- Home
- Rachel Bussel
Best Sex Writing 2010 Page 3
Best Sex Writing 2010 Read online
Page 3
In addition, only our species has such a distinctive mushroom-capped glans, which is connected to the shaft by a thin tissue of frenulum (the delicate tab of skin just beneath the urethra). Chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans have a much less extravagant phallic design, more or less all shaft. It turns out that one of the most significant features of the human penis isn’t so much the glans per se, but rather the coronal ridge it forms underneath. The diameter of the glans where it meets the shaft is wider than the shaft itself. This results in the coronal ridge that runs around the circumference of the shaft—something Gallup, by using the logic of reverse-engineering, believed might be an important evolutionary clue to the origins of the strange sight of the human penis.
Now, the irony doesn’t escape me. But in spite of the fact that this particular evolutionary psychologist (yours truly) is gay, for the purposes of research we must consider the evolution of the human penis in relation to the human vagina. Magnetic imaging studies of heterosexual couples having sex reveal that, during coitus, the typical penis completely expands and occupies the vaginal tract, and with full penetration can even reach the woman’s cervix and lift her uterus. This combined with the fact that human ejaculate is expelled with great force and considerable distance (up to two feet if not contained), suggests that men are designed to release sperm into the uppermost portion of the vagina possible. Thus, in a theoretical paper published in the journal Evolutionary Psychology in 2004, Gallup and coauthor, Rebecca Burch, conjecture that, “A longer penis would not only have been an advantage for leaving semen in a less accessible part of the vagina, but by filling and expanding the vagina it also would aid and abet the displacement of semen left by other males as a means of maximizing the likelihood of paternity.”
This “semen displacement theory” is the most intriguing part of Gallup’s story. We may prefer to regard our species as being blissfully monogamous, but the truth is that, historically, at least some degree of fooling around has been our modus operandi for at least as long we’ve been on two legs. Since sperm cells can survive in a woman’s cervical mucus for up to several days, this means that if she has more than one male sexual partner over this period of time, say within forty-eight hours, then the sperm of these two men are competing for reproductive access to her ovum. According to Gallup and Burch, “examples include, group sex, gang rape, promiscuity, prostitution, and resident male insistence on sex in response to suspected infidelity.” The authors also cite the well-documented cases of human heteroparity, where “fraternal twins” are in fact sired by two different fathers who had sex with the mother within close succession to each other, as evidence of such sexual inclinations.
So how did natural selection equip men to solve the adaptive problem of other men impregnating their sexual partners? The answer, according to Gallup, is their penises were sculpted in such a way that the organ would effectively displace the semen of competitors from their partner’s vagina, a well-synchronized effect facilitated by the “upsuck” of thrusting during intercourse. Specifically, the coronal ridge offers a special removal service by expunging foreign sperm. According to this analysis, the effect of thrusting would be to draw other men’s sperm away from the cervix and back around the glans, thus “scooping out” the semen deposited by a sexual rival.
You might think that’s fine and dandy, but one couldn’t possibly prove such a thing. But you’d be underestimating Gallup, who in addition to being a brilliant evolutionary theorist, happens also to be a very talented experimental researcher (among other things, he’s also well-known for developing the famous mirror self-recognition test for use with chimpanzees back in the early 1970s). In a series of studies published in a 2003 issue of the journal Evolution & Human Behavior, Gallup and a team of his students put the “semen displacement hypothesis” to the test using artificial genitalia of different shapes and sizes. They even concocted several batches of realistic seminal fluid. Findings from the study may not have “proved” the semen displacement hypothesis, but it certainly confirmed its principal points and made a believer out of most readers.
Here’s how the basic study design worked. (And perhaps I ought to preempt the usual refrain by pointing out firstly that, yes, Gallup and his coauthors did receive full ethical approval from their university to conduct this study.) The researchers selected several sets of prosthetic genitals from erotic novelty stores, including a realistic latex vagina sold as a masturbation pal for lonely straight men and tied off at one end to prevent leakage, and three artificial phalluses. The first latex phallus was 6.1 inches long and 1.3 inches in diameter with a coronal ridge extending approximately 0.20 inch from the shaft. The second phallus was the same length, but its coronal ridge extended only 0.12 inch from the shaft. Finally, the third phallus matched the other two in length, but lacked a coronal ridge entirely. In other words, whereas the first two phalluses closely resembled an actual human penis, varying only in the coronal ridge properties, the third (the control phallus) was the bland and headless horseman of the bunch.
