New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

The Clitoris Has Been Lost to Science for Centuries, but It’s Making a Comeback

The vulva has long been ignored in anatomical study. But scientists and doctors are making strides in mapping its pleasure center, the clitoris, and improving sensation for survivors of genital cutting.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

In October researchers at the Oregon Health & Science University announced that they approximated the number of nerve fibers in the human clitoris that are responsible for sexual pleasure—more than 10,000—for the first time ever. In comparison with the penis, which has been studied extensively, the vulva has been largely ignored in anatomical study.

“I mean, like, the general story of the clitoris is that it appears to have been lost and found throughout history,” says Rachel E. Gross, a science journalist and author of Vagina Obscura, a book that explores how science has long viewed the female body with a narrow focus on reproduction and how that’s changing.

It was only about 20 years ago that urologist Helen O’Connell comprehensively mapped the clitoris for the first time using microdissection and magnetic resonance imaging, proving that what we see above the surface is just a small part of the entire structure below. 


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Clitoral anatomy is still making its way into medical textbooks, in part through the advocacy of one woman named Jessica Pin, who lost clitoral sensation after undergoing plastic surgery on her labia in 2004. 

“I realized that surgeons were doing surgeries they were never trained to do on anatomy they were never taught,” Pin wrote in an email. “The dorsal nerves of the clitoris were omitted from every anatomy textbook I could find. They were omitted from every OB/GYN textbook I could find. They were nowhere described in plastic surgery or OB/GYN literature. They were nowhere considered in literature on female genital cosmetic surgery. Surgeons were operating blind to nerves.” 

Pin considers what she went through a form of “preventable genital mutilation,” caused by “carelessness and taboo around female sexuality.” 

As late as the mid-20th century, clitoridectomies, or the removals or reductions of the clitoris, were overtly practiced in the U.S. and U.K. to prevent masturbation. And in the mid-19th century, such surgeries were performed as a “cure” for “hysteria” and attitudes such as a “distaste for marital intercourse” and “a great distaste for her husband.” According to an estimate by UNICEF, today at least 200 million girls and women in 31 countries have been subjected to genital cutting, otherwise known as female genital mutilation, or FGM.

In California, Marci Bowers, a gynecologist focused primarily on gender-affirming surgery, performs clitoral reconstruction procedures for survivors. While genital cutting has been shown to cause severe pain, bleeding, infections, urinary problems and childbirth complications, very little research has investigated its impact on sexual function and solutions. 

“When you think that this affects 200 million women worldwide, it’s an embarrassingly small amount of attention,” Bowers says. “It was really interesting when I began interviewing patients who had undergone FGM, and their primary motivation for getting the surgery was not sex or sexual feeling even; it was the sense that their identity had been taken from them.”

In the fifth and final episode of Scientific American’s documentary series A Question of Sex, we meet Bowers and one of her patients to understand what it means for science to prioritize female pleasure.

Watch This Next

This article was supported by the Economic Hardship Reporting Project. This Scientific American documentary was shot on Blackmagic Design cameras.  

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe