82% of women who responded to the Meliorist poll a couple weeks ago said that they have had trouble reaching orgasm. That, I think we all can agree, sucks. In the interest of deconstructing this conundrum, I did some research, and I think it prudent to start at the beginning, rather than jumping right into the thick of it. Enemy to our cause: the historical paucity of sexology research for women. The field is, and remains, largely male dominated. Fortunately for us, however, in recent years, there has been a surge of study and literature on female sexuality. Hurrah. And the troubles appear to begin with desire – before the pants even come off.

Dr. Meredith Chivers at Queen’s University has been experimenting with bonobo porn. And you thought the porn on your boyfriend’s computer was bad. Seriously, Chivers has done a series of studies showing men and women different types of sexual stimuli: men with men, men with women, women with women and, of course, bonobos with bonobos. She measured swelling and blood flow to the genitals of the men and women with a plethysmograph, and gave them each a keypad to record their subjective levels of arousal. The men were straightforward; their minds and genitals were in agreement. If heterosexual, both brain and genitals responded to the heterosexual and lesbian porn. Vice versa for the homosexual men. None of the men responded to the apes. The women, regardless of sexual orientation, responded genitally to all of the scenarios. Yes, even the bonobos. However, their subjective responses were not at all in agreement with their genital responses; none of them reported being aroused by the bonobos, nor by the porn that did not fit their sexual orientation.

So what’s the deal here? Well, it is certainly not that women want to get it on with primates. But clearly, there is a disconnection between women’s subjective experience of desire and their physiological responses to sexual signals. Evolutionary psychology posits that this reflexive physiological arousal could be a protective device; automatic lubrication reduces the possibility of injury, should vaginal penetration occur. Thus, physiological arousal does not translate directly to actual, cognitive desire: arousal is not consent (there are reports of women having an orgasm while being raped).

Chivers postulates that women have a lower mental awareness of the messages sent by their genitals, due to cultural issues – the societal and internalized “scripts” for sexual interaction – and for reasons of anatomy; female genitals are significantly more subtle and tucked away than males’. By and large, men deduce their emotional states from physiological signals, whereas women tend to rely on situational cues. This body-mind disconnection is exacerbated in women with negative feelings about their bodies. In short, women aren’t good at listening to their bodies. This is why Viagra-for-women will have limited usefulness.

It is virtually impossible to extricate the cultural components of desire from the innate: psychology has been losing that battle for years. The niggling question – are women biologically more sexually receptive, or it is cultural programming? – is thus unsolvable, though it does make logical sense to have one aggressor and one receptor. However, that is a rather simplistic and hetero-centric viewpoint. Generalities aside, there’s more variability within the genders than there are differences between them. Human sexuality is nothing if not wildly idiosyncratic.

As women, I think we should celebrate our sexual fluidity and flexibility. We should replace shame and negative self-images with curiosity and self-appreciation. To start with, we need to learn how to listen to our bodies.

Next week: more on the enigma of human sexuality.
askjamie@live.com