The Internal Clitoris Was Not “Discovered” In 1998.
Multiple mainstream media articles have claimed that Australian urologist Helen O’Connell rediscovered the internal clitoris in 1998, prior to which this anatomy was allegedly excluded from textbooks. However, countless general anatomy textbooks, from Netter to Clemente, did include it for at least a decade prior.
The only difference is that they called the bulbs “vestibular bulbs” rather than “clitoral bulbs,” which most, if not all, textbooks continue to do. They still acknowledged them as erectile tissue homologous to the penile bulb. So what has all the fuss been about? This appears ti have started because of a nomenclature issue. O’Connell wanted the bulbs explicitly named “clitoral bulbs.”
Why has there only recently been a giant hubbub over the clitoris being “much bigger than previously thought”? Why have so many mainstream media publications and activists acted like this anatomy wasn’t previously covered? Why are there countless people on twitter claiming the bulbs and crura weren’t shown until 1998?
This is ludicrous. All the fake news about what has and hasn’t been in medical textbooks has made it more difficult to try to get mainstream media to cover a real problem, which is that the neurovascular anatomy of the clitoris isn’t covered in OB/GYN literature. So many journalists think they’ve already covered this story.
But the story they’ve been telling is wrong.
Not only were illustrations of the full anatomy of the clitoris included in anatomy textbooks prior to 1998, they were actually correct (mostly, though often the clitoral body is minimized or shown in the wrong place in saggital plane views), which is more than can be said about the illustrations shown in mainstream media.
The bizarre thing is why haven’t doctors or anatomists ever stepped in to set the record straight? Do doctors care so little about maintaining patient trust that they do not care what is said about their education?
Articles that got this wrong (as well as other noted issues):
Babe article (O’Connell never did research on nerve endings)
Glamour article (Incorrect superposition of an illustration of a clitoris, OB/GYN quoted gives incorrect length range of descending body plus glans)
Cliteracy 101 (Apologies to Sophia, who has done so much to educate people about the clitoris)
Mic article (The clitoris is homologous to the penis! Knowing this precludes the ridiculous belief that it is a “little button”!)
The Guardian (They even say O’Toole instead of O’Connell)
Center for Erotic Intelligence (MRI resolution is not “microscopic,” graphics of the clitoris are incorrect)
The Mary Sue (graphics of the clitoris are incorrect)
My apologies to anyone behind these articles who might be offended. I don’t mean to insult anyone. I just think it would be a good idea to go to a medical library and to check facts. It is best when only the truth is published.
If you don’t like my article, please tell me why. Thanks!