Next, the authors borrowed a recipe for simulated semen from another evolutionary psychologist, Todd Shackleford from Florida Atlantic University, and created several batches of seminal fluid. The recipe “consisted of 0.08 cups of sifted, white, unbleached flour mixed with 1.06 cups of water. This mixture was brought to a boil, simmered for 15 minutes while being stirred, and allowed to cool.” In a controlled series of “displacement trials,” the vagina was then loaded with semen, the phalluses were inserted at varying depths (to simulate thrusting) and removed, whereupon the latex orifice was examined to determine how much semen had been displaced from it. As predicted, the two phalluses with the coronal ridges displaced significantly more semen from the vagina (each removed 91 percent) than the “headless” control (35.3 percent). Additionally, the further that the phalluses were inserted—that is to say, the deeper the thrust—the more semen was displaced. When the phallus with the more impressive coronal ridge was inserted three fourths of the way into the vagina, it removed only a third of the semen, whereas it removed nearly all of the semen when inserted completely. Shallow thrusting, simulated by the researchers inserting the artificial phallus halfway or less into the artificial vagina, failed to displace any semen at all. So if you want advice that’ll give you a leg up in the evolutionary arms race, don’t go West, young man—go deep.
In the second part of their study published in Evolution & Human Behavior, Gallup administered a series of survey questions to college-age students about their sexual history. These questions were meant to determine whether penile behavior (my term, not theirs) could be predicted based on the men’s suspicion of infidelity in their partners. In the first of these anonymous questionnaires, both men and women reported that, in the wake of allegations of female cheating, men thrust deeper and faster. Results from a second questionnaire revealed that, upon first being sexually reunited after time apart, couples engaged in more vigorous sex—namely, compared to baseline sexual activity where couples see each other more regularly, vaginal intercourse following periods of separation involves deeper and quicker thrusting. Hopefully you’re thinking as an evolutionary psychologist at this point and can infer what these survey data mean: by using their penises proficiently as a semen displacement device, men are subconsciously (in some cases consciously) combating the possibility that their partners have had sex with another man in their absence. The really beautiful thing about evolutionary psychology is that you don’t have to believe it’s true for it to work precisely this way. Natural selection doesn’t much mind if you favor an alternative explanation for why you get so randy upon being reunited with your partner. Your penis will go about its business of displacing sperm regardless.
There are many other related hypotheses that can be derived from the semen displacement theory. In their 2004 Evolutionary Psychology piece, for example, Gallup and Burch expound on a number of fascinating spin-off ideas. For example, one obvious criticism of the semen displacement theory
is that men would essentially disadvantage their own reproductive success by removing their own sperm cells from their sexual partner. However, in your own sex life, you’ve probably noticed the “refractory period” immediately following ejaculation, during which males almost instantly lose their tumescence (the erection deflates to half its full size within one minute of ejaculating), their penises become rather hypersensitive and further thrusting even turns somewhat unpleasant. In fact, for anywhere between thirty minutes to twenty-four hours, men are rendered temporarily impotent following ejaculation. According to Gallup and Burch, these post-ejaculatory features, in addition to the common “sedation” effect of orgasm, may be adaptations to the problem of “self-semen displacement.”
Gallup and Burch also leave us with a very intriguing hypothetical question. “Is it possible (short of artificial insemination),” they ask, “for a woman to become pregnant by a man she never had sex with? We think the answer is ‘yes.’” It’s a tricky run to wrap your head around, but basically Gallup and Burch say that semen displacement theory predicts that this is possible in the following way. I’ve taken the liberty of editing this for clarity. Also note that the scenario is especially relevant to uncircumcised men.
