The Bridge
How a survey of over 2,000 women in the 1920s changed the way Americans thought about female sexuality
Anya Jabour, University of Montana
American women still have fewer orgasms than men, according to new research that suggests that decades after the sexual revolution, the “orgasm gap” is still very much in effect.
One of the study’s lead authors at the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction told The New York Times that the gap persists because many Americans continue to “prioritize men’s pleasure and undervalue women’s sexual pleasure.”
As my research shows, these attitudes toward sexual pleasure have a long history.
But so do efforts to push back against them.
Almost a century ago, a pioneering American sex researcher named Katharine Bement Davis challenged the prevailing view that respectable women did not – and should not – experience sexual desire or have sex, except to please men or to have children.
Davis’s 1929 book, “Factors in the Sex Life of Twenty-Two Hundred Women,” completely upended this thinking.
By surveying everyday American women, she was able to show that it was completely normal for American women to have sex for the sake of pleasure.
An unlikely advocate for sexual liberation
Davis spent the first half of her career policing women’s sexuality, not promoting it.
In 1901, after earning her Ph.D. at the University of Chicago, Davis became superintendent of the New York State Reformatory for Women at Bedford Hills. While there, she studied the women in her care. Most female convicts, she concluded, were “immoral women.”
Davis’ efforts to enforce sexual morality drew the attention of philanthropist John D. Rockefeller Jr. In 1917, he invited her to lead his private agency, the Bureau of Social Hygiene, founded to study and combat prostitution and venereal disease.
During World War I, Davis promoted sex education to curb sexually transmitted infections among soldiers and civilians. Through this work, she became convinced that sexual ignorance – not sexual immorality – posed the greatest danger to women’s welfare.
Davis had long criticized the sexual double standard, which condoned men’s sexual experimentation but condemned women’s sexual experience.
Now, she also recognized that this double standard promoted women’s chastity at the expense of knowledge. She complained that discussions of women’s sexuality were “taboo,” which resulted in “distorted views, baffled speculation, and unfortunate experiences.”
Tackling a taboo topic
Insisting that Americans needed accurate information to achieve “a sane outlook on all matters pertaining to sex,” Davis made it her mission to teach women about sex.
But first, she needed to learn about women’s actual sexual experiences. Davis decided to undertake a large-scale study of what she called “the sex life of normal women.”
Davis’ approach was a dramatic departure from existing studies of “abnormal” sexuality focused on institutionalized populations. “Except on the pathological side,” she remarked, “sex is scientifically an unexplored country.”
By contrast, Davis explained, she wanted to understand “the woman who was not pathological mentally or physically.”
To that end, Davis distributed a detailed questionnaire to what she called “women of good standing in the community” from 1921 to 1923. The resulting study sample of 1,000 married women and 1,200 unmarried women was not representative – it skewed white, well-educated and well-to-do. But their responses allowed Davis to redefine female sexuality.
America’s first sexual revolution
Davis launched her study of women’s sexuality during what historians now refer to as America’s first sexual revolution. The second – and more well-known one – would take place in the 1960s.
In the 1920s, as one commentator noted, a “revolution in manners and morals” was underway. Sex suffused popular culture. Contestants in beauty pageants displayed their charms in skimpy bathing costumes and short skirts. Actresses flaunted their sex appeal on stage and screen.
New attitudes about sex affected the daily lives of average Americans, too. Young women throughout the nation adopted the sexy look of “flappers,” the term used for women who sported short skirts, rolled stockings and bobbed hair.
Prior to the 1920s, courtship often took place in the home, allowing parents to closely supervise couples. But the ubiquitous automobile – which one juvenile court judge had dubbed “a house of prostitution on wheels” – rendered adult chaperonage obsolete and granted young people unprecedented sexual freedom.
Meanwhile, birth control activists like Margaret Sanger and Mary Ware Dennett distributed contraceptive devices and disseminated sexual information in defiance of the Comstock Act of 1873, which had defined birth control and sex education as “obscene” and made circulating such materials a federal crime.
Sex, secrecy and shame
Even amid the nation’s first sexual revolution, the facts of life remained in short supply.
According to surveys Davis distributed to married women, only about half of the respondents believed that they had been “adequately prepared … for the sex side of marriage.”
