sufficientrepresentationof the clitoris.10
FINGERING TRUTH
So how do we put our fingeron the truth of women'sclitoralstructures?Whose

cartographiesdo we believe? For those of us who follow the speculum, the
feminist influenced model of the three-fold clitoral structureshave become
scripture,with each detail ever more lovingly drawn. But ratherthan follow
desireand insist that the feministdepictionsof the clitorisare the truth, let me
rathertrace the ebbs and flowsof this knowledge/ignorance.
Despite fifteen yearsof clear illustrationsof this new view of clitoral structures, our impact has been surprisinglyminimal, at least so far. A review of
anatomicalillustrationsin standardcollege human sexualitytextbooksreveals
a surprisinglack of attention to the functions and structuresof the clitoris (see
Illustration16).1 No surprise,then, that my students have, at best, a passing
knowledgeof the depths and complexity of its structures.These are the very
same students, I remind you, who have relativelydetailed knowledge of the
structuresof femalereproductiveorgansand of the structuresof male genitalia,
though the terminologythey use to label those parts often turns to street talk
Illustration
16:Figure2.4,Femalesexualand reproductiveorgans(Kelly1994,44).

210
Hypatia
ratherthan the high Latinof medicaltextbooks.The humansexualitytextbook

writershave clearlybought the line that "sizedoesn'tmatter,"and continue to
depict the clitoris as a modest, undifferentiatednub of flesh.
A politics of ignorance is at workhere, one linked to the politics of sex and
reproduction.Whether female and male genitalia are seen as homologous or
analogous (or somewherein between), centuries of scientific theories and lay
beliefs have treated their pleasuresdifferently.The importanceof male pleasure and ejaculationfor conception has been little disputedfrom the Greeks
to the present. In contrast, the question of female seed and the link between
it and female pleasurewas alwaysa point of controversy.Many scientists from
the Greeks and well into the sixteenth century disputedthe very existence of
female seed or semen, though those in the earliercenturieswho did ascribeto
the existence of female seed often arguedfor the importance of female pleasure as the vehicle for its release (see Tuana 1988 and 1993). The infertility
of prostitutes,for example, was often explained as due to a lack of pleasurein
intercourse(Cadden 1993, 142-43). But by the thirteenth centuryand onward,
the link between conception and female pleasurein sex was typically denied
even by those who allowed for the existence of female seed. Women'ssexual
pleasurecame to be seen as inessentialto reproduction,althoughmanyscholars
admittedthat it might be useful in promotingthe desirefor intercourse.
Now to this view of the function (or lack thereof) of female erotic pleasure
add the politics of sex, namely the view that the only or at least the main function of sex is reproduction.To this add the politics of female sexuality,namely
the tenet common in scientificand popularaccounts well into the nineteenth
century that women were more lustful than men and that their sexualitywas
a danger to men,12and a path is cleared to an understandingof why clitoral
structuresget lost in the process.The logic becomes quite clear:A) There is
no good reason to pay attention to the clitoris, given that it allegedlyplaysno
role in reproductionand that sex is to be studied (only) in orderto understand
reproduction.B) Worse,there is good reasonto not payattention to the clitoris
FromPandoraon, and well into
lest we stirup a hornet'snest of stingingdesire.13
the nineteenth century,women'sstinging desireand limb-gnawingpassionhad
been brandedthe cause of the fall of mankind.What betterreasonto construct
and maintain an epistemologyof ignorance?What betterwayto disqualifyand
perhapseven control women'ssexual satisfaction?4
But I simplifyhere to make my point. It is not true that history recordsno
moments in the contemporaryperiod when scientists focused their speculums
on clitoral structures.Leaving Sigmund Freudaside for the moment, genitals
came under scrutinyduringthe end of the nineteenth century as science constructedthe categoryof the "invert,"namely,those who mixed with members
of their own sex. Evolutionarytheory linked the newly "uncovered"sexual
identity of the homosexual to degeneracy,and widespreadsocietal fearsof the

Nancy Tuana
211
degenerationof the race (that is, the white race), led to broadenedsupportfor
eugenics movements. Scientists, now more intent than ever before on social
control, began to examine bodies for signs of degenerationto providesupport
for proper"matings"and to discouragethe dangerousmixing of people across
racialor sexual boundaries.Belief in the degenerationof the race led many to
believe that so-called "inverts"were proliferating.Anxiety led to a desire to
be able to track such undesirablesand an equallystrongdesire to believe that
their perversityand devolutionwouldbe clearlymarkedon their bodies.Given
the desire for such knowledge, it did not take long before genitals, or at least
deviant genitals, would become a focus of the scientific gaze, hornet'snest or
not. Although through images to be kept only for the eyes of professionals,
whose objectivity and dispassionatenature would protect them from corruption, science began to turn its gaze on the structuresof the clitoris to seek out
and control deviancy.
The Sex Variantstudy,conductedin New YorkCity from1935-1941,wasone
example of scientific investigationslaunched to interrogatethe marksof deviance that had been imprintedonto the structuresof the body.The professedgoal
of the studywasto identifyinvertsso that physicianscouldthen try to stop them
from reproducingand further contaminating the race. Gynecologist Robert
LatouDickinson, the principleinvestigatorof the Sex Variantstudy,believed
that deviance and degenerationwould be mappedon women'sgenitals. Clitoriseswereexamined,measured,and sketched,alongwith the variouscontoursof
vulva,breast,and nipplesizes.Dickinsonconcludedthat, indeed,the genitalsof
invertswerea symbolof theirdeviance,arguingthat theirgenitalsweredifferent
from those of "normal"women-their vulvae, larger;their clitorises,notably
erectile; their labium,longer and more protruding;their vaginas, distensible;
their hymens,insensitive;and their uteruses,smaller(see Illustration17).As an
aside, it should be noted here that Dickinson'sgynecological studies included
only so-called inverts. (the "normal"vulva, he apparentlydrewfrommemory.)
This was also a periodwhen the genitals of "inferior"races,particularlythose
of African descent,wereexaminedand measured,with investigatorsonce again
believing that proofof inferioritywould be markedon their genitals.5
The point here is that this epistemologyis not abouttruth. I am not arguing
that the feminist model of the three-foldstructuresof the clitorisfinallyuncovered the long submergedtruth of the clitoris.Nor am I arguingthat feminists
were,finally,practicinggood science and being objective.These cartographies
were and are fueled by our desire to transformnormative heterosexuality's
vagina-only attention to pleasure.Nor am I claiming that there were no discourses on the clitoris as a source of sexual pleasurein medical and popular
literatureuntil feminists and their speculumsentered the scene. Indeed, one
can find dozens, if not hundreds,of accounts of female orgasmresultingfrom
this feminine seat of pleasurein texts as disparateas those writtenby midwives

212
Hypatia
prepuce
cehtoris
labia
labia
m/izora
minora e
J
,
F"_,- ,.&`
Average vulva
of inrparous
woman.
I (drawn open)
Illustration17:Figure3,
Typicalsex variant vulva
and average(Dickinson 1941,
1102).
X% averae'en9A!
of labiatenajor
-ym.,
meaius
Uestibute
hyrmen
Typical sex variant vulva and averaqe

and penned by pornographers.Nor am I arguingthat the speculumwas never
focused on the female vulva. However,a complex absence exists, a gap that
I find important,one often repeatedtoday.What is missing or only sketchily
attendedto in nonfeministanatomies,at leastwhen the focusis on the "normal"
ratherthan the "deviant,"is the desireto map the geographiesand functions of
the clitorisand ourother pleasurablebits. What nonfeministanatomistssketch
seldom goes beyond the identificationof this pleasurable(or dangerous)lump
of flesh.What I am arguingis that the historyof our knowledges-ignorancesof
the clitoris-indeed, our lived experiencesof its beginnings and ends-is part
of an embodieddiscourseand history of bodies and pleasures.It is a chapterin
the tale of power/knowledge-ignorance.

Nancy Tuana
213
THE ISSUE OF PLEASURE
Who wouldwanta shotgunwhenyou can havea semiautomatic?