If “Josh” were to have sex with “Kate” who recently had sex with “Mike,” in the process of thrusting his penis back and forth in her vagina, some of Mike’s semen would be forced under Josh’s frenulum, collected behind his coronal ridge, and displaced from the area proximate to the cervix. After Josh ejaculates and substitutes his semen for that of the other male, as he withdraws from the vagina some of Mike’s semen will still be present on the shaft of his penis and behind his coronal ridge. As his erection subsides the glans will withdraw under the foreskin, raising the possibility that some of Mike’s semen could be captured underneath the foreskin and behind the coronal ridge in the process. Were Josh to then have sex with “Amy” several hours later, it is possible that some of the displaced semen from Mike would still be present under his foreskin and thus may be unwittingly transmitted to Amy who, in turn, could then be impregnated by Mike’s sperm.
It’s not exactly an immaculate conception. But just imagine the look on Maury Povich’s face.
The Vagina Dialogues
Johanna Gohmann
This past November, two women wearing giant plush vulva costumes were shouting on a street corner in New York City. But they weren’t trying to reel in tourists; these vulvas had a purpose. They were standing in front of the Manhattan Center for Vaginal Surgery, performing a short play entitled Dr. Interest-Free Financing and the Two Vulvas, part of a creative, eye-catching protest against vaginal cosmetic surgery. There was even a brief cameo from a giant pair of scissors.
Fifteen years ago, “The Designer Vagina” would simply have been a good name for a band. Now, vaginal cosmetic surgery is the fastest-growing cosmetic procedure in the U.K. While there are still only about a thousand surgeries done each year in the U.S., there was a 30 percent increase in 2005 alone. The numbers could actually be even higher, but data is still scarce. More and more women are opting to have their labia snipped off and “sculpted” through labiaplasty, or their vaginas stitched smaller and tighter with vaginal rejuvenation. These women are of all ages, many in their early twenties. Even scarier, some surgeons have conducted consultations with patients as young as fifteen.
What the hell is going on here? Who are these women, and what is pushing them to the extreme of slicing up their lady flower? As with anything involving our sexuality, the answer is complex, and a number of factors are at play. But the most common reason women give for wanting labiaplasty is, of course, cosmetic. Simply put, they want a “prettier” vagina. (And yes, I know the vagina is actually only the interior tract, but I’m using the word in the colloquial sense.) We live in the age of the Britney vadge flash, thongs, Brazilian waxes, and “sexting.” With that much crotch on display, it’s not surprising that the concept of an “ideal vagina” has emerged. But what exactly is it? When asked to describe such a thing, many of us would probably be at a loss. One that shoots out gold coins? Or can whistle Prince on cue?
Some women are quite clear on what makes for a perfect vagina—they believe it can be found in porn and bring centerfolds to their surgeons for reference. As the website for the Laser Vaginal Rejuvenation Institute of Manhattan proclaims: “Many people have asked us for an example of an aesthetically pleasing vagina. We went to our patients for the answer, and they said the playmates of Playboy.” Other docs concur that porn is the gold standard. Gary Alter is a Beverly Hills–based surgeon who has perfected his own “After Labia Minora Contouring Technique.” He says, “The widespread viewing of pornographic photos and videos has lead to a marked rise in female genital cosmetic surgery. Women are more aware of differences in genital appearance, so they wish to achieve their perceived aesthetic ideal.”
Viewing vaginas in porn as “the ideal,” however, poses a number of problems. For starters, the majority of mainstream porn magazines and videos show only one very specific type of crotch—the perfect pink clam. Women with large or asymmetrical inner labia don’t get a lot of room or airtime. (Interestingly enough, this doesn’t always have to do with aesthetics. Sometimes it’s a question of censorship laws—inner labia are deemed more “provocative,” and by not showing them, a mag can get a “softer” rating. Playboy is known for tucking in or airbrushing away labia.) So actually, Dr. Alter, women are not so aware of differences in genital appearance. While lesbians are probably a bit more informed, many women aren’t familiar with the look of regular, everyday vaginas, which come in an endless range of shapes and sizes. If you’re straight, it’s very likely your vadge knowledge is limited to a squat with a hand mirror, or Jenna Jameson. Maybe you also had a diagrammed health-book drawing to stare at or a gym teacher who drew a crooked vulva on the blackboard. But Coach Sartini certainly never barked at me, “And by the way, Gohmann, there are all kinds of labes out there! Long ones, hidden ones, asymmetrical ones, all kinds! Got that?”
