To whom clit may concern: an analysis of epistemological research surrounding the clitoris.

Felicia Gisondi (260772265)

History of Sexuality 2

Professor Brian Lewis

November 25th, 2020

1
 Why do so many women still have sexual shame surrounding masturbation? Why do so

many women have trouble achieving an orgasm? Within the novel Becoming Cliterate by Laurie

B. Mintz, the author argues that “50% of 18-35-year-old women say they have trouble reaching

orgasm with a partner”. These questions have pervasive on women's health research for

centuries, and there is no universal answer. Conceivably, a variety of misogynistic narratives

have pervaded societal, political, and epistemological scientific understanding by enforcing

social norms within the scientific sphere of women's sexual pleasure and duty. This paper will

review the social and political variables that consume Victorian scientific practices, specifically

clitorectomy, how this is translated within medical texts, and why these social pressures and

stigmas continued to influence modern-day women, and her ability to achieve an orgasm.1

Before the Victorian Era, European philosophers and anatomists perpetuated false

narratives surrounding female genitalia and the female orgasm2. These claims were followed by

social beliefs in relation to female sexuality and the one body model. This understanding

magnified social prudence, political motive, and socially biased epistemology concerning the

social expectation that women were incubators for the fetuses. This understanding was

popularized by the philosopher Aristotle, he argued that “women were inferior to men - female

sexual pleasure was not important to him, he focused on conception and a woman's purpose

regarding this”.3 This evolved into a social and political precedent, which would develop and

heavily influence scientific epistemology throughout the 17th century. This development

reaffirms misogynistic precedents in relation to female anatomy and how science epistemology

conducts research within this domain. Aristotle's reproductive motive will later be inaugurated

1 Jennifer Gunter, The Vagina Bible: the Vulva and the Vagina - Separating the Myth from Medicine. London, New
York: Piatkus, (2019), 7-13.
2Evelynn M Hammonds, Journal of the History of Biology 30, no. 3 (1997).
3Hammonds, 103-113.

2
into social and political norms in relation to female sexual pleasure, Aristotle “acknowledged the

existence of the clitoris and female sexual pleasure, it wasn't important to him, for he did not

think that female sexual desire or orgasm contributed to conception” 4 reaffirming his

reproductive and misogynistic prerogative in relation to female sexuality. This precedent set a

social and political ideology which was followed by anatomists who understood female anatomy

using The Galenic Model, this model believed that female genitalia was the inversion of male

genitalia. This scientific model fails to recognize the anatomical differences between male and

female genitalia, in particular the female clitoris. Before the 17th century the development and

understanding of the clitoris followed the same common question: Is the female orgasm required

for conception? This precedent understood that the clitoris did allow women to achieve some

form of sexual pleasure, but due misogynistic beliefs surrounding womanhood, this

understanding was not part of the research. Many feminist philosophers argue that the “Galenic

model remind[s] [us] that the cultural construction of the female relation to the male, while

expressed in terms of the body's concrete realities, was more deeply grounded in assumptions

about the nature of politics and society”.5 Furthermore, feminist’s philosophers counter many

scientific findings in relation to female sexual pleasure, since many scientists and doctors were

acutely biased within their sexual studies. These feminists will provide insight on the socio-

political factors that influenced and further dictated the epistemological manipulation that

encompasses women's health, and the future of female sexual pleasure. 6

The Victorian era was particularly challenging for women. While the Catholic Church

and its conservative values infiltrated Victorian society, women's sexuality was determined by

white politicians and priests. The Victorian era focused on women's reproduction, concubinage,

4Hammonds, 103-113.
5 Hammonds, 16
6 Anna Clark, Desire. London: Routledge, no 1 (2008):103-113.

3
and traditional family norms. Therefore, masturbation, abortion, and prostitution were still

extremely taboo and many women and sodomites were prosecuted if they were caught amongst

these acts. In some cases ``middle-class men and women had their own twilight moments and

secrets. Friendships between men, or between women, could be more emotionally intense than

marriage”.7 This recognition is important due to the acts that were permissible in private, counter

to the public. The private and public sphere were critical in the advancement of women health,

and since science was a public matter, documenting and gathering information on female

pleasure was not popularized by the government and did heavily influence scientists and

anatomists within their understanding and research of the clitoris.

