Free Sexology of the Vaginal Orgasm by Karl F. Stifter

ultima- tely must be traced back to the incest taboo? There must be other reasons, too. The Argentine psychoanalyst Ariel Arango considers the word “cunt” to be the dirtiest of all dirty words (Arango, 1989). It is probably also the most insulting of all degrading expressions for women in general.
In addition to the meaning “dirty” there is another, deep- rooted depreciation: namely the symbolization of weakness and cowardice. Herodotus, for example, reports, ‘When those that Sesostris met were valiant men…, he set up pillars in their land, the inscription on which showed … how he had overcome them with his own power … But when the cities had made no resistance and been easily taken, then he also drew on [the pillars] the sha- meful parts of a woman … to show clearly that the people were cowardly.’ (Buffi, 1974). And in some parts of Sicily the term
“fesso” (=vulva) is still used to express weak, dishonorable behavior.
The term “shameful parts” is derived from the Latin word pudere (=to be ashamed). Similarly, the word “Scham” (=shame) in German used to be a very widespread and com- mon expression for the female genitals. By being ashamed of something a person also reveals that s/he has got some- thing to hide. “Scham” and “shame” are derived from the Germanic root skam and can be traced back to the Indo- European word kam : “to cover, veil, hide” (Kluge, 1975). The prefixed “s” (skam) adds the reflexive meaning “to cover oneself”.
The art historian Neumer-Pfau concludes, ‘What woman has to hide, what she has to be ashamed of is, all in all, her “natural” weakness of character. This means that female sha- me is fundamentally and inextricably linked with behavior that is shameless and weak of character’ (Neumer-Pfau, 1982).
Consequently, the non-visibility of the female “shame” in art history is nothing but a culturally coded sign of female submission. To do the opposite, i.e., to show the vulva, would thus mean a violation of the role of submission that is ascribed to women as well as an attack on the patriarchal order of things. This is why the Swiss psychoanalyst Moni- ka Gsell thinks it is so important that the vulva, similarly to the penis, should be given symbolic weight (Gsell, 2001). She refers to the literary scholar Amy Richlin who has poin- ted out that there is not a single positive depiction of the female genitals in the entire body of classical Latin litera- ture (Richlin, 1983)! The female sexual organ, without exception, is described as something repulsive and nausea-
ting. Being shameful parts, they are flaccid and worn out, dirty and stinking, salty and rancid, dry and white-haired. They are compared to exotic animals and evoke associations with sickness, death and the grave.
Studies have shown that many people find it extremely dif- ficult to say the word vulva, if they know it at all. They find it to be just as indecent as the vulgar expressions cunt or pussy (Ash, 1980). Therefore, they more or less knowingly use a wrong terminology when they refer to a woman’s outer genital parts as vagina or cleft . This shyness is obviously due to the fact that vulva brings to mind the very image of the outer female genitals which evidently inhibits most people and is felt to be obscene. Vulva is linked to female pleasure and sexuality. Vagina , on the other hand, is considered almost neutral, biological, even somehow birth-related and maternal.
The physical consequences of the cultural taboo regarding women’s outer genital region must not be underestimated: not only does it make it much more difficult for young girls to find an approach to, and develop an adequate image of, their own body; these problems often affect the most fun- damental, sensual and intellectual powers of perception in a way that goes far beyond the sexual and physical sphere (Gsell, 2001).
This reminds me of the case of a nun who consulted me at the age of about 40 years, with the