After expanding her study to include unmarried women, Davis found that fewer than one-third of all participants received sex education from their parents.
Many women didn’t know how pregnancy occurred. Some had been unprepared even for menstruation. One recalled that when she experienced her first period, “I naturally thought I was bleeding to death.”
In place of information, many women imbibed shame. “Having acquired the feeling as a small child that any sex pleasure was shameful and a great sin,” as one respondent put it, some could never overcome their discomfort with sex. Another woman regarded all sexual thoughts as “something to be shunned like the devil.”
One response succinctly summarized the problem: “Our present secrecy, fear, and repression are responsible for most of our sex ills.”
Challenging the conspiracy of silence
Many women were eager to challenge what one called a “conspiracy of silence” surrounding female sexuality.
Study participants ended up providing Davis with over 10,000 pages of handwritten responses. She used this information to produce the nation’s first major study of women’s sexuality, a 400-plus page book brimming with both statistical data and personal stories.
“Factors in the Sex Life of Twenty-Two Hundred Women” covered a wide range of topics, ranging from sex education to sex play. Running throughout the entire work, however, was one central idea: Women liked sex.
Davis included data on birth control, same-sex relationships and masturbation. At the time, these practices were universally stigmatized and often criminalized. Yet significant proportions of study participants engaged in all these activities.
Nearly three-quarters of married respondents reported using contraceptives. Many probably took advantage of state laws allowing physicians to prescribe diaphragms to protect patients’ health. Surprisingly, nearly 1 in 10 women admitted having abortions, even though the procedure was illegal in every state.
More than half of unmarried women and nearly one-third of married women stated that they had experienced “intense emotional relationships” with other women. In each group, approximately half described those relationships as sexual. This was a remarkably high figure, given prevailing views of homosexuality as sexual deviance and state laws criminalizing homosexual acts.
Nearly 65% of unmarried women and more than 40% of married women reported masturbating. Since nearly all physicians and pastors condemned the practice, Davis assumed the actual numbers were even higher.
Davis’ data demonstrated that “normal” women experienced what one called “natural sex feeling.” In short, her study showed that many women enjoyed sex for its own sake.
Davis believed that reliable data would lead to “more satisfactory adjustments of the sex relationship.” In other words, better information would lead to better sex.
Davis paved the way for future studies that validate women’s sexual pleasure. While researching female sexuality, she established the National Research Council’s Committee for Research on the Problems of Sex. The Rockefeller-funded committee later subsidized Alfred Kinsey’s studies of human sexuality.
Davis’ legacy lives on. The findings from the Kinsey Institute’s latest study show that discussing sexual pleasure still matters, particularly for women. It also suggests that Americans’ understandings of sex have improved over the past century.
When Davis conducted her study in the 1920s, she found it “advisable” to define “orgasm” for participants who were unclear on the concept. Now, a generation of better-informed Americans ponder how to address a persistent “orgasm gap.”
Anya Jabour, Regents Professor of History, University of Montana
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Six years later, talking with Rolling Stone interviewer Chet Flippo, Parton claimed that she wasn’t a Christian. But “I do believe, I know there is a God and He is still the best friend I got in the world,” she explained. “I talk to Him often, but I’m one of the world’s sinners.”
Later in her life, though, Parton embraced the label “Christian” – albeit in a way that was very much her own. In the memoir “My Life and Other Unfinished Business,” she explained that “Christianity and its symbols are powerful parts of my life.” However, she diverged from socially conservative elements of her grandfather’s faith by embracing makeup and flashy fashion, celebrating her own sexuality, and speaking up for LGBTQ+ rights.
She was never interested in proselytizing. People do not have to embrace Christianity “to be a decent and worthwhile human being,” she wrote. “Spirituality is the most intimate part of a person’s makeup, and it’s strictly up to the individual to choose how to express it.”
‘Gospel of Dolly’
This openness explains part of Parton’s widespread appeal. The popular podcast “Dolly Parton’s America,” produced by journalists Jad Abumrad and Shima Oliaee, was based on the premise that Parton is one of the few public figures to have fans across the political spectrum.