Many aristocrat philosophers equated female sexual liberation as a means for women to

achieve power. Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued against female pleasure and believed that women

seeking sex were solely influenced by the political gain or marital end. He believed that these

women corrupted society, and their desires were solely based on the political/economic gain.

Rousseau argued that women were docile creatures and could not seek sexual pleasures solely

based on interest or love, but out of political motive or power gain. This understanding was built

from the philosopher Motesquieu, who believed female courtiers had too much power.

Motesquieu developed the understanding that female courtiers could influence the king who

would be able to exercise power “through personal whims, rather than on the basis of merit”.8

This understanding perpetuated the notion that sex could be used as a political tool to advance

personal motives and desires rather than an act of love and affection. This understanding

perpetuated the notion of “sex with a lust for power”9, and this ideology was only prescribed for

sexually liberated aristocratic women.

7 Clark, 139.
8 Clark, 119.
9 Clark, 119.

4
 The social and political motives surrounding female sexuality altered the scientific

epistemology surrounding the study of the clitoris. Considering scientific knowledge was a

public matter, many scientists focused their research on a socially permissible subject: female

reproduction, and questioned the importance of an orgasm during intercourse and conception10.

When scientists concluded that the female orgasms were not required to procreate, they shifted

their focus and deemed female orgasms “hysteric”, arguing that female sexual pleasure created

mental health issues which led to a multitude of health concerns11. Many modern day feminists’

philosophers, such as Donna Haraway argue “how basic concepts and forms of knowledge are

subtly transformed in response to changing political agenda”.12This epistemological shift

between the importance of an orgasm, to, female orgasms creating hysteria, Harway argues this

shift in research was heavily manipulated by the social and political norms that encompassed

European and American science during this time.

While many physicians believed female sexual pleasure was immoral, they also argued

that the clitoris was the source of “hysteria”.13 When women's husbands desired to speak to a

practitioner about their wives ``hysteria”, which would now likely be classified as the desire to

masturbate, many physicians believed these forms of “hysteria” were caused by excess filth

surrounding the clitoral hood. Before Clitridectomy’s were practiced some practitioners used

alternative measures to cure this issue. “The pathogenesis of masturbation, then, was a

physiological one: excessive nervous stimulation”.14 Therefore many practitioners ``treated the

clitoris by cleaning the smegma, breaking up adhesions, or circumcising the clitoris—all

10 Hammonds, 103
11 Hammonds, 103
12 Helen E Longino, Science As Social Knowledge : Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. (Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press.1990), 10.
13 Studd, 674-675
14 Sarah W. Rodriguez, Rethinking the History of Female Circumcision and Clitoridectomy: American Medicine
and Female Sexuality in the Late Nineteenth Century, Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences,
Volume 63, Issue 3, July 2008, 227.

5
methods that left the organ itself—in order to restore a woman to her normal sexual instinct”. 15

This practical evidence displays the social expectations imposed onto women to obtain a “normal

sexual instinct” assuming that all women’s bodies and sex drives are the same. Creighton and

Strawbridge, argue that this prognosis showed that practitioners understood that “women were

quite capable of being independent sexual beings'' but this was overlooked and manipulated by

social and political motives that pervades clitoral epistemology, further stigmatized female

masturbation, and allowed misogynistic practitioners to eventually practice Clitoridectomy’s.16

Throughout the Victorian era many physicians argued that the clitoris was a useless and

problematic organ, arguing against female pleasure claiming that masturbation caused “hysteria”.

