The redefinition of Woman's sexuality is long overdue. Like the women's movement which strove to redefine the woman's place in society, the new conventional wisdom for many women is that their sexualities are not so narrowly or rigidly delineated, and that many aspects of Woman's sexuality have been either ignored or obscured by male patriarchy. The debate over the nature and existence of female ejaculation is one of the most important ones in the history of sexuality, as it has the potential to dramatically change the popular conception of female orgasm, and hence, female sexuality. To understand the importance of the female ejaculation controversy, it is first crucial to understand whether it exists, what it is, and what it is not. It is also important to understand the historical context in which the debate rages, as well as what has been the understanding of female orgasm in the past, as well as the present. A final point to consider: What will the future hold for the sexual role of women? Will it lead to empowerment, in that women who ejaculate can do so without medicine saying that they have a "disorder", or to just another performance anxiety? Perhaps the knowledge that women can ejaculate will change sex roles themselves: the sexuality of women could cease to appear passive in the eyes of men; maybe female ejaculation will become legitimized as a concrete and palpable manifestation of a woman's sexual pleasure, as it is for a man; or, more likely than not, it can reshape the conception of women's sexuality in a way that no one can foresee. Predicting the future is impossible, but it is easy to know that change is in the air. Women are beginning to reassert their sexual space - quite literally. But to evaluate the present and speculate on the future, one must always first look into the past.

The popular notion of the woman's sexuality has undergone significant evolution over time. The most important determining factor in the in the growth of male and female gender roles was the first recognition of sex difference, beginning in the Neolithic period of human history. This was a time when the male role in procreation was indeterminate, since sex and birth occurred all the time, without any apparent causal relationship. Until that time, neither sex was dominant over the other. But something happened during the seven thousand years of the Neolithic period which changed this relationship: the discovery that man played a decisive role in the conception of "his" progeny and that man could fertilize as many women as he wanted, while woman had no such freedom.[1] Nancy Marval's quote in The Hite Report explains this further:

In a patriarchal culture like the one we were all brought up in, sexuality is a crucial issue. Beyond all the symbolic aspects of the sexual act...it assumes a overwhelming practical importance. This is that men have no direct access to reproduction and the survival of the species. As individuals, their claim to a particular child can never be as clear as that of the mother who demonstrably gave birth to that child. Under normal circumstances it is agreed that a man is needed to provide sperm to the conception of the baby, but it is practically impossible to determine which man. The only way a man can absolutely be sure that he is the one to have contributed that sperm is to control the sexuality of the woman.[2]

Her sexuality became secondary to his, something to be controlled. Indeed, this universal sexism was transferred into the cultures and myths of a variety of peoples. The Egyptians credited the creation of the universe to coitus between a god and a goddess, but also sometimes to divine masturbation, clearly placing the emphasis on the male seed. The early Indo-Europeans possessed a myth in which the universe was created from the body of a primeval man, and the Hebrews attribute the existence of the universe to Jehovah (Jaweh). Leah Tannehill questions even the supposed reign of earth goddesses of Classical times by asserting that males were the true fertility gods. This popular misconception owes much to the "Victorian imagination," according to Tannehill, and if "...there ever was an all-powerful female divinity, it must have been far back in the Neolithic era, before woman the child-maker, woman the cultivator, abdicated her special role."[3] Male sexuality became the most important, the defining one, as humanity spread across the world. However, emphasis on the potency and importance of the man's seed was not the only factor in the evolution of the belief that a woman's sexuality was inferior to a man's.