After her death, President Donald Trump posted a tribute on his social media site, TruthSocial, and ordered that flags be flown at half-staff for a week. At the same time, in the Castro neighborhood of San Francisco – a haven for the queer community – a Pride flag was also flying at half-staff in her honor.
Mourners include Jesuit priest and author James J. Martin, who thanked Parton for “teaching me about the Christian life,” and numerous Christian musicians who looked up to her. “She was the epitome of faith, grace, talent, beauty and humour,” country artist Carrie Underwood wrote. “She had a humble heart for Jesus and made everyone around her feel special.”
But even non-Christians discussed Parton in sacred terms: a “secular American saint,” as Vox writer Constance Grady designated her in 2021.
Beyond her music, these fans admired her philanthropy, from the Imagination Library program that distributes books to children around the world to her US$1 million donation that helped fund COVID-19 vaccine research. They also highlighted her support for the Black Lives Matter movement and LGBTQ+ rights. “Dolly Parton is beloved because she has devoted her career to standing for love,” Grady wrote.
Even before her death, though, some people idolized her in a saint-like way. In 2011, for example, photographer Alice Hawkins produced a project titled “Dolly Parton is my religon.” Rev. Lindy Vogado, a Presbyterian pastor,likened her to a prophet. “Dolly Parton, through her life and work, inspires us to be better versions of ourselves,” Vogado wrote in 2025. “Just like any good prophet would do.”
In recent years, churches in Illinois, Oklahoma and New York have held services based on “the gospel of Dolly.” I attended the service in New York, which interspersed Parton’s songs with readings from scripture and homilies. Like the other services, the one I attended emphasized Parton’s “teachings”: love, care and acceptance.
Angels and atheists
Since her death, the religious language has only intensified. Musician Roseanne Cash referred to the singer as a “goddess” on Instagram, and cartoonist Marshall Ramsey portrayed her as an angel. “Listen, I’m fairly well atheist and have been for decades,” Threads user @cartergoesplaces proclaimed, “but Dolly Parton is in heaven with Jesus now. That’s simply a fact, and I’ll hear no arguments, no matter how vast the cosmos…”
Parton had her own personal brand of Christian religiosity, but she encouraged others to find and follow their own paths. I believe this helps to explain the huge outpouring of admiration – from followers of many religious traditions, followers of none, and followers of Dolly herself.
Sarah Dees, Associate Professor of American Religions, Iowa State University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!
💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.
Stay connected with STM Daily News!
STM Daily News
The United States’ human rights practices are taking a nosedive
New human rights data shows the United States’ civil and political rights record deteriorated sharply in 2025, with major declines involving detention, free expression, religious freedom and political participation.
K. Chad Clay, University of Georgia
In the lead-up to the 2026 midterm elections, how is the U.S. government performing in terms of human rights? Listening to politicians, it can be difficult to know.
On one hand, some have pointed to a number of potential human rights abuses committed by the U.S. government inside and outside its borders in the past two years.
On the other hand, while marking the United States’ 250th anniversary this year, President Donald Trump called the country “the home of freedom,” “the land of liberty” and “the most extraordinary, most exceptional, most incredible nation ever to exist on the face of the earth.”
“We’re doing better now than we’ve ever done before,” he said.
So which is it?
According to many of the human rights data sources available, the U.S. lags behind most other high-income democracies – countries that are both members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and classified as high income by the World Bank. The U.S.’s poor performance spans civil and political rights, such as the right to be free from torture and the right to political participation, as well as economic and social rights, including the rights to health and food.
In fact, the U.S. has been a relatively poor performer across many of these rights for quite some time, regardless of the political party in power.
Even accounting for the U.S.’s prior poor practices, however, new data from the Human Rights Measurement Initiative shows that in 2025 the country’s civil and political rights performance deteriorated even further.
As a human rights scholar who has been measuring human rights practices for 20 years – and as one of HRMI’s co-founders – I believe this data raises serious questions about the United States’ commitment to human rights.
How are rights practices measured?
Governments rarely publish accurate information on their own human rights abuses, so the task of measuring them typically falls to advocates and scholars.
Historically, most international measures of civil and political rights have depended on public reports from the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or news organizations.
However, these reports cannot cover every human rights violation that experts know about, especially in countries with low government transparency or high levels of repression.
