Anatomy of the bulbus vestibuli: A cadaveric study

Ostrzenski, Adam

doi:10.1016/j.aanat.2020.151588

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A very recent anatomical report (Ostrzenski, 2021) found the anatomical description of the vestibular bulbs by O'Connell et al to be inaccurate, saying," The present study showed that the bulbus vestibuli did not over-lap the urethral meatus (meatus ad ostium urethrae) or the distal female perineal urethra," (p. 3).…”

contrasting

confidence: 55%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clitoral Anatomy in the Feminist Literature: Vagina obscura: An anatomical voyage (2020) and Clitoral Conventions and Transgressions: Graphical representations in anatomy texts, c1900‐1991 (1995)

Vilensky

2022

Clinical Anatomy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

O'Connell et al. proposed that the vestibular bulbs be renamed the "clitoral bulbs" because of their consistent relationship to the clitoris and inconsistent relationship to the vestibule. Normally such proposed esoteric changes in anatomical nomenclature would get little notice by anatomists, yet alone the general public; however, many subsequent articles and books placed this change in the context of centuries of male anatomists and physicians downplaying female sexual anatomy and sexuality. Most prominent is a 2022 book by Rachel Gross, Vagina Obscura: An Anatomical Voyage.Here we review this "Anatomical Voyage" and find author bias in omitting/including erroneous facts in this book. We also present a critique of a 1995 article that appeared in Feminist Studies; Graphical Representations in Anatomy Texts, c1900-1991. This article, which has been repeatedly cited in the clinical literature, asserts that between circa 1950-1980 anatomy textbooks purposely eliminated depicting/labeling the clitoris in illustrations because the authors of the textbooks were reflecting societal norms that de-emphasized the importance of the clitoris.Unfortunately, the methods used by Moore and Clarke are not replicable; and further, their conclusions were not justified because of clear bias in their description and depiction of the anatomy sources they review.

show abstract

contrasting

confidence: 55%

“…Historically, the bulk of the anatomical descriptive work is not in accord with that of O'Connell et al (Ostrzenski, 2021). In this regard, Ostrzenski's work is extremely convincing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%