I really don’t think this is true. However, the earliest modern textbook I’ve seen it the internal clitoris in is from 1981, simply because I haven’t checked earlier editions, due to the usual claim being that it wasn’t rediscovered until 1998. That claim is false.

Keep in mind that the full anatomy of the clitoris was well-illustrated by George Kobelt in 1844. In fact, his illustrations are the most detailed and comprehensive to date. Modern illustrations neglect to show the clitoris from as many angles and often leave out the neural anatomy (though Kobelt’s illustrations of the dorsal nerves are technically not correct).

Detailed illustrations of the clitoris reportedly disappeared with the discovery that the clitoris is not necessary for conception and subsequent theories of vaginal orgasm, ushered in by Freud in the early 1900s. This lead to one infamous edition of Gray’s anatomy (in the 40s or 50s — I forget) excluding the clitoris in it’s entirity.

However, by the 1980s. the bulbs and crura were shown in all major anatomy textbooks I’ve checked (which is hard, as this requires finding old editions at medical libraries).

For some perspective, my father’s 1981 anatomy textbook from medical school clearly shows the bulbs and crura accurately, which is more than can be said of Ms. M’s incorrect yellow models of the clitoris. Netter also illustrated the bulbs and crura before he died in 1991.

Again, the claim that the bulbs and crura were discovered in 1998 was clearly fake news, which I have written about here.

It appears that O’Connell was merely trying to draw public attention to the fact that the clitoris was under-researched and poorly represented relative to the penis. She also wanted to rename the vestibular bulbs “clitoral bulbs.” She claimed to have discovered that the vestibular bulbs were “part of the clitoris,” but fundamentally this was a nomenclature issue, as the vestibular bulbs had long been recognized as erectile tissue homologous to the penile bulb.

Another thing O’Connell did was note the size of the dorsal nerves of the clitoris in 2005. She reported they were about 2 mm in diameter and that they traveled, “mostly intact” until termination at the glans. However, she did not take any photos of this very obvious anatomy (I have taken photos and trust me, this is not difficult science). Their course within the clitoris itself is omitted in OB/GYN literature to this day.

Consider also that anatomy has typically been studied via cadaver dissection. Imaging techniques are used more often to diagnose conditions in live tissue. They also can be used to assess movement, as has been done with sonograms and the clitoris. They also are useful for assessing genital engorgement, as has been done primarily with MRI. While certainly useful for understanding how structures of the bulb-clitoral organ work, such imaging modalities were never actually necessary for knowing the full anatomy. Again, that was actually illustrated in 1844, long before MRI or sonography existed.

It seems to me that sex tech would be better if those within the field cared enough about science to check their facts before publishing false claims and before getting inaccurate 3D models made.