-Natalie Angier, Woman:An IntimateGeography
Let me remaina moment at this site of pleasure.Rememberwith me that until
the nineteenth century not only women'sdesirefor sex but the very pleasures
they receivedfrom it were seen as far greaterthan those of men. In the words
of Tiresias,he who had lived both as a woman and as a man, when it comes to
the issue of pleasure:
If the partsof love'spleasuresbe divided by ten,
Thrice three go to women, one only to men.
(Apollodorus3.6.7)
This image of women'ssexualityshifts, at least for certain women, as we move
into the nineteenth century, and with this move, we can locate a shift of
knowledge-ignorance.
My lordDumuziis readyfor the holyloins.
The plantsand herbsin hisfieldareripe.
"O Dumuzi!Yourfullnessis my delight."
.... He shapedmy loinswithhisfair hands,
The shepherdDumuzifilledmy lap withcreamand milk,
He strokedmy pubichair,
He wateredmy womb.
He laidhis handson my holyvulva,
He smoothedmy blackboatwithcream,
He quickenedmy narrowboatwithmilk. (Inanna1983, 41, 43)
Many of our sociologicalsurveysof sexuality,though not all, figuresex as it
is figuredin the story of Inanna, between a woman and a man. Although this
is far too narrowa story to tell if what we want is an account of bodies and
pleasures,let me focus on the differencesbetween this ancient account and
contemporaryembodimentsof heterosexualfemale sexuality.
A 1994surveyof heterosexualwomenand men in the United Statesbetween
the ages of 18 and 59 reveals that one out of every three women surveyed
reportedthat they were uninterestedin sex and one out of every five women
reportedthat sex providedlittle pleasure,in both cases double the numberof
men reportinga lack of interestor pleasurein sex (Laumann,Gagnon, Michael,
and Michaels 1994). Add to this the fact that almost 25 percent of the women
surveyedreportedbeing unable to reachorgasm,in comparisonwith 8 percent

214
Hypatia
of men, and we begin to see an impact of knowledge-ignoranceon bodies and

pleasures.The pleasuregap surroundingheterosexualwomen'sand men'sfirst
coital experiencesis even more startling:79 percent of men reportedthat they
were certain they had an orgasm during their first sexual experience, while
only 7 percent of the women could so report(Sprecher,Barbee,and Schwartz
2001).
These are astonishing figuresin themselves,but they become all the more
startling when set alongside of women'smulti-orgasmiccapacities. Women's
capacityfor multipleorgasm,though taken to be a revelationby contemporary
scientists, was a commonplace in many scientific and popular circles in the
past.
He caressedme on the ... fragranthoney-bed.
My sweetlove, lyingby my heart,
one by one,
Tongue-playing,
didso fifty times.
Dumuzi
My fair
Now my sweetlove is sated. (Inanna1983,48)
What was once taken to be ordinaryknowledgeof women'smore robustsexuality and her greaterorgasmiccapacity submergedinto the mire of ignorance
sometimeduringthe turn of the last century,whereit went dormant(orperhaps
just pornographic)for about fifty yearsand then resurfacedin the new science
of sexuality.
Woman'smulti-orgasmiccapacity became a subject for contemporaryscientific study when Kinsey's1953 study,SexualBehaviorin the Human Female,
revealedthat almost half of the women studied reportedthe ability to experience multipleorgasms.Shere Hite's 1976reporton female sexualityconfirmed
Kinsey'sresults.48 percent of the women in Hite's surveyreportedthat they
often requiredmore than one orgasmto be sexuallysatisfied(1976,602-603).
William H. Masters and Virgina G. Johnson (1966) similarly documented
women'sabilityto have morethan one orgasmwithouta significantbreak.They
noted that if properstimulationcontinues aftera woman'sfirstclimax, she will
in most cases be capable of having additionalorgasms-they reportbetween
five and six-within a matterof minutes.Mastersand Johnson also reportthat
with direct clitoralstimulation,such as an electric vibrator,many women have
from twenty to fifty orgasms.
Despitehaving science and all those measuringtools on ourside,effortscontinue to suppressthis bit of knowledge.As just one example,Donald Symonsin
The Evolutionof HumanSexuality(1979),strikesa typical pose when he assures
his readersthat the multiplyorgasmicwoman ". . . is to be found primarily,if
not exclusively,in the ideology of feminism, the hopes of boys, and the fears
of men"(1979,92).

Nancy Tuana
215
Foucaultwarnedus awayfromdesireas a categoryimplicatedin the construction of human identitiesand cultures,but urgeda greaterattention to pleasure.
His Historyof Sexuality(1990) documentsthe uses of pleasurein the practices
of normalizingpowerand includespleasure,not just desire,as fundamentalto
understandingthe genealogyof sexuality.ButFoucault'saccount also includesa
creative,indeedresistant,aspectof pleasure,in which pleasurecouldbe a site for
resistingsexual normalizationand a wellspringfor enrichingthe art of living.16
At a time when popularculture and science alike are convinced of men's
greatersexual drives, when a long entrenched fear of the power of women's
sexuality is still in the background,when a clear double standardof sexuality disciplines women and men alike, and when heterosexualityremains the
normalizedsexuality,it is perhapsno surprisethat far more women than men
are dissatisfiedwhen it comes to the issue of pleasure.But I desire to flesh out
pleasurein ways that have the potential to resist this type of normalization.
As a firststep, I stand Inanna and Tiresiasalongsidethe nineteenth century's
passionlesswoman and the twentieth century'spreorgasmicbut sexuallyactive
woman, and by coming to understand the politics of knowledge-ignorance
behind their presence,invoke the female orgasm.
THE EITHER/OROFWOMEN'SORGASMS
Let me returnto my historyof the clitoris.In this section I will complicatethis

study of the epistemologyof ignorance-knowledgeregardingfemale sexuality
by bringing function to form, turning my attention to accounts of the role of
the clitoris in female orgasm.To understandthe almost complete circumcision
of female orgasmic potentiality affected by labeling practically any clitoral
"excitability"deviant during the first half of the twentieth century, we must
turn to Freud.The longest playing of the orgasm debates in the twentieth
century began with Freud'sdeclarationof not one but two types of orgasm:
the vaginallyadultkind and her immaturekid sister,the clitoralorgasm(1962,
124). Fromthis one little act of counting to two erupteda huge, now almost
centuries-longdebate.
Let me begin my account by returningto Columbus.While Columbus'sclitoris and mine are not located in the same place, the link he makesbetween it
and sexualpleasuremarka movementI wouldlike us to remember.His account
bearsrepeating.He tells us that he discovered"protuberances,emergingfrom
the uterus near that opening which is called the mouth of the womb"that
were,in his words,"theseat of women'sdelight,"which when rubbedor touched
"semenswifterthan airflowsthis way and that on account of the pleasureeven
with them unwilling"(1559,11.16.447-48;Laqueur1989,103).Columbusfunctions accordingto an oldereconomyin which women'spleasurein sex mattered
because it was needed for conception.

216
Hypatia
While still markedby a male economy-both in representation("it shows

itself a sort of male member")and in function ("even with them unwilling")-Columbus's depiction of the clitorisevinces anothereconomy that dissolves the boundarybetween inside and out, between the so-called "external"
and the "internal"genitalia. It also providesan interesting example of how
knowledgeonce found can be lost. Columbus,a man of his time, viewedfemale
genitalia as homologous to male genitalia but markedby a lack of heat that
resultedin them remaining,for the most part, inside the body.In identifyinga
that emergesfromthe uterus,Columbusacknowledgedthat it,
"protuberance"
like the penis, grew in size when aroused,but he did not limit female pleasure
to it. He acknowledgedother sites of pleasure,such as the circularfolds of the
cervix that cause a friction from which lovers experience wonderfulpleasure
and the variousbits of flesh closer to the vulva by which "pleasureor delight
in intercourseis not a little increased"(1559, 11.16.445;Laqueur1989, 105).
Columbus'sgeographydescribedvarious linked structuresas contributing to
woman'spleasure,but he had no desireto determinewhereone part or orgasm
stops and another begins. Nor was there a desire to locate pleasurein a clearly
definedsite. Protuberances,folds,and bits of flesh alike are,forColumbus,that
from which pleasureflows.
What Columbushad put together,Freudwould cast asunder.While Freud
retained a remnant of the one-sex model, arguingthat "portionsof the male
sexual apparatusalso appearin women'sbodies, though in an atrophiedstate"
(1964, 114),he arguesfor an importantpsychicaldifferencebetween the pleasures of men and those of women. In boys there is a relativelyunproblematic
"accessionof libido"duringpuberty.In girls, however,he tells us that there is
"afresh wave of repressionin which it is preciselyclitoroidalsexuality that is
effected"(1962, 123). That is, to become a woman the girl must abandon the
pleasuresof the clitoris and discover those of the vagina. "When erotogenic
susceptibilityto stimulationhas been successfullytransferredby a womanfrom
the clitoris to the vaginal orifice,it impliesthat she has adopteda new leading
zoneforthe purposesof her latersexualactivity"(1962, 124).This is an economy
that requiresa level of differentiationnot found in Columbus.Freud'sis a map
of the female genitals that requiresthat we can, and do, distinguish between
the clitoris and all its bits, on the one hand, and the vagina and its bits of flesh
on the other.And it is here, despitethe trace of the one-sex model, that Freud
imposes a two-sex economy that divides the clitoris from the other bits. But
he does so to perpetuatean even older economy that perceivesthe purposeof
female pleasure,when properlychanneled, to be heterosexual reproduction.
Indeed,"theintensificationof the brakeupon sexualitybroughtaboutby pubertal repressionin women servesas a stimulusto the libido of men and causesan
increase in its activity"(1962, 123). In other words,repressedfemale sexuality
increasesmale desire-quite a modern trope.