Women's sexuality was not only seen as inferior in relation to men's, but the woman as a whole was perceived as inferior because she was defined in terms of the man. She was a lesser, imperfect version of him, and played only a secondary role in conception. However, it is the particular way in which the woman played a role in conception that played a crucial part in the construction of her sexuality. Both Galen and Aristotle, to different degrees, were adherents to the "one-sex" model of the sexes, in which the woman was the introverted, underdeveloped version of the man. The female's body parts were not just analogous to the male's; they were the same, except that women had stopped before birth in a lesser stage of sexual development due to her lack of the "vital heat," required for "full" [male] development. Hence, her vagina was a an "eternally...unborn penis, the womb a stunted scrotum..."[4] The woman was simply a lesser, underdeveloped form of the man. Related to this "one-sex" theory was the belief that in the body there were different concentrations of a special fluid (medieval people thought of these "humours" as separate substances altogether, however) that was essence of life. Additionally, different fluids were thought to exist for different reasons. For example, menstrual blood was thought to be the result of overconsumption of food, and the reason pregnant women did not menstruate was because the woman's blood was sustaining two people. In addition, the "heat" in men and women were different (because of the heat differentials which led to the existence of different sexes) and also affected the humours of the body. Men did not lactate because their "heat" was higher than the woman's, and hence had less blood left over.[5] Blood was the essence of life, as it was the almost the purest concentration of the essence of life, second only to semen, which was life undistilled, 200-proof, in its purest form. In this "one-seed" model, the semen of both sexes was ungendered, equal. In the "two-seed" model, the male's semen was more powerful, more potent than the female's; they were different entities.[6] However, the crucial common factor in both models was the fact that female semen was not only acknowledged, but more importantly, it was popularly believed for centuries before the 1800s that females forcefully ejaculated a fluid considered to be semen at the height of sexual pleasure, just as the man did. But to fully comprehend how the two seeds interacted in this model, one must understand the orgasm within the model as well.

The orgasm was not only the height of passion for both male and female, but was the moment at which the necessary heat for conception animated matter into life, a state reached only at orgasm, occurring simultaneously with the release of semen from both sexes. It was commonly believed that the womb played "double duty" in that it not only emitted fluid, but was the receptacle for the mixture of the two emissions, the two ejaculates.[7] Most people believed that there was a purpose in everything, and this included women's orgasm and ejaculation: "Why should we suppose that Nature, beyond her custome, should abound superfluidities and useless parts?" asked an Oxford physician. For those few who did not believe that female semen was crucial to conception, they did believe that it was immensely important in the process of the female's arousal to intercourse.[8] It was clear that whatever the case, the female orgasm and ejaculation was viewed as an important and desirable element of sexual intercourse. The natural question at this point is: What happened?

The foundation of gender changed from one based on the "one-sex" model to one based on the notion that "The body is the body is the body..." meaning that "In the world of reductionist explanation, what mattered was the flat, horizontal, immovable foundation of physical fact: sex."[9] But in addition to this came a concrete scientific shock wave that disrupted the underpinnings of the one-sex model: the microscope. In the 1670s, it was discovered that semen contained sperm, and that female fluids contained nothing, and in fact, it was a single egg which combined with one of millions of sperm which led to conception. "Sperm and egg could now stand for man and woman; male dignity was restored." The egg came to be seen as a passive organism, "where the animalcule/husband managed to get through the single opening of the egg/wife, which then closed and `did not allow another worm to enter.'"[10] The female ejaculate fell from something vital to the process of sexual intercourse to complete insignificance: "...instead of being understood as weaker, more watery semen, it was now construed as an egg in its surrounding liquid."[11] As it became more difficult to argue that female orgasm was crucial to conception, the explanation of the female orgasm steadily changed, until it was thought that perhaps in some women, orgasm was suppressed, but still occurred, as people were, of course, still conceiving. The female was becoming "passionless." Indeed, according to Thomas Laqueur, "Although women, like men, were held to experience erection (both of the clitoris and of the internal organs) excitement, and ejaculation, `many' could somehow do so without feeling anything...the point is ...to note that culture and not biology was the basis for claims bearing on the role and even the existence of female sexual pleasure."[12] [emphasis added] Hence, the female orgasm became only a manifestation of the woman's pleasure during intercourse: it was not necessary for reproduction. Although some some women still had orgasms, many others did not, and women collectively forgot what it was like to be treated as an equal, at least in bed, by men. There was no basis, in the minds of men, for the woman to demand anything in bed. The woman's pleasure became unnecessary, and in Victorian society that was becoming increasingly morally severe, only the man's sexual pleasure could be rationalized as a necessary evil. The woman was to be virtuous and pure. As the woman became "passionless," her sexuality became progressively more hidden, until it reached the point for many women where it was hidden from even themselves. For many women, it remains hidden even today.

