Feminism In Freud's The Myth Of The Vaginal Orgasm

"The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm" highlighted the extent to which the patriarchy has staked its place in the bedroom, forcing women to take a backseat to male pleasure. Until now, I had never acknowledged how labeling the vagina as an "orgasmic center" really only serves to benefit men as sexual partners. By ignoring all evidence which suggests that it is really clitoral stimulation that should be focused on, women were- and still are-defined by what pleases men, left to engage in activities that they had been falsely conditioned to believe should please them, as well. What is disturbing to consider is that, if a woman were to emerge from the façade and admit that, actually, this does nothing for me, she was condemned as "vaginally frigid"

For, Freud and his band of followers promoted the notion that women were inferior, envious of men, and defined by their physical beings. If they failed to experience vaginal orgasm, as "normal" women should, then there was something psychologically wrong with them. Freud ignored the heaps of evidence that disproved his reasoning, solely basing beliefs about "frigidity" on his skewed assumptions. His widespread support left women to be sexually exploited, consumed by self-hatred, and fearful that they were inadequately female. Above all, I was shocked to discover that many supported the clitoridectomy because it not only "feminized" women, but also prevented them from straying to other partners (either male or female) in pursuit of sexual satisfaction. The fact that this was- and is- a procedure is not only disturbing, it also suggests that more was acknowledged about the true source of female pleasure than many let on. Even more, it demonstrates another way in which sex has historically been tailored to the desires of

It was interesting to discover that medical professionals, such as Dr. Seymour Fisher, went to extensive means to disprove the ideology that blamed women's lack of sexual pleasure on their psychology. In this way, the lecture fearlessly pinned the blame for women's dissatisfaction on the failure of men to adequately satisfy their partners, a move that seems to border closely on taboo. For, accepting that "frigidity" is a man-made situation dismisses the ridiculous psychological reasons for the "condition" that were pushed by Freud and his gang of worshippers. Even more, it allowed for consideration of the legitimate issues endured by females. For example, there were women who had "deep cuts or tears" in their ligaments but, thanks to Freud, were conditioned to believe that they weren't enjoying sex because of some sort of mental issue. It seems that rejecting a dangerously misogynistic ideology that caters to the ego and desires of men was a huge step towards prioritizing the lived experiences of women. In consideration of all of this, perhaps the most striking aspect of the lecture itself was the enjoyable audacity that it demonstrated. As with the previous essay, I'm curious to hear about how this material was received by audiences (as well as who these audiences