They furthered this pursuit by claiming that “the clitoris was widely understood to be an

important source of disease”.17 This was predominantly perpetuated by the gynecologist, Isaac

Baker Brown18 (1811–1873), and endocrinologist, Charles Brown-Séquard19 (1817–1894). The

two reputable doctors advocated for clitoridectomy, a surgical partial or full removal of the

clitoris in hope of preventing female masturbation, thus preventing and curing the “hysteria”

caused by masturbation and the clitoris. Brown, a reputable practitioner, who typically practiced

on upper-class women, argued that female masturbation leads to a variety of disorders and even

deaths. Brown, the founder and director of a hospital, furthered these claims in 1866 within his

book: “On the Curability of Certain Forms of Insanity, Epilepsy, Catalepsy, and Hysteria in

Females”.20 In the book;

15 Rodriguez, 227.
16 Longino, Helen E. 2000. Science As Social Knowledge. https://www.sciencedirect.com/.
17 Studd, 674-675.
18 Studd, 673-681.
19 Studd, 673-681.
20 Studd, 673-681.

6
“Baker Brown believed that clitoridectomy was a cure not only for nymphomania and

masturbation but also epilepsy, catalepsy, painful periods, heavy periods, depression, insanity,

hysteria and dementia. In his book, he did not use the word masturbation, preferring the term

‘peripheral excitement’, the euphemism always used by the experts of on this subject”.21

Not only were Brown’s claims incorrect but they also perpetuated a falsehood

surrounding female masturbation. The language within the text evidently displays the social

prudency perpetuated within the Victorian era throughout Brown’s book, by referring to

masturbation as “peripheral excitement”. This language displays the negative social Victorian

norms and narratives within scientific research in relation to female masturbation and

“hysteria”. Alongside Brown's practices of clitorectomy’s, his claims of curing not only

masturbation but epilepsy were founded through a manipulated practice to further his own work

and name.22 For example one of Brown's Cases his patient's “illness” was “her desire to obtain a

divorce under the new divorce act of 1857”.23 This medical claim that divorce equates to illness,

perpetuates concubinage ideals and stigmatizes a woman's attempt to divorce their spouse. This

“illness'' continues a communal fear amongst women for women who decided to deviate from

the Victorian ideal of femininity and attempt to independently think. This procedure instilled fear

in women to not only seek out divorce but not pursue independent thoughts, alongside this, the

practicing of clitorectomy’s was a deterrent to continue practicing un-emancipated Victorian law.

Another example of this societal dismay was “on a 20- year-old woman because she was

‘disobedient to her mother’s wishes, sent visiting cards to men she liked and spent much time in

serious reading”.24 This example examines the notion of deviance, when in reality the young

21 Studd, 675.
22 Studd, 674.
23 Studd, 674.
24 Studd, 675.

7
woman is independently thinking and obtaining autonomy over her life. This way of thinking or

acting was not accepted during the Victorian period - this sense of expression and social reaction,

uses genital mutilation in order to continue to control women's bodies.

Brown's public record was widely accepted by practitioners as it aligned with Victorian

social norms and expectations. However, months after the book was published, Brown did

receive criticism from young physicians and surgeons contesting clitoridectomy’s after a variety

of patients argued that the “effectiveness” of Brown's miracle cure did not “cure” their hysteria 25.

At this time, Brown had been actively performing this surgery from 1858-1867, but after much

negative criticisms and ‘in February 1867, the Board of the Obstetrical Society, ruling on the

notoriety and debates surrounding Brown’s use of clitoridectomy, recommended his expulsion

from the society”.26Brown resigned from the hospital and the Obstetrical Society, but the social

harm has already been done. Many physicians in America had followed Brown's practices and

“clitoridectomy remained a recommended practice in books written only a few years before [the]

renowned gynaecologists” 27 left his practice. This social precedent surrounding hysteria and

masturbation heavily influenced the understanding and value of the clitoris within gynecological

studies. The social and political motive to “cure” women from hysteria is evident in Brown's

Clitoridectomy diagnosis and practices. Alongside the social and scientific perpetuation of

“insanity” in relation to masturbation, Brown’s epistemological practices are heavily internalized

by Victorian prudishness and are heavily influenced by misogynistic social ideals. Arguably,

Brown's findings are inconclusive and the validity of his “hysteric” claims are present in his

patients and the diagnosis. This socially pervasive narrative surrounding female masturbation has

25 Studd, 673-681.
26 Di Marino V., Lepidi H, History of the Clitoris, In: Anatomic Study of the Clitoris and the Bulbo-Clitoral Organ.
Springer, Cham. (2014), 9.
27 Di Marino, 1.1

8
furthered the Victorian model of prudishness, and sexual duty within womanhood. Reproductive

duties heavily influenced this social narrative alongside the notion that women's bodies were for

their children or their husband, therefore this lack of autonomy surrounding female sexual

pleasure furthered this biased, misogynistic evidence, as these understandings were widely

accepted throughout European medicine.