Nancy Tuana
217
The story,of course,shifts in the 1960swith the tools of MastersandJohnson

and the politics of feminism. Masters and Johnson (1966) rejected the purporteddistinction between clitoraland vaginal orgasm,arguingphysiologically
speaking for only one kind of orgasm.Peering through their speculums,they
concluded that allegedlyvaginal orgasms,which they revealinglyidentifiedas
those experiencedduringintercourse(notice the functionalityof the definition),
wereno differentthan allegedlyclitoralorgasms,forboth resultedfromthe same
phenomena,namelyclitoralstimulation.We aretold that penile coital thrusting
drawsthe clitoralhood back and forth againstthe clitorisand vaginal pressure
heightens blood flow in the clitoris,furthersetting the stage for orgasm.
These findingswere,and still are,met with skepticismin the scientificcommunity, but not in the feminist community.Followingclosely on the heels of
Mastersand Johnson'spronouncementsand the second wave of feminismthat
hit in the late 1960s, feminist theorists such as Ann Koedt (1970) and Alix
Shulman(1971)insistedthat we womenshouldall "thinkclitoris"and rejectthe
myth of the vaginal orgasm.Their concern was to discreditthe vaginal orgasm
and the yearsof pressureplaced on women who did not have the "rightkind."
But to make the case, a frustratingreversaloccurredwhere only the clitoris
was the source of sensation-and rememberwe do not yet have the enlarged
Our Bodies,Ourselves(1984) conception of the clitoris to turn to. Shulman
tells us that the vagina has so little sensation that "womencommonly wear a
diaphragmor tampon in it, and even undergosurgeryon it, without feeling any
sensation at all" (1971,294). And although Shulman does not deny that some
women might sometimesexperience orgasmthrough intercourse,for after all
some women, she tells us, sometimesexperience orgasmthroughbreaststimulation or mental stimulationor even through dreams,she does disparagethe
level of pleasureintercoursecan provide:"Mastersand Johnson observe that
the clitoris is automatically'stimulated'in intercoursesince the hood covering the clitoris is pulled over the clitoris with each thrust of the penis in the
vagina-much, I suppose, as a penis is automatically'stimulated'by a man's
underwearwheneverhe takes a step. I wonder,however,if either is erotically
stimulatingby itself" (1971,296).
Despite Masters and Johnson and feminist slogans, the days of vaginal
orgasm are not (yet) numbered.Josephine Singer and Irving Singer (1972),
for example, argue still for two types of orgasms,the vulval and the uterine.
They contend that what Mastersand Johnson observedwere vulval orgasms,
which remain the same despite the source of stimulation,clitoral or vaginal.
But they arguethat the uterineorgasmoccurs only in responseto deep thrusting against the cervix that slightly displaces the uterus and stimulates the
tissues that cover the abdominalorgans.This view of two types of orgasmhas
received additionalsupportfrom scientists who arguethat orgasmsthat result
from deep cervical or uterine stimulationare controlled by a differentneural

218
Hypatia
pathwayand producedifferentsubjectiveexperiencesthan do those generated

throughclitoral stimulation(forexample,see Alzate 1985;Perryand Whipple
1981;and Whipple 1995).
One responseto the orgasmdebatesis to askwhatkeepsthem so entrenched?
As breasts and other non-genital bits attest to, the origins of orgasmsare a
complex matter.Why the persistencein counting even when we are reassured
(repeatedly)that they areall equally"good"(see McAnulty and Burnette2001,
119)?Though I have no doubt that the answer to this question is complex,
let me explore two of its components: the geographyof the genitals, and the
persistenceof the belief that the function of sex is reproduction.
Those who sketch anatomicalrenditionsof male and female genitals insist
on making a distinction between internal and external genitalia. A factor of
arbitrarinessis clearlymarkedon this distinction. Formales the penis is wholly
an external genital, but testicles get divided in two, with the scrotumbeing
listed as an external sex organ and the testes as internal. Since lots of bits of
the penis are internal, one wonderswhy we even bother to make this distinction. But when it comes to the analogous division of female genitals, more
than arbitrarinessis at play.The politics of reproductiongets written explicitly
into this division, for in the female another descriptivephrasefor the internal
female sex organsis "thefemalereproductivesystem"(Rathus2002, 106).This
division reinforcesthe orgasmdebatesand providesa way to "makesense"of
the claim for differentkinds of orgasms,those that originatefromoutside and
those from inside.
What we have here is an instance of the politics of knowledge-ignorance.
This division of female genitals evinces the persistenceof a politics of viewing
reproductionas centralto sexuality,so that it becomesa definingelementin the
demarcationof female genitalia. If you set sail by Columbus'smap, you would
not arriveat the planned destination.Still, like his earliernavigatornamesake,
whereyoudo arriveis interestingtoo. Seeing orgasmand reproductionas a piece
of a whole cloth, Columbushad no desireto demarcatethe clitorisas "external"
and hence not partof the femalereproductivesystem.But once the clitorisand
its orgasmicpleasureswere seen as inessential to reproduction,few anatomists
sawany value in chartingits contoursand it was relegatedinto that little undifferentiatednub that could easilybe deemed "external"and "nonreproductive,"
with the "true"genitals, those that matter,being the internal genitalia.7
This politicsof knowledge-ignoranceis in turn markedby a persistentrefusal
view of femalegenitalsdissolvesthe basis
to admitthat the new feminist-inspired
on
for the internal/externaldivide, for, its view, the clitoris is alwaysalready
both. And once one has this richer understandingof all the bits involved in
female orgasm, and little political commitment to retaining a teleology of
reproductionin accountsof pleasure,then nothing turnson demarcatingtypes
of orgasmbasedon physiologicallocation. In Women'sExperienceof Sex, Shelia

Nancy Tuana
219
Kitzingersumsup this view thusly:"Askingwhetherorgasmis in the clitorisor

in the vagina is reallythe wrongquestion"(1985,76). Buthere, despitefeminist
insistence that their accounts were about truth-"I think that we wererevealing the truth. And how can you arguewith anatomy?"l18-wefind ourselvesin
that complex intersection between knowledge-ignoranceand power-politics.
The desire to "cut nature at its joints" often requiresvalue-laden, strategic
decisions.Feministscut natureat differentjoints than do otherswho represent
the clitoris because their values concerning the politics of sex differfrom the
values of nonfeminist anatomists.Perhapsthe body speaks,but understanding
what it saysrequiresinterpretation.
What we learn from feminist explorationsof our genital geographyis twofold. First,if you view the clitoris as an importantknowledgeproject,whether
because you are convinced that orgasmis primarilyclitoral and your geographies aim to understandpleasureor because,like Columbus,you think orgasm
is central to reproductionand you aim to understandreproduction,then you
will focus far more attention on the structuresof the clitoris than if you see
it as an uninteresting though pleasant nub. What we attend to and what we
ignore are often complexlyinterwovenwith values and politics. Second, if you
discovernew knowledgeabout something others do not take seriously,do not
expect yourknowledgeprojectsto have much effect. The veil of ignorance is
not so easily lifted.
SISTERHOOD
IS POWERFUL
I've talked so far about scientific views of human female orgasm,but another
way to enrich our understandingof this epistemologyof ignorance-knowledge
and attend to bodies and pleasuresis to include in this account our simian
sistersand how their stories and ours are woven together in theories of evolution. In making this move, I would like to return to the issue of pleasureand
keep in the foregroundwhy women'smultipleorgasmicpleasuresare so seldom
acknowledged. Lest one think that only feminist accounts of orgasm are
political, one need only look at the orgasmdebates in evolutionarytheory to
see that nonfeminist accounts also wear their societal values on their sleeves
(see Lloyd 1993). Firstof all, and not at all surprisinggiven what I've already
pointed out, the typical evolutionaryaccounts of female sexuality explain all
basic aspectsof sexuality in termsof reproduction.It is rareto find an account
in which sexuality is treated as an autonomousset of functions and activities
only partiallyexplained in termsof reproductivefunctions.
The reduction of sexuality to reproductionis well illustratedby primate
studies.In reconstructinghow earlyman and womanbehaved,researchershave
generallyturned to chimpanzees,with whom we shareda common ancestora
merefivemillion yearsago.Despiteourkinship,and some importantsimilarities