The vagina has long been shrouded in mystery and shame for many women. Thankfully, Eve Ensler’s The Vagina Monologues did a lot to break our culture’s vadge code of silence. As she so eloquently remarks in the play’s opening: “There’s so much darkness and secrecy surrounding them—like the Bermuda Triangle. Nobody ever reports back from there.” Sadly it appears we’re still doing a pretty crappy job of reporting back if some women are using Barely Legal as a gauge for what is “ideal.” But if some women believe that’s what men find attractive, they’re willing to do whatever it takes to be “hot.”
However, through the course of my research, I encountered, time and again, men who say they really “do not care” what a woman’s vadge looks like. The general sentiment seemed to be that any vagina is a good vagina. Obviously, some men must care, or there would be more diversity in porn. But has their preference been programmed by porn, or vice versa? Personally, I think any man who calls a vagina “ugly” needs to be handed a photo of his testicles and sent packing, but unfortunately, not everyone feels this way.
Yet not all women are getting labiaplasty for men. Or at least, so they claim. I spoke with Melissa, a bright and bubbly twenty-four-year-old from California, who carefully researched her labiaplasty and breast implants, which she had done on the same day. Melissa was not only adamant that she wasn’t doing it “for a man,” but she also seemed rather insulted by the idea: “I don’t care if men like my nail polish color, and I certainly don’t care if men like my vision of an ideal vagina.” Melissa insists her desire for surgery mainly had to do with physical discomfort. Though she’s completely healthy with perfectly normal anatomy, Melissa’s labia were causing her pain—another major reason women list for getting labiaplasty. Some women with bigger labia say they become sore from too much time on the exercise bike, they feel tender after sex, or that certain underwear “doesn’t fit right.” While these problems are pretty universal for women, long labes or not, s
ome feel it’s worthy of surgical intervention. In Melissa’s case, her labia were interfering with her passion for horseback riding. But she also admits to being a “perfectionist,” and after she made up her mind to get the surgery, she wanted to “look stellar down there.” She scanned porn sites to find the right “look,” then trolled before-and-after albums at cosmetic-surgery sites like MakeMeHeal.com. She found only a few “after” shots that suited her, and expressed surprise that “most people wanted their doctor to leave more labia than I even had to begin with!” Melissa ultimately ended up getting what is known as “the Barbie Doll look,” or “the youth/preteen look”: she had all of her inner labia removed.
Plastic surgeon John Di Saia asserts that these surgeries are helpful to women and believes the practice has merely been sensationalized in the media. He used to do about three labiaplasties a month, but in the current economy, he performs less than a dozen a year. (Wow. This really is like the Great Depression. Who will pen our Labes of Wrath?) In an email interview, I asked him about the validity of labia interfering with women’s exercise, and he responded, “Some patients cannot wear tight clothing because of the discomfort. That is not normal.” But he then went on to say, “In borderline cases, you may have a point, as each patient justifies her decision differently. Some women just don’t like the way their Labiae [sic] look. They want them looking tighter, smaller, and frequently more oval-shaped.”
It would seem that when “physical problems” are cited as reasoning for surgery, they are often closely intertwined with the cosmetic. And when those problems have to do with sexual dysfunction, the line between the physical and the cosmetic becomes even more blurred. In 2004, Dr. Laura Berman, director of the Berman Center (a treatment clinic for female sexual dysfunction) completed a study on the relationship between women’s genital self-mage and their sexual function. She surveyed 2,206 women and, not surprisingly, found that the way you feel about your vadge plays a huge part in how much you enjoy sex. But rather than helping women deal with dysfunction by teaching them about their bodies and working toward overcoming esteem issues, our cultural response is to offer surgery as the solution. Doctors will simply trim away your “ugly” bits.