Nonetheless many Americans adopted the practice following Brown's findings. In 1896,

Doctor John O. Polak was presented with a nineteen-year old patience in Brooklyn New York.

The patient Lizzie’s parents were concerned that she was spending too much time alone. During

Polak’s physical examination with Lizzie, she disclosed to Polak that she “sit alone for hours

masturbating,” though she also masturbated “in the presence of friends and relatives”.28 This

public display of masturbation instilled tremendous fear in Lizzie’s father, who asked Polak to

perform a clitorectomy on Lizzie. Polak agreed and following the procedure “happily concluded

his report by writing that three months after the operation, Lizzie “has shown no desire to return

to her former habits; she seems happier, and her mental condition clearer” His removal of her

clitoris had cured her of masturbating”.29 This rash, inconclusive, and pervasive assessment

furthered the notion that masturbation and female pleasure was wrong, and immoral. Many

practitioners saw masturbation as a disease it is important to note that “sexual behavior like

masturbation was problematic because it routed sex away from procreation and instead spent

sexual energy recklessly”.30 This furthers the argument around the reproductive motives that

influenced clitoral epistemology. If women displayed counter sexual desires beyond their sexual

duties to their husbands, and their responsibility to procreate, they were deemed “ill”. Feminist

scholars and historians often argue that if masturbation was not seen as a “disease” that would

28 Rodriguez, 324.
29 Rodriguez, 324.
30 Rodriguez, 332.

9
cause “hysteria”, they claimed to assert that the practice of misogynistic and invasive procedures

like the Clitoridectomy would not be as widely accepted within the 19th century.31

The argument of clitorectomys pervaded the 19th century and continued within the 20th

century with alternative means. As practitioners recognized that masturbation was not the only

sexual illness affecting women's health, many deemed lack of sex drive was an additional

contributing factor to women not upholding their sexual duties and obligations. Early 20th

century thinking argued that sex was healthy for individuals within marriages - but for women

this pleasure was only to appease their husband’s sexual needs and desires, counter to reaching

orgasm or seeking pleasure for their own sexual needs32. This motivation allowed women to seek

reciprocity while having sex with their husbands, and pursue medical attention for loss of libido.

While the social expectation for married women to seek pleasure was not prioritized, many

women still claimed that sex was not an enjoyable experience for them, with this doctors

continued practicing clitoredectomy’s to assist in a woman’s ability to achieve orgasm.

Clitordectomy’s were still practiced with the new intent to assist the penis in stimulating the

clitoris, to provide assistance to the woman. Physician Eugene Bernardy told the Philadelphia

County Medical Society in 1894 that “doctors knew that in order for women to orgasm during

intercourse, the penis must stimulate the clitoris...However, as Bernardy further explained, when

the clitoris was bound down by an adherent hood, stimulation did not occur—the hood, in

essence, hid the clitoris from the penis”.33 Therefore, this procedure and understanding was

heavily motivated by social models, “physicians who performed surgery on the clitoris did so to

realign white middle class women's sexual instinct, directing female behavior toward loyalty and

ardor for her husband. Their doing so illustrates the extent to which the needs and desires of

31 Rodriguez, 332.
32 Rodriguez, 345.
33 Rodriguez, 345.

10
women were considered secondary to those of their husbands”.34 For women who were having

sex with their husbands, they were expected to have sex in missionary position, this expectation

did not allow or encourage woman to explore alternative sexual positions or mutual masturbation

within the institute of marriage. While female pleasure was evolving beyond the “hysteria” that