Thus, data produced using those sources will show fewer abuses than those that have actually occurred and will be more accurate about some places than others. Further, the Trump administration has changed one of the most important sources of human rights information, the U.S. State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, to contain more bias in favor of the administration’s foreign allies and less information on human rights abuse overall.
Since 2017, HRMI has used a different approach. Recognizing the problems with public reports, we collect information directly from researchers for human rights organizations, human rights lawyers and others, asking them about governments’ practices across several rights and using a statistical model to assess their information and ensure that the resulting metrics are comparable across countries. The result is a robust dataset that includes information previously missing from public reports.
Today, HRMI’s civil and political rights dataset covers 62 countries, with more added every year.
How does the US compare?
According to the Human Rights Scores dataset, which uses publicly available information to score more than 190 countries on physical integrity rights – such as the rights to be free from torture, killing, forced disappearance and political imprisonment – the U.S. never ranked higher than 81st from 2001 to 2021 or higher than 109th from 2010 to 2021.
Indeed, from 2003 to 2021, the United States’ score was either the worst or the second-worst every year among high-income OECD member states, which include the United Kingdom, Japan and New Zealand.
The Human Rights Scores dataset has not been updated past 2021, but HRMI’s data collected since that time suggests that the pattern has continued.
Among the six high-income OECD countries on which HRMI currently collects data, the U.S. has been the worst performer for physical integrity rights since 2017.
It has also frequently been rated as the worst performer on “empowerment rights,” or the rights to assembly, association, opinion, expression, political participation, religion and belief.
What changed in 2025?
Even starting from this poor position, the U.S.’s civil and political rights practices dramatically worsened in 2025. HRMI measures nine civil and political rights, and the U.S. significantly worsened on eight of them.
These were not small changes. Measured against every significant change HRMI has recorded since 2017, the U.S. showed the largest decline ever observed for the right to be free from forced disappearance and for the right to freedom of religion and belief.
The U.S. showed the second-largest decline ever observed for the right to be free from arbitrary or political arrest and for the right to opinion and expression.
The U.S. also showed major declines in the rights to be free from torture and extrajudicial killing, and the right to political participation – that is, the right to participate in one’s government via free and fair elections, to take part in public affairs and to have access to public service. U.S. scores likewise fell in the right to assembly and association, which are, respectively, the rights to peacefully gather in public or private and to form or join groups and organizations.
What caused the scores to fall?
Human rights experts raised several issues that led to these declines. For instance, the U.S.’s worsened scores for the rights to be free from arbitrary detention, disappearance and torture were tied to the expanded use of practices such as incommunicado detention and warrantless arrest by ICE and other immigration-related agencies.
While several killings occurred during ICE operations in 2025, the worsened extrajudicial killing score was also tied to the country’s use of airstrikes against boats in the Pacific and Caribbean, which caused the deaths of at least 123 people in 2025 alone.
Other changes enacted in 2025 contributed to large declines in the U.S.’s rights scores, including crackdowns on anti-ICE demonstrations and government pressure on universities, including limits on free speech and class subjects.
Last year also saw threats to television networks over political expression, restrictions on mail-in voting, state measures targeting American Islamic organizations by labeling them “foreign terrorist organizations” and an executive order focused on eradicating “anti-Christian bias.”
While current HRMI data does not yet cover 2026, early indicators are not promising, with continued abuses by ICE, further killings in international waters and allegations of attempts to use government powers to punish critics.
K. Chad Clay, Director, Center for the Study of Global Issues (GLOBIS); Associate Professor of International Affairs, University of Georgia
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!
💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.
Stay connected with STM Daily News!
health and wellness
Lactose intolerance is actually the human norm – but racism, the US government and business interests have made it into a condition
Lactose intolerance is the global human norm, but Western dietary standards, government policies and commercial interests helped frame it as a medical deficiency.
Hilary Smith, University of Denver
Lactose intolerance makes drinking milk or eating ice cream a literal pain. For some people, eating a dairy treat can lead to bloating, nausea and diarrhea. You might’ve experienced its effects yourself. If so, you may think of lactose intolerance as a defect rather than the norm.
But did you know that most people in the world today are lactose intolerant – and that the condition itself was invented in the 1960s?