Even in the wake of the so-called "sexual revolution," female sexuality remains for many American women and men shrouded in myth, mystery, and misinformation. For example, the myth of the vaginal orgasm, is propagated by sex therapists and" educators,"[13] saying that there is a type of orgasm which results from penile thrusting alone, when in fact over 70% of women claim that they find it impossible to achieve orgasm without clitoral stimulation during intercourse.[14] This myth has been emotionally and sexually crippling to women. One woman responding to Shere Hite's questionnaire described the effect which the dark spectre of the vaginal orgasm had upon her psyche: "I went for thirty-four years carrying the burden of not having vaginal orgasms, never telling anyone because I thought something was wrong with me-I thought I was frigid." Even in medical textbooks, female anatomy (and hence sexuality) is often misrepresented or neglected. This is a problem which the book A New View of a Woman's Body, written by the Federation of Feminist Women's Health Centers, attempts to remedy. The writers point to the fact that most medical illustrators have been and still are men, and that this has affected the way female organs have been represented in medical textbooks: often several pages are devoted to the structure of the penis, while female organs are drawn with only the organs relevant to reproduction visible, leaving blank space in other areas. In addition, organs which were drawn were often misrepresented. For example, the vagina is often depicted as a long tunnel, or the vulva as an open hole, when in fact they are neither most of the time, in a state of non-arousal. The authors of A New View of a Woman's Body set forth a new model of the woman's sexual organs and functioning, a model which depends to a large extent on what they refer to as "a new view of the clitoris."[15]

The past and current definition of the clitoris has been challenged, and radically redefined by a growing number of women who are rejecting the model of their sexuality which they have been taught. The clitoris is no longer just a magic button which is pressed when women want to experience sexual pleasure, but is an integrated structure-the visible glans, hood, and shaft of the clitoris is quite literally only the "tip of the iceberg."[16] The clitoris is described in A New View of a Woman's Body as a much larger, integrated structure. From the nub, which is the external clitoris, extend two long "legs" which fan out and down in a "V" shape, along the pubic bones. The legs of the clitoris are surrounded by erectile tissue known as the bulb. Included in the structure of the clitoris are additional glandular structures which can also play a role in sexual response and pleasure for different women. These structures are the ones which feminists claim have been either downplayed or completely ignored by medical textbooks. The urethral sponge is one of these, and it lies along the upper vaginal wall. It surrounds the paraurethral gland, which connects the entire structure to the urethra. The paraurethral gland runs down the length of the urethra to the bladder. Another structure is the perineal gland, which lies under the lower vaginal wall, near the perineum, which is the area between the vaginal opening and the anus.[17] (see appendices 1-3) What is sad and dangerous about the old model of the clitoris is the fact that it is so limited. Women do not know that the visible portion of the clitoris is not the only possible source of the pleasure. Many women report enhanced pleasure and orgasm when pressure is applied to structures like the perineal and urethral glands, sometimes facilitating ejaculation, which will be discussed in more detail later.[18] Not only are women being deprived of the information which may lead to enhanced sexual pleasure, but the fact that some structures, like the perineal gland, are not viewed by the medical community as a part of the clitoral structure is in itself problematic. Fanny Fatale concurs:

Lack of political control of and personal familiarity with our unified sex organ has rendered it ripe for abuse...Episiotomies, in which surgery is performed on the vaginal opening to facilitate childbirth, cuts into the perineal sponge of the clitoris. This "slash and burn without a clue" approach to surgical procedures involving women's sexual anatomy exists precisely because the "missing piece" of our clitoris has not been acknowledged.[19]

Indeed, the woman's sex organs have been abused not only physically, but intellectually as well. The debate over female ejaculation, which ignited in the 1950s, but which has been madly raging only over the last fifteen years is a case in point. But what is female ejaculation, and why is there so much controversy about it?