Isaac Baker Brown conceived in the 19th century. Many women were still subjected to seek

orgasm from their husband’s penis in missionary positions. This practice of clitorectomy was a

response to a woman's inability to achieve orgasm with her husband, which further advances the

notion that a woman's natural body is not designed to achieve orgasm without physical

mutilation. This understanding can only be furthered by a social blame imposed on women, by

men, to adhere to sexual expectations such as missionary position during intercourse. This

further proposes notions of error with female anatomy, and sexuality, by implying that the only

way women can seek pleasure is if they are mutilated. This notion furthers the misogynist

expectation that a woman must receive pleasure from a man - removing all sexual agency and

autonomy over a woman's body and pleasure towards their counterpart. This misogynist and

manipulative epistemology emphasizes that the penis provides the orgasm, whereas modern day

science has proven that clitoral stimulation is the most common method to achieve orgasm for

women - regardless if a penis is present.35 At this time female pleasure was only permissible

within the constitute of marriage. This notion devalues a woman's autonomy over her sexuality,

and places it in the hands of her husband. Pursuing emancipated ideals within the epistemology,

and furthering societal prospects in relation to sex and marriage. Even though women are present

during intercourse- they still do not have control of their orgasm and sexual pleasure.

34 Rodriguez, 347.
35 Gunter, 7.

11
 As scientific understanding evolved throughout the 20th century - towards the modern

day understandings of female sexuality. The source of female sexual pleasure began to shift

beyond the physiology of the body, towards the psychological understanding of one's sexual

experience. As this shift progressed, “doctors, however, saw little value in clitoridectomy when

they concluded that the basis of a woman's masturbation was psychological and not

physiological, when masturbation was a symptom of a mental condition, not of a condition of the

organ itself”.36 This understanding allowed women's health epistemology to evolve beyond

Clitordectomy’s and allow misogynistic beliefs and social norms to translate throughout the

psychological studies in relation to women's sexual health.

This was amplified by Sigmund Freud, who not only believed that “proper” 37 orgasms

were represented through penile intercourse, he argued that the social construct of virginity

determined the validity of a woman's orgasm. “Freud integrated into his grand theory of Oedipal

evolution the postulate according to which clitoral orgasms represent an infantile stage, while

normal adult orgasms are vaginal”38 these theories are now modernly known to “To serve

[Freuds] own purposes, Freud appropriated the theory proposed by his colleague Dr. Krafft-

Ebing, the famous Viennese psychiatrist, that there are two erogenous zones that succeed one

another in the construction of the woman individual, the clitoris for virgins and the vagina after

being deflowered”.39 This epistemological understanding amplified the social status of women

and their duty to reserve their virginity for their husbands, but devalued their orgasmic

experience if they could not achieve orgasm through penetration. This evidence perpetuates

misogynistic ideals surrounding a value of an orgasm and the importance of a present penis

36 Rodriguez, 333.
37 Studd, 630-638.
38 Studd, 674.
39 Studd, 674.

12
through the experience. This notion of a present penis is reflected throughout history. Beginning

with Issac Brown's understanding that masturbation caused “hysteria”, this alluded to women

who achieve orgasmic experiences on their own without the presence of a penis are deemed

mentally ill. Following this understanding, towards the shift of practicing clitorectomy’s in the

early 20th century to help women orgasm with their husband. This encouraged social error

within female anatomy and agency. If women are capable of achieving orgasm without a penis,

how can we argue that the penis must be present within the patriarchal society that we continue

to live in? Buehler, argues that "the clitoris embodies many misogynistic fears about sexual

pleasure: that penetration and penises may not even be necessary for orgasm".40 With this

understanding one can conclude that the evolutionary understanding of the clitoris was dictated

by misogynistic fears of: sexual autonomy, and independence. These practices will not only

enable women to seek sexual pleasure outside the patriarchal binaries of society but essentially

dismantle social expectations that have inhibited women for thousands of years. Which is why

understanding the social and political motives that influences scientific epistemology in relation

to the clitoris is vital in our understanding of female sexuality.

Bibliography

1. Mintz, Laurie. 2018. Becoming Cliterate: Why Orgasm Equality Matters--And How To

Get It. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.

2. Gunter, Jennifer. The Vagina Bible: the Vulva and the Vagina - Separating the Myth from

Medicine. London, New York: Piatkus, 2019, 7.