220
Hypatia
between humans and chimpanzees,such as the long period of infant dependency, social bonds that persistover generations,and the need to learn what
to eat and how to obtain it, a striking differencealso exists, namely, the fact
that female chimps have sex only duringestrus,which begins and ends during
their fertileperiod.Add to this that such occurrencesarecomparativelyrarein
a chimpanzeecommunitybecausefemalesspendmost of their adultlives either
pregnantor lactating(see Dixson 1998,43), and the use of chimp sexualbehavior as a blueprintfor human sexual behaviorbecomes questionable.However,
one effect of this comparison is to link all sexual behavior,chimpanzee and
human alike, to reproductivesuccess.The vast majorityof chimpanzeesexual
behavior occurs during the female fertile period, and thus it is easy to argue
that it is linked to reproductivesuccess.
But another contenderfor a snapshotof earlyhominid sexual behavior,the
bonobos, also sharedthat same five million-year-oldancestor.Bonobos,unlike
chimpanzeesand farmore like humans,frequentlyseparatesex fromreproduction, and female bonobos' sexuality, like the sexuality of female humans, is
not tied to their ovulation cycles. Though female bonobos have pink genital
swellingsas do chimps, theirsbegin and end weeksbeforeand aftertheir fertile
periodsand last for approximately70 percentof their cycle. Bonobo sexualityis
not only not linked to fertileperiods,its functionsand enactmentsgo farbeyond
simple reproductivesuccess. Bonobos use sex to decrease tensions caused by
potential competition, typically competition for food. When bonobos come
upon a food source such as a tree filled with ripe fruit, their initial response
is a sexual freeplaythat calms the group down before they turn to feeding.
Sexual encounters also often follow displaysof aggression,especially among
males. After two males fight, one will often place his rumpagainst the other's
genitals or reach out and stroke the other's penis, again as a way to release
social tension. Femalesalso use sexualbehaviorto enhance bonding,both with
males and with females.Females,who join new communitieswhen they reach
sexual maturity,will have sex with each memberof the groupas a way to gain
acceptance.Femalesalso maintain sexual relationswith other femalesas a way
to form alliances that will help ensure access to food and collaborativeefforts
to control male behavior.'9
Lest this foragingin the junglesof primatesexualityhas made it difficultto
follow the logic of my analysis,my point here is that knowledgeand ignorance
productionemergefromvaluesand priorassumptionsconcerningproperends. If
we have for centuriesinsisted that the properfunction of sexualityis reproduction, then it is crucialto "civilize"it, that is, to put it in service of familyvalues.
Given the persistenceof the belief that the primarypurposeof human sex is
reproduction,and I would add, an equallyimbeddedfearof femalesexuality,it
comes as no surprisethat our mostlymale evolutionarytheoristswouldpick the
chimp over the bonobos to model the evolution of human sexuality.A female

Nancy Tuana
221
chimpanzeemay have sex with more than one male, but at least she modestly
reservesher passionsfor procreation.
Seeing how sex fares, it would be foolhardyto predictthat female orgasms
would fare any better. And indeed, if we turn our attention to evolutionary
accounts of female orgasms, their existence and function, we find another
story of familyvalues. But to understandthe plot line of this story,we have to
returnto ourprimatesisters.Although evolutionarytheoristshave acceptedthe
existence of human female orgasm,until recently they wanted to make them
uniquelyhuman. In other words,although it was accepted that male primates
exhibit orgasmicresponsesduringejaculation,most theoristsdenied that female
nonhuman primatesexperiencedorgasm,another piece in an epistemologyof
ignorance.
In askingwhy theorists denied our primatesisterstheir orgasms,let'sbegin
with some of the facts. Donald Symons in his influentialbook The Evolutionof
HumanSexuality(1979),chronicledthe empiricaldatamarshaledby those who
wonderedaboutsuch orgasms.He noted that numerousprimatologistsreported
a "clutchingreaction"in which female rhesusmonkeysgraspedthe male, but
only during the ejaculatorymount, the last of two to eight mounts. Though
some argued that the timing of this clutch supporteda possible ejaculationtriggeringvaginal spasm,others denied any such association.Others studying
rhesus monkeys noted rhythmic contractions of thigh muscles and around
the base of the tail in females after a numberof mounts and thrusts. Others
studyingstumptailmonkeysnoted that femaleswho mount other femalessometimes exhibit the same behaviorpatternsthat a male stumptailexhibits as he
ejaculates,namely "apausefollowedby muscularbody spasmsaccompaniedby
the characteristicfrowninground-mouthedstareexpressionand the rhythmic
expiration vocalization"(Symons 1979, 28). Others studyingrhesusmonkeys
foundthat aftersessionsof clitoraland vaginalstimulationsome of the monkeys
had vaginal contractions.
Despite the mounting evidence for nonhuman primate orgasm, Symons
concludes:"While the possibilitythat nonhuman femalemammalsexperience
orgasmduringheterosexualcopulation remains open, there is no compelling
evidence that they do" (1979, 82). He arguesthat what evidence there is for
nonhuman primate orgasmoccurs only in "unnatural"settings such as laboratoriesor zoos in which primatesexperience "moreintense and variedsexual
behaviorthan occurs in naturalcircumstances"(1979,82-83). Notice that the
only orgasmsthat count for Symons are those that occur duringheterosexual
copulation in so-called naturalsettings.
The evidenceis now turningagainstthe view that orgasmis uniquelyhuman,
though the debatesstill rage.Alan Dixson (1998),forexample,reportsevidence
of uterine contractionsin female stumptailmacaquesduringcopulationswith
malesas well as while engagingin so-calledmountingbehaviorbetweenfemales.