The great debate about female ejaculation began with the publication of The G-Spot and other Recent Discoveries about Human Sexuality in 1982. A research team in 1979 had named the spot after Ernst Grafenberg, a German researcher who proposed the existence of this erogenous zone in 1950.[20] Around this time, sexologists became embroiled in a huge debate over the existence of the alleged erogenous zone in the upper part of the vagina. This zone is the inflamed urethral sponge and interior tissues (the paraurethral gland) which balloons during sexual arousal. The appearance of the spot (visible through a speculum placed in the vagina sideways to allow the upper portion of the vagina to remain visible) resembles a small hump with horizontal ridges running across it.[21] Those who do not believe that the G-Spot is evidence of a new erogenous zone postulate that pleasure simply comes from nerves in response to pressure on the bladder. Those who believe in the spot's existence point to it as an example of "prostate vestige" and is analogous to the male prostate gland.[22] This is allegedly where the female ejaculate is produced. Forty percent of women in one research sample reported that they ejaculated fluid during orgasm.[23] As has been established earlier, it was commonly believed that females ejaculated semen as the man did, within the one-seed model of conception. Even after the one-seed model lost credence, it was still thought as late as 1926, when T. H.. Van de Velde said that "It appears that the majority of laymen believe that something is forcibly squirted (or propelled or extruded), or expelled from the woman's body in orgasm...I cannot venture to decide whether it should happen, according to natural law. There is no doubt that is does happen to some women."[24] There is overwhelming and indisputable historical and testimonial evidence that women did and do believe that they eject fluid during ejaculation. So the only logical next step is to attempt to determine exactly what that ejaculate is.

By tracing the nature and origin of the fluid, it is possible to prove the existence of the G-Spot as either a vestigial organ, analogous to the male's prostate gland, or simply a figment of some sexologists' and many women's imaginations. The best way to establish whether or not the G-Spot and female ejaculation exist as homologues to the male prostate and male ejaculation, respectively, is to delve deeper into the nature of the urethral and paraurethral tissues.

The existence of male and female homologues offers the best explanation of the nature of the urethral and paraurethral tissues in the female. In J. L. Sevely and J. W. Bennett's "Concerning Female Ejaculation and the Female Prostate," the primordial model of human development is offered. Female and male anatomies develop from the same embryonic tissue, and genetic signals direct which course of development the tissues will take: male or female. This is different from the one-sex model of antiquity, which said that the female was simply a lesser version than the male, and all of her parts were inferior versions of his. In the modern, scientific interpretation, the male and female simply develop differently, consistent with the two-sex model which reigns today. (see appendix 4) What develops in the male into the prostate gland becomes the somewhat vestigial, but nonetheless present, urethral and paraurethral tissues. Regnier de Graaf was a seventeenth-century Dutch physician who first took note of the membrane around the urethra, and theorized that it was perhaps this "female prostatae" which was responsible throughout history for the female ejaculate. De Graaf said that "...it should be noted that the discharge from the female `prostatae' causes as much pleasure as does that from the male `prostatae.'[25] If, in the interest of historical revisionism, de Graaf is credited for the discovery of the female erogenous zone, coincidence will make it unnecessary to change the zone's labeling as the "G-Spot." But regardless of who discovered what and when, the theory of the G-Spot as a homologue to the male prostate is widespread, and generally accepted as true. The point of contention for those debating the importance of the tissue is how active a role the urethral sponge plays in the female orgasm, and whether the organ is simply a vestigial remain, like the appendix, or a functioning part of many women's sexuality. Determination of the origin of the female ejaculate will answer two related questions simultaneously: What produces the ejaculate fluid, and is the female ejaculate "real" just as the male ejaculate is? How can one be sure? The proof is, quite literally, in the pudding.

Analysis of the fluid ejaculated from women's urethras during orgasm has yielded intriguing results. Samples of female ejaculate and urine were analyzed and compared by a team of researchers in 1980, and the two fluids were found to be considerably different from one another. One of the greatest differences came from the amount of prostatic acid phosphatase (PAP) present in each fluid, which is a product of prostatic tissue. PAP is present in only trace amounts in urine. (see appendix 5) There was also a difference (though not as high) between the amounts of urea and creatinine, which are elements of urine, as they were present in considerably lower amounts in the ejaculate. In addition, the researchers detected superficial epithelial cells in the females' ejaculated fluid, which are characteristic of seminal plasma and found in abundance in male ejaculate.[26] Aside from chemical analysis in the laboratory, there exist other techniques by which to determine the nature of the female ejaculate. In "Brief Reports on Female Ejaculation," which criticized the chemical analysis of the 1980 study as being uncontrolled, and cited cases in which chemical analysis has failed to yield differences between ejaculate and urine, the authors suggested that an "uncomplicated way to determine if urine is present in female orgasmic expulsion might be to administer methylene blue and see if the dye is found in the orgasmic expulsion."[27] This was in fact done in 1981, three years before the suggestion was made in the Journal of Sex Research, by a shrewd woman who wanted to eliminate her suspicions that her ejaculate was nothing more than urinary stress incontinence, a condition in which a woman urinates during sexual intercourse as a result of weak pelvic muscles. She conducted her own experiment and dyed her urine blue with Urised® tablets and inspected her ejaculate for traces of urine. There was a faint blue tinge. When she urinated on the sheet next to her spot of ejaculate, her urine was a strong, dark blue color. She concluded that her ejaculate was not coming from the bladder.[28] The evidence that female ejaculation is "real" is not conclusive; but it may be that the answer the researchers are looking for may not be as cut and dried as they would hope. Looking for a yes or no answer may not be the proper way to address the problem.

