What if women were more overt?

03:38, Jun 24 2013
Flirty woman
SUGGESTIVE SIGNALS: What if her (to use Chatterly’s vernacular) ‘sex’ was as exposed as his?

Here’s a thought: What if women got erections?*

It’s pretty clear when a fellow is turned on. He knows it. We knows it. It knows it. It is much less clear when a lassie is feeling frisky.

Yes, there are signs. There’s that delicious warmth that courses through the veins, and the tingling feeling way down where. Sometimes there are goose bumps, spine shivers, and a bit of swelling.

But spotting sexual yearning in a lady is trickier than spying the gung-ho engorgements fuelled by manly desire.

What if that weren’t the case?

If a woman were more aware of her own arousal, would she be more readily aroused? Would it alter her sense of her own sexuality? How would it impact on the people around her? And what if the people around her could clearly see when she was - or wasn't - turned on?

I’ve often thought about the overt nature of male sexuality. It’s just. So. Out. There.


Beyond blood-pumped appendages to social habits developed in response to them, evidence of male libido looms large.

Girls learn to prepare themselves for cars laden with hooting, horny, ‘can’t-help-it’ cock-a-doodles.

Women are asked to cover-up, so as not to call-up his hard-on.

Even our language supports the dominance of sex drive for him. Big, strong, sexy words abound for the manifestation of male cravings - boner, wood, stiffy - but what’s the female equivalent? Wet. What a soggy disappointment.

In any case, the apparent and external nature of masculine arousal supports the idea men have two heads sticking out from their bodies, and they may make decisions using either.

A woman, meanwhile, has only one discernible choice-making machine. And it rests on her shoulders, not between her legs.

That’s why women are painted as sensible creatures who think first, shag later. Unlike men, who must jab and stab their love-stick until satisfaction is found, women yield, women take-in, women ‘allow’.

Unlike her male compatriots, the female’s sexy bits are all tucked under and inside. That place where the warmth and tingle comes from is hidden away, out of sight, out of public view, off the public radar.

So what if that weren’t the case? What if her (to use Chatterly’s vernacular) ‘sex’ was as exposed as his?

How would the world be different?

And would it be a better place?

*Of course, women do have ‘erections’. Women also have penises. While this post is more about stimulating a broader discussion on the differences in displays of male and female sexuality, a little science never hurt anyone.

Herewith, an excerpt on the subject from the peer-reviewed medical journal Clinical Anatomy which should help inform today’s bloggy intercourse:

“The clitoris is the homologue of the male's glans and corpora cavernosa, and erection is reached in three phases: latent, turgid, and rigid. The vestibular bulbs cause “vaginal” orgasmic contractions, through the rhythmic contraction of the bulbocavernosus muscles.

"Because of the engorgement with blood during sexual arousal, the labia minora become turgid, doubling or tripling in thickness. The corpus spongiosum of the female urethra becomes congested during sexual arousal; therefore, male erection equals erection of the female erectile organs.

"The correct anatomical term to describe the erectile tissues responsible for female orgasm is the female penis.”

Sydney Morning Herald