222
Hypatia
Studies also document elevated heart rates similar to those experienced in

human femalesduringorgasm,as well as vaginal contractions,clitoral tumescence, limb spasm,and body tension duringnormal bouts of pelvic thrusting.
JaneGoodall, I wouldadd,also notes that adolescentfemalechimpanzeeslaugh
softly as they masturbate(see Goodall 1988). Dixson concludes that "orgasm
should thereforebe viewed as a phylogeneticallyancient phenomenon among
anthropoidprimates;the capacityto exhibit orgasmin the humanfemalebeing
an inheritance from ape-likeancestors"(1998, 133).
So, again, why the decades of denial of orgasmto our primatesistersin the
face of their embodied pleasures?What is the logic of this epistemologyof
The desireto makethe humanfemaleorgasmuniquewas
knowledge-ignorance?
that is, monogamous
linked to the desireto arguefor the so-called "pair-bond,"
heterosexual coupling-the family values script. Western sexual values and
the sexual antics of bonobos are about as far afieldfromeach other as they can
get, but even the more sexuallysedatechimpanzeefemale mates with multiple
partnersduring her estrus. Evolutionarytheorists opted instead for a picture
right out of a Norman Rockwellpainting, the idea being that orgasmevolved
by sexual selection in the human female to facilitate bonding and long term
relationshipsbetween the sexes. According to David Barash,"sexmaybe such
a device [to sustain the pair-bond],selected to be pleasurablefor its own sake,
in additionto its procreativefunction. This wouldhelp explain why the female
orgasmseems to be unique to humans"(1977, 296-97). Female orgasmhere
serves as a female'srewardand motivation to engage in frequent intercourse,
but only with one partner,which helps cement the pair bond, ensuresreproduction, and increasesmale cooperationand assistancewith rearingoffspring.
Here we see how an epistemologyof ignorance surroundingfemale orgasm,
in this case those of our simian sisters, can be put in the service of family
values.
There are, as you might suspect, a number of problemswith this story.
Femalesof other primatespecies, such as gibbons,who do not exhibit obvious
signs of female orgasm,are primarilymonogamous.But the theory also associates orgasmwith intercoursein assuming that orgasm is a rewardfor engaging in frequent intercourse.In both humans and many nonhuman primates,
heterosexualintercourseis a far less reliablepath to orgasmthan other types
of genital stimulation.Orgasmthrough intercoursealone and apartfrom any
additionalclitoral stimulationis relativelyrarefor human females:somewhere
between 20 to 35 percentof women in the United States reportalwaysor almost
always experiencing orgasm from intercoursealone (see Hite 1976; Masters
and Johnson 1966).Evolutionarytheoristswant to wed the bonobos-likesocial
bonding function of sexualityto gibbon-likemonogamy,but without attention
to when we human women are laughingsoftly.
Now introducehuman femalemulti-orgasmiccapacityinto the evolutionary
picture,and the pair-bondstory becomes even less credible,a patriarchalpipe

Nancy Tuana
223
dream,if you will. The human femalestandsbeforeus, lacking any visible sign
of estrus and a capacityfor far more orgasmicpleasurethan the human male.
Now comparethis to the oft-toldevolutionarytale aboutthe differencesin the
so-called cost of sex:
The unconsciousevolutionarylogic of malesand femalesdiffers.
Physiologically,if a man mated with a different woman every
night he could sire thousands of children, whereasan equally
promiscuouswoman could bear at most some twenty children
during her adult life. The dramatic variance in reprodtctive
potentialbetweenmalesand femalessuggeststhat humanmales,
unlike females, may have benefitedsignificantlyby copulating
with as manyloversas possible.Thus, in malesat least,the desire
for"sexforsex'ssake,"the tasteforsex withoutemotionalattachment, very likelyhas been geneticallyreinforced.(Margulisand
Sagan 1991,43)
Where this tale goes awryyet again reflectsthe politics of ignorance.Let's
begin by checking out these numbers.Firstof all men do not have unlimited
spermsupplies.The dailyhuman spermproductionis about 185million sperm
per day and most men ejaculatesomewherebetween 150-360 million sperm.
A man'ssperm count drops by 72 percent if he ejaculatesmore than once a
day, and ejaculatingmore than 3.5 times a week significantlydecreasestotal
sperm supplies,compromisingfertility (Small 1995, 111).Now rememberhe
is consorting with females who show no visible signs of fertility, and if we
accept the "sexforsex'ssake"hypothesis,is competing with manyother males.
Assuming a generouswindow of 5 days in a 28-day cycle where fertilization
is possible, then, even assumingthat the male restrictsall his ejaculationsto
intercourseand assuminghe does not go over the 3.5 ejaculationsper week
to keep his sperm count up to peak performance,but allowing that he mates
randomlywith differentfemales, it is unlikely that any of his 14 ejaculations
per month will resultin conception.Now addto this the suppositionthat other
males, given their projectedpromiscuity,may also be having sex with the same
females.This requiresthat we add spermcompetition to the picture,yet again
reducingmale reproductivepotential.20The facts, it seems, make the dramatic
variancein reproductivepotentialpostulatedbetweenmalesand femaleshighly
questionable.
Now stand this male whose ejaculationscannot go over3.5 perweekwithout
reducingreproductiveefficacyalongside the female who is capable of twenty
to fifty orgasmsin each of her sexual encounters.One way to retell this story
is to account for the evolutionaryadvantage of female orgasmiccapacity as
an inducement to copulate with a variety of males rather than one partner
and thus promotespermcompetition. But another way to retell this story is to
break sex off from its exclusivelyreproductiverole and acknowledgethat sex

224
Hypatia
has other functions. Followingthe antics of the bonobos, we might see female
sexual potency as a means of assuringsocietal harmonyand diffusingtensions
or as a way to ensure the assistance of others, and not just male others, in
procuringfood and assistingin the care of offspring.But these are storiesthat,
are very seldom told.
My point in all this is not to arguefor the superiorityof my "whatif" story
of human sexual evolution,but to point out as clearlyas I can the dramaticsuppressionof female orgasmiccapacityin currentevolutionaryaccounts. Human
women'sorgasmsare not denied, but they are carefullycultivatedto avoid rupturing certain societal scripts.Returningto the issue of pleasureonce again, I
would ask what we might discoverabout bodies and pleasuresif we cultivated
our female sexuality through scriptsfrom differentdisciplinarypractices.
BODIESAND PLEASURES
I returnto my tropes,Inannaand Tiresias,now standingbesidea femalebonobo,

and add a fourth to this gathering, Annie Sprinkle, porn-star-turned-performance-artist/sexeducator.If bodies and pleasuresare to be seen as a resource,
it is importantnot to think that our goal is to find those pleasuresfree from
sexual normalization,free from disciplinarypractices. Here I follow LaDelle
McWhorter,who claims that "insteadof refusingnormalizationoutright, we
need to learn waysto use the powerof its disciplinesto propelus in new directions"(1999,181).Though we cannot simplyremoveourselvesfromdisciplinary
practices,she arguesthat it is possibleto affirm"developmentwithout affirming
docility, [through]affirmingthe free, open playfulnessof human possibility
within regimesof sexualitywithout getting stuck in or succumbingto any one
sexual discourse or formation"(1999, 181). McWhorter,following Foucault,
suggests that one path to this playfulnessis to deliberatelyseparatepractice
fromgoal and simplyengage in disciplinarypracticesfor their own sake,forthe
pleasuresthey bring, ratherthan for some purposebeyond them. "What if we
used our capacitiesfor temporaldevelopmentnot for preparationfor some task
beyond that developmentbut for the purposeof developmentitself, including
the developmentof our capacitiesforpleasure?What if we used pleasurerather
than pain as our primarydisciplinarytool?"(1999, 182). Following Foucault,
what we must workon ". . . is not so much to liberateour desiresbut to make
ourselvesinfinitelymore susceptibleto pleasure"(Foucault1989,310).
Annie Sprinkle, in her one-womanshow, "Herstoryof Porn:Reel to Real,"
describesthe new direction her worktook in the mid-1980swhen she devoted
her talents to displaying the beauty of sex and the undiscoveredpower of
orgasms."Somepeople discoverJesusand want to spreadthe word.I discovered
orgasmsand want to spreadthe word"(Sprinkle 1999). Sprinkle'snew productions attemptto refocusattentionfrompowerto pleasure."There'sa lot of people
who talk about violence, rape, and abuse. But, there'snot a lot of people that

Nancy Tuana
225
talk aboutpleasure,bliss,orgasm,and ecstasy"(Sprinkle 1999). Sprinkle'swork

has transformedover time. At one point her performancesfocused attention
on femaleorgasmicejaculations,providingaudienceswith sightsseldombefore
seen on stage and ones that were,as the title of her performanceexplains,real,
not reel. She has also advocatedand reallyperformedthe nongenital breathor
energy orgasmin which one "can simplylie down, take a few breaths,and go
into an orgasmicstate."
Sprinkle is not advocating a new homologous model of female orgasmwomen ejaculatetoo-or an ultimate radicalfeminist rejectionof penetrative
sex. Rather than setting up new disciplinarypractices with clearly defined
markersbetween "good"feminist sex and "bad"nonfeminist sex, Sprinkle
I am not here
explorespleasureand refersto herself as a "metamorphosexual."
that
are
sexual
outside
normalization,but I do
claiming
Sprinkle'spleasures
think she standsbeforeus as one who explorespleasurefor its own sake. I offer
her pleasuresas an exampleof how we might, in McWhorter'swords,"live our
bodies as who we are, to intensify our experiences of bodiliness and to think
from our bodies, if we are going to push back against the narrowconfines of
the normalizingpowersthat constrict our freedom"(1999, 185).
Sprinkle'spleasuresare themselvespartof disciplinarypractices.It is important if we go the wayof pleasurethat we not desirepleasuresthat escape power.
ForSprinkle'sbody and pleasuresare situatedin economies partiallyshapedby
the feminist speculum.A more complete story would situate Sprinkle in the
decades of practicesof the feminist health movement and feminist efforts to
take back our bodies and our sexualities.This pleasurableaccount I must leave
foranothertime. Here I will simplytantalizeby repeatingSprinkle'sgospelthat
we return to our bodies and to our orgasms,and spreadthe word.
CONCLUSION
It comes as no surprisethat a correlationoften exists between ignorance and