J. W. Huffman, who believed that the paraurethral gland and urethral sponge are the vestigial equivalents of the male prostate gland, may offer some explanation for the variability in some researchers' findings. His research showed that the size and development of female prostate glands vary from woman to woman. Also, the location of the glands and ducts themselves vary greatly, and can in fact change over time. He found that certain coital positions are more conducive to the ejaculation of fluid, as the ducts are more exposed in some positions. Also, he found that after childbirth, the position of the ducts in many women change, in that they become more exposed and prone to allow ejaculation. This may explain the fact that many women report first ejaculating after years of sexual activity. This variance theory is one possible explanation for the varied conclusions found by researchers on both sides of the argument. Perhaps it is not necessary that all of the evidence be similar, considering the nature of the female prostate as a vestigial organ and its variability in size, development, and perhaps contribution to the chemical makeup of a given ejaculate. It could very well be the case that some women ejaculate some amount of urine, while others do not, just as some women ejaculate, and some do not. Explaining the conflicting evidence in these terms, it seems that some women do in fact ejaculate a fluid which is chemically distinct from urine, and that it originates from the female prostate, this being the paraurethral gland and the surrounding urethral sponge. Given this evidence that some women do expel what can only be called prostate fluid from their urethras, and attributing variation in findings to variation in the size and development of different women's urethral sponges, then the "G-Spot" and female ejaculation are quite echt for many women.

Aside from the physiological evidence for the existence of a female erogenous zone is the personal belief in its existence. The question of sexual pleasure in relation to the glands of the clitoris (the urethral and perineal sponges) is a difficult one to address, as sexual pleasure is impossible to quantify. But if stimulation of the G-Spot causes increased sexual response in some women, which it does, then it is by definition an erogenous zone for these women. In this way, the question of whether or not the spot exists is moot. The whole debate over the existence of the spot has overlooked this simple viewpoint, as it has overlooked many of the viewpoints of women's sexuality that come from a subjective, personal point of view.

Women have been told a lot of things about how their sexuality should be, according to an objective, arbitrary standard imposed on them largely by men, and the case of female ejaculation and its suppression, on the societal as well as on the individual level, is another manifestation of this. Should the chemical breakdown of the ejaculate determine - whether it is "real" or not - determine whether female ejaculation is desirable or not, if it is a pleasurable experience for the woman? In our society, control of one's own urinary processes is highly stressed, and any release of fluid is seen as a sign of disorder. A woman telling her physician that she ejaculates fluid is usually told that she is suffering from urinary stress incontinence; she is told that something is wrong with her. She will try to suppress ejaculating, but if it is part of her orgasm, then it is possible that this will be suppressed as well. This was the case with a couple studied by Edward G. Belzer in his research. The woman was embarrassed because she ejaculated during intercourse fluid she thought certainly to be urine. She was embarrassed by what might be considered a normal part of her sexuality.[29] Unfortunately, norms are relative. Indeed, this society says that urinary control is an imperative and offers no other explanation for the release of fluids from the vagina.[30] A situation in which many women are completely unaware of this aspect of female sexuality and cannot think of any other explanation for their expulsion of fluid other than that they have urinated, is only made worse by the fact that doctors support this belief by diagnosing them as diseased or dysfuntional. The key to understanding why this happens, why the female ejaculate is seen as only possibly being urine lies in answering the following question: Why has the assumption changed from the ejaculate being a legitimate and natural part of the sexual experience to a "new" phenomenon, something which has to be proved exists, beyond a reasonable doubt?