“Surely you mean discovered, not invented,” I hear you saying. I don’t. As a historian who has traced the origins of nutrition-science ideas, I have chosen the word “invented” on purpose.
Inventing lactose intolerance
Variations in people’s ability to digest lactose first came to scientists’ attention after American dairy producers found a way to rid themselves of a postwar milk surplus. To offload what they couldn’t sell, they looked to the government to intervene. And it did, buying the excess and embedding it in school lunches and other places with publicly funded meals.
Suddenly, many people who had not habitually drunk milk were consuming it regularly, including not only some Americans but also people overseas. Part of that same milk surplus found its way into school lunches in places such as Japan and Taiwan in the 1950s as the American government began to sell milk to allies during the Cold War.
Many of the groups drinking milk regularly for the first time did not like it. In fact, it made them feel sick. Intrigued, scientists set up experiments to figure out why. In a 1966 study comparing how Black and white people incarcerated in Baltimore metabolized lactose, researchers found that Black participants had lower levels of lactase – the enzyme that breaks down lactose – in their guts.
To the white scientists conducting this study, the trouble that the Black prisoners had digesting milk looked like an “inborn error of metabolism.” They assumed that the normal human state was lactose tolerance and that the lactose intolerant had inherited a genetic mutation.
It was only after years more work with research participants of many races that experts realized that, as one National Institutes of Health official put it in 1981, “lactose intolerance is a normal physiological condition, shared by every adult animal except for certain ethnic and racial groups in man.” People of northern European descent, it turned out, were the weird ones. It was their ancestors who had passed down a genetic mutation – one that made them able to digest milk after infancy.
In short, what scientists discovered in the 1960s was that different bodies process milk differently. What they invented was the idea that lactose intolerance is a defect. Accepting that framing would mean nearly two-thirds of the human population – the estimated prevalence of lactose intolerance worldwide – is defective.
Instead of acknowledging that dairy-free diets can be healthy, people innovated ways to overcome this supposed disability so everyone could consume more.
Nutritional imperialism
Lactose intolerance is one example of what I call nutritional imperialism: a way of thinking that treats white diets as the norm and everyone else’s as an aberration.
Nutritional imperialism was common in the 20th century, when scientists thought that not only milk-rich but also meat-heavy diets were best; they considered diets outside of the United States and Europe too vegetarian. Some also argued that wheat flour, not rice, ought to be the universal staple.
The same bias applied to bodies. Besides faulty lactose digestion, nonwhite bodies were accused of other failures, too, such as aldehyde dehydrogenase deficiency, an inability to digest alcohol quickly. The less technical term for this may be more familiar: Asian flush.
Such differences might have been thought of as variety, just another way of being human. Instead, each became a deficiency.
Many people today have inherited and perpetuated this way of thinking without knowing it, including those who are deemed deficient by it. In 1959, the director of Japan’s nutrition bureau declared that “rice-eating peoples” such as the Japanese were “resigned and passive” and could correct this by imitating Western diets and switching to wheat.
Today, the most prominent scientist promoting the idea that Asian flush is a disease is a geneticist of Taiwanese descent who started a research consortium to study “the most common human enzymopathy in the world.”
The Chinese Nutrition Society placed a tall glass of milk next to its 2022 Food Guide Plate – never mind estimates that the vast majority of Han Chinese, the largest ethnic group in China and worldwide, are lactose intolerant.
Turning sickness back into difference
Science that pathologizes difference helps racism persist.
In recent years, white supremacists have embraced the concept of lactose intolerance as a distinguishing debility of nonwhite people. Social media users have copied and pasted a map of the geographic distribution of lactose tolerance originally published in the scientific journal Nature into racist chat threads on the online discussion forum 4chan.
In 2017, internet trolls disrupted an anti-racist art installation with neo-Nazi chants and messily downed jugs of milk to accentuate their white identity.
Turning a lactose-digestion difference into a deficiency has done more to reinforce narratives of racial hierarchy than to improve public health. So here’s a suggestion: If you enjoy eating dairy, keep doing it; if you don’t, don’t – and know that there is nothing wrong with you.
Hilary Smith, Professor of History, University of Denver
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!
💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.
Stay connected with STM Daily News!