40 Suzannah Weiss, 'Fear of the Clit': A Brief History of Medical Books Erasing Women's Genitalia, (2019).

13
3. Hammonds, Evelynn M. Journal of the History of Biology 30, no. 3 (1997): 103,

Accessed November 24, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4331460.

4. Hammonds, Evelynn M. Journal of the History of Biology 30, no. 3 (1997): 103,

Accessed November 24, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4331460.

5. Hammonds, Evelynn M. Journal of the History of Biology 30, no. 3 (1997): 16,

Accessed November 24, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4331460.103-113.

6. Hammonds, Evelynn M. Journal of the History of Biology 30, no. 3 (1997): 16,

Accessed November 24, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4331460 103-113.

7. Clark, A. (2008). Desire. London: Routledge, no 1 (2008):103-113, Accessed September

24, 2020 https://doi-org.proxy3.library.mcgill.ca/10.4324/9780203723678

8. Clark, A. (2008). Desire. London: Routledge, no 1 (2008):139, Accessed September 24,

2020 https://doi-org.proxy3.library.mcgill.ca/10.4324/9780203723678

9. Clark, A. (2008). Desire. London: Routledge, no 1 (2008):113, Accessed September 24,

2020 https://doi-org.proxy3.library.mcgill.ca/10.4324/9780203723678

10. Clark, A. (2008). Desire. London: Routledge, no 1 (2008):113, Accessed September 24,

2020 https://doi-org.proxy3.library.mcgill.ca/10.4324/9780203723678

11. Longino, Helen E. Science As Social Knowledge : Values and Objectivity in Scientific

Inquiry. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990.

12. Hammonds, Evelynn M. Journal of the History of Biology 30, no. 3 (1997): 16, Accessed

November 24, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4331460

13. Hammonds, Evelynn M. Journal of the History of Biology 30, no. 3 (1997): 16, Accessed

November 24, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4331460

14
14. John Studd (2007) A comparison of 19th century and current attitudes to female

sexuality, Gynecological Endocrinology, 23:12, 673-681, DOI:

10.1080/09513590701708860

15. John Studd (2007) A comparison of 19th century and current attitudes to female

sexuality, Gynecological Endocrinology, 23:12, 673-681, DOI:

10.1080/09513590701708860

16. John Studd (2007) A comparison of 19th century and current attitudes to female

sexuality, Gynecological Endocrinology, 23:12, 673-681, DOI:

10.1080/09513590701708860

17. Sarah W. Rodriguez, Rethinking the History of Female Circumcision and Clitoridectomy:

American Medicine and Female Sexuality in the Late Nineteenth Century, Journal of the

History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Volume 63, Issue 3, July 2008, Pages 323–347,

https://doi-org.proxy3.library.mcgill.ca/10.1093/jhmas/jrm044

18. Sarah W. Rodriguez, Rethinking the History of Female Circumcision and Clitoridectomy:

American Medicine and Female Sexuality in the Late Nineteenth Century, Journal of the

History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Volume 63, Issue 3, July 2008, Pages 323–347,

https://doi-org.proxy3.library.mcgill.ca/10.1093/jhmas/jrm044 (Laqueur, Making Sex,

227)

19. Longino, Helen E. 2000. Science As Social Knowledge. https://www.sciencedirect.com/.

20. John Studd (2007) A comparison of 19th century and current attitudes to female

sexuality, Gynecological Endocrinology, 23:12, 674-675, DOI:

10.1080/09513590701708860

15
21. John Studd (2007) A comparison of 19th century and current attitudes to female

sexuality, Gynecological Endocrinology, 23:12, 673-681, DOI:

10.1080/09513590701708860

22. John Studd (2007) A comparison of 19th century and current attitudes to female

sexuality, Gynecological Endocrinology, 23:12, 673-681, DOI:

10.1080/09513590701708860

23. John Studd (2007) A comparison of 19th century and current attitudes to female

sexuality, Gynecological Endocrinology, 23:12, 673-681, DOI:

10.1080/09513590701708860

24. John Studd (2007) A comparison of 19th century and current attitudes to female

sexuality, Gynecological Endocrinology, 23:12, 673-681, DOI:

10.1080/09513590701708860

25. John Studd (2007) A comparison of 19th century and current attitudes to female

sexuality, Gynecological Endocrinology, 23:12, 675, DOI: 10.1080/09513590701708860

26. John Studd (2007) A comparison of 19th century and current attitudes to female

sexuality, Gynecological Endocrinology, 23:12, 674, DOI: 10.1080/09513590701708860

27. John Studd (2007) A comparison of 19th century and current attitudes to female

sexuality, Gynecological Endocrinology, 23:12, 675, DOI: 10.1080/09513590701708860

28. John Studd (2007) A comparison of 19th century and current attitudes to female

sexuality, Gynecological Endocrinology, 23:12, 673-681, DOI:

10.1080/09513590701708860

29. Di Marino V., Lepidi H, History of the Clitoris, In: Anatomic Study of the Clitoris and

the Bulbo-Clitoral Organ. Springer, Cham. (2014), 9.

16
30. Di Marino V., Lepidi H, History of the Clitoris, In: Anatomic Study of the Clitoris and

the Bulbo-Clitoral Organ. Springer, Cham. (2014), 9.

31. Di Marino V., Lepidi H, History of the Clitoris, In: Anatomic Study of the Clitoris and

the Bulbo-Clitoral Organ. Springer, Cham. (2014), 324

32. Di Marino V., Lepidi H, History of the Clitoris, In: Anatomic Study of the Clitoris and

the Bulbo-Clitoral Organ. Springer, Cham. (2014), 324

33. Di Marino V., Lepidi H, History of the Clitoris, In: Anatomic Study of the Clitoris and

the Bulbo-Clitoral Organ. Springer, Cham. (2014), 324

34. Di Marino V., Lepidi H, History of the Clitoris, In: Anatomic Study of the Clitoris and

the Bulbo-Clitoral Organ. Springer, Cham. (2014), 332

35. Sarah W. Rodriguez, Rethinking the History of Female Circumcision and Clitoridectomy:

American Medicine and Female Sexuality in the Late Nineteenth Century, Journal of the

History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Volume 63, Issue 3, July 2008, Pages 345

36. Sarah W. Rodriguez, Rethinking the History of Female Circumcision and Clitoridectomy:

American Medicine and Female Sexuality in the Late Nineteenth Century, Journal of the

History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Volume 63, Issue 3, July 2008, Pages 345

37. Sarah W. Rodriguez, Rethinking the History of Female Circumcision and Clitoridectomy:

American Medicine and Female Sexuality in the Late Nineteenth Century, Journal of the

History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Volume 63, Issue 3, July 2008, Pages 347

38. Gunter, Jennifer. The Vagina Bible: the Vulva and the Vagina - Separating the Myth from

Medicine. London, New York: Piatkus, 2019, 7.

17
39. Sarah W. Rodriguez, Rethinking the History of Female Circumcision and Clitoridectomy:

American Medicine and Female Sexuality in the Late Nineteenth Century, Journal of the

History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Volume 63, Issue 3, July 2008, Pages 333

40. John Studd (2007) A comparison of 19th century and current attitudes to female

sexuality, Gynecological Endocrinology, 23:12, 630-638, DOI:

10.1080/09513590701708860

41. John Studd (2007) A comparison of 19th century and current attitudes to female

sexuality, Gynecological Endocrinology, 23:12, 674, DOI: 10.1080/09513590701708860

42. John Studd (2007) A comparison of 19th century and current attitudes to female

sexuality, Gynecological Endocrinology, 23:12, 674, DOI: 10.1080/09513590701708860

43. Suzannah Weiss. 'Fear of the Clit': A Brief History of Medical Books Erasing Women's

Genitalia, 2019. https://www.vice.com/en/article/nejny8/fear-of-the-clit-a-brief-history-

of-medical-books-erasing-womens-genitalia.

44. Gunter, Jennifer. The Vagina Bible: the Vulva and the Vagina - Separating the Myth from

Medicine. London, New York: Piatkus, 2019.

18