The answer lies in etymology. Women lack the linguistic tools to adequately explain their experience, because our language, like any languages, evolved in a particular cultural context. As has been mentioned above, the one-seed model of generation held that both male and female semen was essential for conception, and the word Greek word for "semen" was used to describe both male and female fluids. It also shared the same root, from which the word "gonorrhea" originates. Galen, when he observed the release of fluid in venereal disease, erroneously thought it was the leakage of semen. Until the seventeenth century, in fact, the term "gonorrhea" was used to describe both the disease and the release of semen, as both of the words stemmed from a common root, the Greek word for "seed." But as soon as science determined the real nature of male and female fluid, it exalted the male fluid to a higher status, as it contained the vital sperm, and the word "semen" for the male retained its connotation of being still the "seed." The female's fluid was not crucial in reproduction, and the notion of a female semen ceased to exist. Hers did not contain "seed," in any form. Without female semen, there can be no female ejaculation. After the word "semen" became gendered, the connotation which remained for female fluids was the one which equated them with abnormality or disease. Since women did not ejaculate, any fluid supposedly expelled from her urethra during orgasm could not be anything other than abnormal. This is the problem our society experiences today. Since women do not ejaculate, the word "ejaculation" has become gendered. This "semantic confusion" has inevitably led to our intellectual limitation. Sevely and Bennett quote Alfred North Whitehead when he says that "`...assumptions...appear so obvious that people do not know what they are assuming because no other way of putting things has ever occurred to them...'" Thomas S. Kuhn, the author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, goes on to say that "`No part of the aim of normal science is to call forth new phenomena; indeed those that do not fit the box are often not seen at all...'"[31] Female ejaculation does not fit into the normal paradigm of male and female sexuality. But change is slowly occurring.

Even though there has been much criticism of the literature and research which has argued for the existence of female ejaculation, the published materials do play an important role, quite apart from the role of scientific documentation and proof. The most beneficial effect of the evidence in support of female ejaculation is the normalizing effect it has for many women. However, some psychologists and counselors feel that the purported existence of the G-Spot can act as a double-edged sword. "`A lot of women are going to be upset if they can't find it, `" said a social psychologist, while a marriage counselor adds, "`It's going to be like the [search for the] Grail.'"[32] There has been a feminist reaction to the possibility of the G-spot as simply another performance anxiety for women, as well as being the reassertion of the existence of the much sought-after and hyped vaginal orgasm. Some women are afraid that it might suggest that perhaps"...Freud was right all along..." A clinician wrote that "`Whether naively or exploitatively, the authors [of The G-Spot, Whipple, Perry, and Ladas) have renewed or bolstered the old expectation, belief, and/or hope that almost all women can be orgasmic with vaginal stimulation alone.'" But the effect on many women has been far from detrimental, and was, in fact, quite liberating. Beverly Whipple, one of the co-authors of The G-Spot and Other Recent Discoveries about Human Sexuality tells of how she has received thousands of letters from women around the country, of which the following quote is representative: "`Thank you, you've really made me feel better..."[33] Janice M. Irvine, in her book Disorders of Desire, put it succinctly:

The public's response, if nothing else, locates Whipple and Perry squarely within the sexological tradition of Kinsey and Masters and Johnson, all of whom received thousands of appreciative letters. And despite their disclaimers about setting up new sexual imperatives, it also locates them squarely within the realm of the experts. Beverly Whipple undoubtedly had women's interests in mind when she told a newspaper reporter, "We are helping people feel normal." The fact that in many cases she was right speaks to the continuing power of medical and scientific expertise to affirm or invalidate women's own experience.[34]

Indeed, popular contemporary sexual handbooks and manuals document female ejaculation as a real part of women's sexuality. The authors of The Kinsey Institute New Report on Sex, was last published in 1990, one of the most popular books in recent years on sexuality, field a reader's question thusly:

There is also disagreement over the source of this fluid and whether it is urine or a specialized secretion from vaginal glands. But regardless of what scientists eventually decide, it is important to realize that what happens to you is normal for you and does happen to other women. There is nothing to be uncomfortable about when this happens - just bring a towel to bed and reassure your partner that it's normal for you.[35]