pleasure.The feminist quest to enhance knowledgeabout women'sbodies and
their sexual experienceshad as its goal the enhancement of women'spleasures.
As should now be clear,knowledgesand pleasuresare complexly interrelated.
Indeedthe old adagethat "ignoranceis bliss"takeson new meaningswhen read
throughthe lens of an epistemologyattentiveto both knowledgeand ignorance.
Whose pleasureswere enhanced by ignorance and whose were suppressedby
knowledge are complex questions that must be asked repeatedlyin any study
of the science of sexuality.
My goal in this essaywas twofold.First,I wanted to sharea genuine fascination with the studyof the science of sexuality,particularlyin relationto female
sexuality.While much effort has gone into studying the formationof sexual
identities,far less has been devoted to the science of sexuality.While I do not
want to suggest that this aspect of sexual science or our sexual experiences

226
Hypatia
are divorced from the constructions of sexual identities, I do believe that a

fascination with the latter has deferredfull attention from the former.While
sexual identity issues will alwaysbe an aspect of any study of the science of
sexuality,it is my conviction that an inclusionof sexualitywill highlight other
axes of power.
My second goal in writing this essaywas to begin to outline the importance
and powerof attending to what we do not know and the power/politicsof such
ignorances. Although my account is preliminaryand suggestive,I have presented the following claims:
* Any complete epistemologymust include a study of ignorance, not just
knowledge.
* Ignorance-far from being a simple, innocent lack of knowledge-is a
complexphenomenon that like knowledge,is interrelatedwith power;for
example, ignoranceis frequentlyconstructed,and it is linked to issuesof
cognitive authority,trust, doubt, silencing, etc.
* While many feminist science studies theorists have embracedthe interrelationshipof knowledgeand values, we must also see the waysin which
ignorance,too, is so interrelated.
* The study of ignorance can provide a lens for the values at work in our
knowledgepractices.
* We should not assume that the epistemic tools we have developed for
the study of knowledge or the theories we have developed concerning
knowledgepracticeswill transferto the study of ignorance.
"IN CONCLUSION"
Inannawent to visitEnki, thegodof wisdom,whopossessed

theholylaws of heavenand earth.Shedrankbeerwithhim.
Theydrankbeertogether.Theydrankmoreand morebeer
together,untilEnki,godof wisdom,agreedto give Inanna
all the holylaws. Sheacceptedthe holylaws,gatheredthem
together,placedthemin the Boatof Heaven,and sailedback
acrossthe water.[My vulva, thehorn, the Boatof Heaven,
is full of eagernesslikethe youngmoon.]Uponreachingland
and unloadingthe holylaws, Inannadiscoveredthatshe
returnedwithmoreholylaws thanhadbeengivenherby Enki.
-Inanna: Queen of Heavenand Earth:
Her Storiesand HymmsfromSummer
I hope by now you are laughingsoftly with me. Lean back againstthe apple
tree. Feel the delicate fire running under your skin. Our vulvae are wondrous
to behold. Rejoice at yourwondrousvulva and applaudyourself.

Nancy Tuana
227
NOTES
My thanks to Lynn Hankinson Nelson, Alison Wylie, and the anonymousreviewers
for their very helpful editorial suggestions.
1. I choose to employ the phrase "epistemologiesof ignorance"despite its potential awkwardness(theories of knowledge of ignorance) for a number of reasons. The
alternative term, agnoiology,has histories I have no desire to invoke. Firstemployed
by JamesFrederickFerrier(1854) to refuteWilliam Hamilton's(1858-60) thesis of the
unknowablenessof the AbsoluteReality,Ferrierpositsignoranceas properlyattributable
only to an absenceor lack of knowledgeof that which it is possible for us to know and
precludesthe term "ignorance"from being applied to anything that is unintelligible
or self-contradictory.Ferrierused the term agnoiology to distinguish what was truly
knowable-and thus the propersubjectmatterof epistemology-from that which was
unknowable (1854, 536). The term agnoiology has been resuscitatedby Keith Lehrer
(1990) as part of an argumentdemonstratingthat skepticismhas not been philosophically refuted;he arguesthat the possible truth of the skepticalhypothesis entails that
we can never achieve completelyjustifiedtrue belief. Hence, Lehrerconcludes that we
do not know anything, even that we do not know anything. His point is that rational
belief and action do not requirerefutingthe skepticalhypothesis,nor do they need the
validating stamp of "knowledge."
2. Perhapsmore important,I wish to retain the rhetoricalstrength of "epistemology"when investigatingignorance.Too often, as evidenced by both Ferrierand Lehrer,
ignorance is only a vehicle to reveal the properworkingsof knowledgeor, in the case
of Lehrer,rational belief and action. Ignorance itself is not interrogatedbut is set up
as the backgroundagainst which one unfurls enriched knowledge. It is my desire to
retain a focus on ignorance, to foregroundignorance as a location for understanding
the workingsof power.Just as we have epistemology/iesof science, of religion, and so
on, I wish to argue for an epistemologyof the complex phenomenon of ignorance as
well as to suggestthat no theory of knowledge is complete that ignores ignorance.
3. I will use this particularrhetorical form to both visually remind readersof
Foucault'snotion of power/knowledge(1980) and to add to it my emphasis on ignorance. I am not here claiming that Foucaultdid not understandhow the workingsof
power/knowledgeserved to suppressknowledge practices, but with our contemporary
philosophical emphasison what we do know, I think the constant reminderto attend
to what we do not know is crucial.Without the reminder,the politics of ignorance are
too often erased.
4. The storyof Inanna and the translationsthat I quote are part of a largebody of
Sumerian tales, legends, and poems about the Queen of Heaven and Earth inscribed
on variousclay tablets dating back to 2000 B.C.E.
5. For an interesting discussionof Haraway'suse of such rhetoricalsigns, see her
How Likea Leaf (2000).
6. This conception of bodily being is developed extensively in Tuana 1996a and
2001.
7. McWhorter,in her recent Bodies& Pleasures(1999), convincingly (and pleasurably) arguesthat a neglected aspect of Foucault'sphilosophy is his account of pleasure

228
Hypatia
as creative and as a resourcefor political resistance. My use of Foucault in this essay

owes much to her reading.
8. It is importantto emphasizethat what we do and do not know is often "local"to
a particulargroupor a particularculture.I locate my "we"in this section as the common
knowledgeof laypeoplein the United States both because the studiesand surveysthat
I will employwere limited to this groupand in recognition of the fact that knowledgeignorance about women'ssexuality varies tremendouslyfrom one culture/countryto
another.
9. RichardD. McAnulty and M. Michele Burnette (2001, 67) describethe clitoris
as composed of shaft and glans, but make no effort to providean illustration.Spencer
A. Rathus,Nevid, and Fichner-Rathus(2002) is the firsttextbook designed for college
human sexualityclassroomsthat includesan illustrationof what they label the "whole
clitoris,"namely,the shaft, glans, and crura.
10. McAnulty and Burnette,forexample,while admittinga morecomplex structure
for the clitoris, simply indicate that "the glans of the clitoris has a high concentration of touch and temperaturereceptorsand should be the primarycenter of sexual
stimulationand sensation in the female"(2001, 67). Later,when discussingthe female
sexual responsecycle, they simplynote that the diameterof the clitoralshaft increases
(2001, 114).
11. For an interesting discussion of anatomical conventions in depicting female
genitalia see Moore and Clarke 1995.
12. I've examined the various editions of Albert Richard Allgeier and Elizabeth
Rice Allgeier (1984, 1988, 1998), Curtis O. Byerand Louis W. Shainberg (1985, 1988,
1991, 1998, 2001), Gary Kelly (1988, 1994,1998, 2001), McAnulty and Burnette(2001),
and Rathus,Nevin, and Fichner-Rathus(1993, 2000, 2002). Only Rathus,Nevin, and
Fichner-Rathusinclude this expanded model of the clitoris. But while they providethe
most detaileddiscussionof women'smulti-orgasmiccapacity,their imagesand discussion
of the female responsephases are surprisinglytraditional,with the clitoris once again
relegatedto a mere nub.
13. I supportthese claims in my book, The LessNoble Sex (1993).
14. The referencehere is to Hesiod'sdepiction of the creation of the firstwoman,
Pandora.After she was molded in the shape of a goddessby Hephaistos, Zeus ordered
Aphroditeto bequeathto her "stingingdesireand limb-gnawingpassion"(Hesiod 1983,
line 66-67).
15. As just one of literallythousandsof examplesof the view that women'sgreater
susceptibilityto sexual temptationrequiredcontrol, I referthe readerto David Hume's
(1978)discussionof chastity and modesty.Hume arguesthat women have such a strong
temptationto infidelitythat the only way to reassuremen that the children their wives
bearare their own biologicaloffspringis forsociety to "attacha peculiardegreeof shame
to their infidelity,above what arisesmerelyfrom its injustice";also, becausewomen are
particularlyapt to overlook remote rmotivesin favorof present temptations,he argues
"'tisnecessary,therefore,that, beside the infamyattending such licenses, there should
be some preceding backwardnessor dread, which may prevent their first approaches,
and maygive the femalesex a repugnanceto all expressions,and postures,and liberties,
that have an immediate relation to that enjoyment"(1978, Bk. 3, Pt. 2, Sec. 12, Para.
6/9, 571-72).

Nancy Tuana
229
16. Scientists believed that enlarged clitorises were both a result of and a reason
for hypersexuality,and both sex deviants and racially"inferior"women wereviewed as
sexually deviant because of heightened sexual "excitability."For further discussion of
these themes see Fausto-Sterling1995 and Terry 1995 and 1999.
17. See McWhorter1999 for an insightful analysisof the differencebetween desire
and pleasure."The art of living" is, of course, Beauvoir'sphrase.
18. This view of female genitals is surprisinglyresilient. A recent story in my
local State College, Pennsylvania newspaper,The Center Daily Times, reported that
two women who were running nude were acquitted of chargesof streaking.The story
explains that the streakinglaw requiresthat the genitalia be exposed, something that
the judgein this case decided is nearlyimpossibleforwomen, since, in the judge'sview,
female genitalia are all internal! My thanks to David O'Harafor calling this story to
my attention.
19. SuzannGage, the illustratorof A New Viewof a Women'sBody(1981),as reported
in Moore and Clark, 1995.
20. Fora discussionof bonobo behavioras an evolutionarymodelforhuman sexuality, see Small 1995.
21. For a discussionof current theories of spermcompetition, see Bakerand Bellis
1995.
REFERENCES
Allgeier, Albert Richardand ElizabethRice Allgeier. 1984, 1988, 1998. Sexualinteractions.Lexington, Mass.:D. C. Heath and Co.
Alzate, Heli. 1985. Vaginal eroticism:A replicationstudy.Archivesof SexualBehavior
14 (6): 529-37.
Annie Sprinkle'sHerstoryof Porn. 1999. Producedand directed by Annie Sprinkle and
Carol Leigh (Scarlot Harlot). 69 min. HardcoreDocumentary.Videocassette.
Apollodorus. 1976.The godsand heroesof theGreeks:The libraryof Apollodorus.Trans.
Michael Simpson. Amherst:University of MassachusettsPress.
Baker, R. Robin, and Mark A. Bellis. 1995. Human spermcompetition:Copulation,
masturbation,and infidelity.London:Chapman and Hall.
Barash,David. 1977.Sociobiologyand behavior.New York:ElsevierNorth-Holland.
Bloor,David. 1976.Knowledgeand socialimagery.London:Routledgeand Kegan Paul.
Boston Woman'sHealth Book Collective. 1984. The New our bodies,ourselves:A book
by andfor women.New York:Simon and Schuster.
Byer,Curtis 0., and Louis W. Shainberg. 1985, 1988, 1991, 1998, 2001. Dimensionsof
humansexuality.Boston: McGrawHill.
Cadden,Joan. 1993.Meanings of sex differencein the MiddleAges: Medicine, science
and culture. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Christensen, John B., and IraTelford.1978.Synopsisof grossanatomy3rded. New York:
Harperand Row.
Columbus,Renaldus. 1559.De re anatomica.Venice.
Daly,Mary.1978.Gyn/ecology:The metaethicsof radicalfeminism.Boston:Beacon Press.

230
Hypatia
Dickinson, RobertLatou. 1941.The gynecologyof homosexuality,Appendix VI. In Sex

variants:A studyof homosexualpatterns,ed. George W. Henry.New York,London:
Paul B. Hoeber.
Dixson, Alan. 1998. Primatesexuality:Comparativestudiesof the prosimians,monkeys,
apes, and humanbeings.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Fausto-Sterling,Anne. 1995. Gender, race, and nation: The comparativeanatomy of
"Hottentot"women in Europe, 1815-1817.In Deviantbodies:Criticalperspectives
on differencein scienceandpopularculture,ed. JenniferTerryand JacquelineUrla.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Federationof Feminist Women'sHealth Centers. 1981.A new view of a woman'sbody:
A fully illustratedguide;illustrationsby SuzannGage;photographs
by SylviaMorales.
New York:Simon and Schuster.
Ferrier,JamesF. 1854.Institutesof metaphysic.Edinburgh:Blackwood.
Selectedinterviewsand otherwritings,1972Foucault,Michel. 1980. Power/knowledge:
1977.Ed. and trans. Colin Gordon. New York:Pantheon Books.
. 1989. Friendshipas a way of life. In Foucaultlive. Trans.John Johnston. Ed.
SylvereLotringer.New York:Semiotext(e).
.1990. The historyof sexuality,volumeI: An introduction.Trans.RobertHurley.
New York:Random House.
Freud, Sigmund. 1962. Three essays on the theoryof sexuality.Trans. and Ed. James
Strachey.New York:Avon.
works.Volume
. 1964.Femininity.In Standardeditionof thecompletepsychological
22. Trans. and Ed.JamesStrachey.London:Hogarth Press.
Gallagher,Catherine and Thomas Laqueur,eds. 1987.The makingof the modernbody:
Sexualityand societyin the nineteenthcentury.Berkeley:University of California
Press.
Goodall, Jane. 1988. In the shadowof man. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Grafenburg,Ernst. 1950. The role of the urethra in female orgasm.The International
Jounralof Sexology3: 145-48.
Hamilton, William. 1858-60/2001. Lectures on metaphysicsand logic. In Worksof
WilliamHamilton,ed. Savina Tropea.Bristol:Thoemmes Press.
Haraway,Donna J. 2000. How like a leaf: An interviewwith ThyrzaNichols Goodeve.
New York,London:Routledge.
Postcolonialisms,
feminisms,and episteHarding,Sandra. 1998. Is sciencemulti-cultural?
mologies.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hesiod. 1983.Theogony,worksand days,and theshield.Trans.Apostolos Athanassakis.
Baltimore:Johns Hopkins Press.
Hite, Shere. 1976.The Hitereport:A nationwidestudyoffemalesexuality.New York:Dell.
Hume, David. 1978.A treatiseof humannature.Ed. Lewis Amherst Selby-Bigge.New
York:Oxford University Press.
Inanna:Queenof heavenandearth,herstoriesandhymnsfromSumer.1983.Trans.Diane
Wolkstein and Samuel Noah Kramer.New York:Harperand Row.
Irigaray,Luce. 1985.Speculumof theotherwoman.Trans.Gillian C. Gill. Ithaca:Cornell
University Press.