Another popular book on the subject of sexuality, The Magic of Sex, published in 1991, also being aimed at a largely heterosexual audience, deals with the subject of the G-Spot, but takes the line of argument a bit further than Kinsey, advocating the existence of the G-Spot as the active female prostate, and the ejaculate as its secretion, assertions which are still highly controversial.[36] Unfortunately, a glaring exception to this new trend is found in the most popular sex book ever published, The Joy of Sex, which was first published in 1973 and last updated in 1991, and completely ignores the G-Spot controversy. There is no mention at all in the book of the G-Spot or female ejaculation. It seems as though the author, Alex Comfort, updated the book only enough to keep it from becoming completely out of date, by added material dealing with STDs and AIDS. It is apparent that female ejaculation was not a priority in the revision, and was not viewed as something which merited informing the public about. The book's stance on sexuality is quite archaic, and is not aimed at validating a broad range of different experiences. A passage like the following provides an example of this:"...anal intercourse [should] be avoided altogether...it's something that most couples try once...it's too risky..."[37] Hopefully, the Comforts will redefine what he means by "...happy sexuality in the minds of normal people..." [emphasis added] in the future editions of the book, and that it will not take such a rigid view of "normal" sexuality.[38] This type of narrow definition of normalcy is exactly what is so destructive to the psyches of the "diseased" class of people it creates.

The redefinition of Woman's sexuality is underway, and it is the first time that women themselves are helping to determine the course it will take. Women are taking the existence of the G-Spot and turning it in their favor, and are struggling to not allow it to be posed against them, and not allow it to become another performance anxiety. Instead of allowing the G-Spot's existence to reinstate the reign of the vaginal orgasm, many women are simply placing the spot within a new model of sexuality which simply asserts female ejaculation's sexual legitimacy. The new model asserts this legitimacy without regard to what the fluid is made of; it is simply an attempt to reinforce the woman's sexual power. The male patriarchy's model of female sexuality is being challenged and women are beginning to assert their sexual space. She is taking back what had for millennia been rightfully hers, but had been relatively recently redefined as a male-only function: the power to ejaculate. Indeed, Fanny Fatale did not mince words when she said that "Those who fight or trivialize this new view of our sex organ and its capabilities, will be steadfastly rebuked. Information about female ejaculation is now in women's hands. Like women's voices, their sexual growth and control over our bodies will not be silenced."[39]

"In Search of a Perfect G," Time , September 13, 1982: 102.

Addegio, Frank, Edwin Belzer Jr., Jill Comolli, William Moger, John D. Perry, Beverly Whipple. "Female Ejaculation: A Case Study," The Journal of Sex Research. 17 (1, 1981): 13-21

Belzer Jr., Edwin G., "Orgasmic Expulsions of Women: A Review and Heuristic Inquiry," The Journal of Sex Research. 17 (1, 1981): 1-12

Belzer Jr., Edwin G., Beverly Whipple, William Moger, "Brief Reports on Female Ejaculation," The Journal of Sex Research. 20 (4, 1984): 403-406

Centers, Federation of Feminist Women's Health. A New View of a Woman's Body . (Hollywood: Feminist Health Press, 1991)

Comfort, Alex. The New Joy of Sex . (New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1991)

Darling, Carol Anderson, J. Kenneth Davidson Sr., Colleen Conway-Welch, "Female Ejaculation: Perceived Origins, the Grafenberg Spot/Area, and Sexual Responsiveness," Archives of Sexual Behavior. 19 (1, 1990): 29-47

Fatale, Fanny, "Ask Fanny - This Is What Fanny's G-Spot Looks Like!," On Our Backs, September/October, 1992: 8, 44-45.

Hite, Shere. The Hite Report: A Nationwide Study of Female Sexuality . (New York: Dell Publishing, 1981)

Irvine, Janice M. Disorders of Desire: Sex and Gender in Modern American Sexology . (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990)

Laqueur, Thomas. Making Sex: The Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud . (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990)

Reinisch, June M. Ruth Beasley, The Kinsey Institute New Report on Sex: What You Must Know to Be Sexually Literate . (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990)

Sevely, J. Lowndes, J. W. Bennett, "Concerning Female Ejaculation and the Female Prostate," The Journal of Sex Research. 14 (1, 1978): 1-20

Stoppard, Miriam. The Magic of Sex . (New York: Dorling Kindersley, Inc., 1991)

Tannahill, Reay. Sex in History . (New York: Scarborough House, 1992)

Note: Unfortunately, I could not locate the appendices for reprinting, as the original research paper is in storage in America right now.

[1]Tannahill, Reay. Sex in History . (New York: Scarborough House, 1992) pp. 46-47

[2]Hite, Shere. The Hite Report: A Nationwide Study of Female Sexuality . (New York: Dell Publishing, 1981) p. 241

[3]Tannahill, Sex in History, pp. 52-55

[4]Laqueur, Thomas. Making Sex: The Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud,((Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990) pp. 27-28

[5]Making Sex, pp. 35-36

[6]Laqueur, Making Sex,, pp. 38-39

[7]Ibid, p. 46

[8]Ibid, p. 99

[9]Ibid, p. 151

[10]Laqueur, Making Sex, pp. 171-172

[11]Ibid, p. 182

[12]Ibid, p. 189

[13]Centers, Federation of Feminist Women's Health. A New View of a Woman's Body . (Hollywood: Feminist Health Press, 1991) p. 33

[14]Hite, Shere. The Hite Report: A Nationwide Study of Female Sexuality . (New York: Dell Publishing, 1981) p. 229

[15]Centers, Federation of Feminist Women's Health. A New View of a Woman's Body, p. 33

[16]Fatale, Fanny, "Ask Fanny - This Is What Fanny's G-Spot Looks Like!," On Our Backs, September/October, 1992, p. 8

[17]Centers, Federation of Feminist Women's Health. A New View of a Woman's Body, p. 39

[18]Ibid, p. 45

[19]Fatale, Fanny, On Our Backs, p. 44

[20]Addegio, Frank, Edwin Belzer Jr., Jill Comolli, William Moger, John D. Perry, Beverly Whipple. "Female Ejaculation: A Case Study," The Journal of Sex Research. 17 (1, 1981), p. 15

[21] Fatale, Fanny, On Our Backs, p. 8

[22] "In Search of a Perfect G," Time , September 13, 1982, p. 102

[23]Darling, Carol Anderson, J. Kenneth Davidson Sr., Colleen Conway-Welch, "Female Ejaculation: Perceived Origins, the Grafenberg Spot/Area, and Sexual Responsiveness," Archives of Sexual Behavior. 19 (1, 1990) p. 46

[24]Sevely, J. Lowndes, J. W. Bennett, "Concerning Female Ejaculation and the Female Prostate," The Journal of Sex Research. 14 (1, 1978), p. 8

[25]Sevely, J. Lowndes, J. W. Bennett, "Concerning Female Ejaculation and the Female Prostate," p. 9

[26]Female Ejaculation: A Case Study, pp. 18-19

[27]Belzer Jr., Edwin G., Beverly Whipple, William Moger, "Brief Reports on Female Ejaculation," The Journal of Sex Research. 20 (4, 1984), p. 406

[28]Belzer Jr., Edwin G., "Orgasmic Expulsions of Women: A Review and Heuristic Inquiry," The Journal of Sex Research. 17 (1, 1981), p. 6

[29]Ibid, pp. 6-7

[30]Female Ejaculation: Perceived Origins, the Grafenberg Spot/Area, and Sexual Responsiveness, pp. 43-44

[Sevely, J. Lowndes, J. W. Bennett, "Concerning Female Ejaculation and the Female Prostate," ]The Journal of Sex Research. [14 (1, 1978), pp. 16-18

32]Time, "In Search of the Perfect G," p. 102

[33]Irvine, Janice M. Disorders of Desire: Sex and Gender in Modern American Sexology . (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990) , pp. 168-169

[34]Irvine, Janice M. Disorders of Desire: Sex and Gender in Modern American Sexology . (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990) p. 169

[35]Reinisch, June M. Ruth Beasley, The Kinsey Institute New Report on Sex: What You Must Know to Be Sexually Literate . (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990), p. 88

[36]Stoppard, Miriam. The Magic of Sex . (New York: Dorling Kindersley, Inc., 1991), p. 37

[37] Comfort, Alex. The New Joy of Sex . (New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1991) p. 244

[38]The Joy of Sex, p. 7

[39]Fatale, Fanny, On Our Backs, p. 45