Nancy Tuana
231
Kelly,Gary F. 1988, 1994, 1998, 2001. Sexualitytoday:The humanperspective.Boston:

McGrawHill.
Kimber,Diana Clifford,CarolynE. Gray,Caroline E. Stackpole,LutieC. Leavell,Marjorie A. Miller. 1966. Anatomyand physiology15th ed. New York:Macmillian.
Kinsey,Alfred C., and the staff of the Institute for Sex Research, Indiana University.
1953.Sexualbehaviorin the humanfemale.Philadelphia:Saunders.
Kitzinger,Sheila. 1985.Women'sexperienceof sex:Thefactsandfeelingsoffemalesexuality
at everystageof life.New York:Penguin Books.
Koedt, Ann. 1970. The myth of the vaginal orgasm. In Notes from the secondyear:
Women'sliberation,ed. Shulamith Firestoneand Ann Koedt. New York:Radical
Feminism.
Laqueur,Thomas. 1986. Orgasm,generation,and the politics of reproductivebiology.
Representations14: 1-41.
. 1989. 'AmorVeneris, vel Dulcedo Appeleur.'In Fragmentsfor a historyof the
humanbody,ed. Michel Feher.New York:Zone.
. 1990. Makingsex: Body and genderfrom the Greeks to Freud.Cambridge,:
HarvardUniversity Press.
LaumannEdwardO., John H. Gagnon, RobertT. Michael,and StewartMichaels. 1994.
The social organizationof sexuality:Sexualpracticesin the UnitedStates.Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Lehrer,Keith. 1990. Theoryof knowledge.Boulder:Westview Press.
Lloyd,ElisabethA. 1993. Pre-theoreticalassumptionsin evolutionaryexplanations of
Studies69:139-53.
female sexuality.Philosophical
Dorion
and
Margulis,Lynn,
Sagan. 1991. Mysterydance: On the evolutionof human
sexuality.New York:Summit Books.
Masters,William H., and Virginia E. Johnson. 1966. Human sexualresponse.Boston:
Little, Brown.
McAnulty, Richard D., and M. Michele Burnette. 2001. Exploringhumansexuality:
Makinghealthydecisions.Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
McWhorter,LaDelle. 1999. Bodies& pleasures:Foucaultand the politicsof sexualnormalization.Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press.
Mills, Charles S. 1997.The racialcontract.Ithaca,N.Y.:Cornell University Press.
Moore, LisaJean, and Adele E. Clarke. 1995. Clitoral conventions and transgressions:
Graphic representationsin anatomy texts, c1900-1991. Feministstudies 21(2):
255-301.
Pare, Ambroise. 1968. The collectedworksof AmbroisePare.Trans. Thomas Johnson.
New York:MilfordHouse.
Perry,John Delbert, and Beverly Whipple. 1981. Pelvic muscle strength of female
ejaculators:Evidence in supportof a new theory of orgasmJournalof Sex Research
17 (1): 22-39.
Proctor,RobertN. 1995.Cancerwars:How politicsshapeswhatwe knowanddon'tknow
aboutcancer.New York:Basic Books.
Rathus,SpencerA., JeffreyS. Nevid, and LoisFichner-Rathus.1993,2000, 2002. Human
sexualityin a worldof diversity.5th Ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

232
Hypatia
Rosen, Raymond, and Linda Reich Rosen. 1981. Human sexuality.New York:Alfred
A. Knopf.
Schiebinger,LondaL. 1989.Themindhas no sex?Womenin theoriginsof modernscience.
Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press.
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky.1990. Epistemologyof the closet.Berkeley,Los Angeles: Universityof California Press.
Shulman,Alix. 1971.Organsand orgasms.In Womenin sexistsociety,ed.VivianGornick
and BarbaraK. Moran.New York,New American Library.
Singer,Josephine,and IrvingSinger.1972.Typesof femaleorgasmJournalof SexResearch
8 (4): 2550-267.
Small, Meredith F. 1995. What'slove got to do with it? The evolutionof humanmating.
New York:Anchor Books.
Sprecher,Susan, Anita Barbee,and PepperSchwartz.2001. "Wasit good foryou, too?":
Gender differencesin firstsexual intercourseexperience. In Socialpsychologyand
humansexuality,ed. Roy F Baumeister.Philadelphia:Taylorand Francis.
Symons, Donald. 1979.The evolutionof humansexuality.New York:Oxford University
Press.
Terry,Jennifer. 1995. Anxious slippagesbetween "us"and "them":A brief history of
the scientific searchfor homosexual bodies. In Deviantbodies:Criticalperspectives
on differencein scienceand popularculture,ed. JenniferTerryand JacquelineUrla.
. 1999. An Americanobsession:Science,medicine,and homosexualityin modern
society.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tuana,Nancy. 1988. The weakerseed: The sexist bias of reproductivetheory.Hypatia:
A Journalof FeministPhilosophy,3 (1): 35-39.
. 1993. The less noble sex: Scientific,religiousand philosophicalconceptionsof
woman'snature.Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press.
.1996a. Fleshinggender,sexing the body:Refiguringthe sex/genderdistinction,
Vol. XXXV.
SpindelConferenceProceedings.SouthernJournalof Philosophy.
. 1996b. Re-valuingscience. In Feminism,science,and thephilosophyof science,
ed. Lynn Hankinson Nelson and JackNelson. Dordrecht,Netherlands:Kluwer.
. 2001. Material locations: An interactionist alternative to realism/social
constructivism, Engenderingrationalities,ed. Nancy Tuana and Sandra Morgen.
Whipple, Beverly. 1995. Research concerning sexual response in women The Health
Psychologist17 (1): 16-18.


Tuana Coming To Understand Orgasm and The Epistemology of Ignorance

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Tuana Coming To Understand Orgasm and The Epistemology of Ignorance

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Hypatia, Inc.

Coming to Understand: Orgasm and the Epistemology of Ignorance

This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:36 AM

andscientificaccountsof femalesexualityand orgasmprovidea

This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:36 AM

accountforwhysomethingis known,we mustalso understandthe practicesthat

This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:36 AM

false, but because medical practices,which are in largepart fueled by business

Followingin the footstepsof foremothersas interestinglydiverseas MaryDaly

This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:36 AM

Let it flow fromear to mouth,

This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:36 AM

feminist and nonfeminist, and the common knowledgesof everydayfolk, both

Inannaplacedthe shugurra,thecrownof thesteppe,on herhead.

This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:36 AM

Illustration 1: The workes

This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:36 AM

at best, a diminutivehomologueto the penis. A historyof medicalviews of the

This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:36 AM

Illustration2: Figure4.3, Sagittal section of female internal anatomy (Rosen

Illustration3: Figure24-6, Median sagittal section of female pelvis (Kimber,

This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:36 AM

Illustration4: Figure 5-13, Female pelvic organs (Christensen and Telford

Ampulla of vas deferens

Tunica vaginalis propria

Illustration5: Figure24-3, Diagramof midsagittalsection of male reproductive

This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:36 AM

book, Our Bodies,Ourselves,the clitoris expanded in size and configurationto

UtJethrasurro:unded by urethral sponge

Illustration6: Figure3.9, A cross section of the clitoris (Federationof Feminist

This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:36 AM

Illustration7: Figure3.10, How the clitoris is situated in the pelvis (Federation

\^^ Posterior labial commissure

Illustration8: Figure24-8, Externalfemalegenitalia (Kimber,Gray,Stackpole,

This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:36 AM

Illustration9: Figureof the pelvic floor,clitoris, etc. (Boston Women'sHealth

This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:36 AM

Illustration11: Figure 3.17, Side view of the penis (Federationof Feminist

This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:36 AM

Illustration12: Figure3-16, Side view of the clitoris (Federationof Feminist

Illustration13: Figure3.12, Urethral sponge (Federationof Feminist Women's

This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:36 AM

Illustration15:Figure3.14,Self-examinationof the perinealsponge (Federation

This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:36 AM

So how do we put our fingeron the truth of women'sclitoralstructures?Whose

This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:36 AM

ratherthan the high Latinof medicaltextbooks.The humansexualitytextbook

This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:36 AM

This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:36 AM

Typical sex variant vulva and averaqe

This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:36 AM

THE ISSUE OF PLEASURE

Who wouldwanta shotgunwhenyou can havea semiautomatic?

This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:36 AM

of men, and we begin to see an impact of knowledge-ignoranceon bodies and

This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:36 AM

Let me returnto my historyof the clitoris.In this section I will complicatethis

This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:36 AM

While still markedby a male economy-both in representation("it shows

This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:36 AM

The story,of course,shifts in the 1960swith the tools of MastersandJohnson

This content downloaded from 129.128.216.34 on Wed, 14 May 2014 09:41:36 AM

pathwayand producedifferentsubjectiveexperiencesthan do those generated