Femail Dailymail.co.uk News Health Horoscopes Showbiz video TV & showbiz Jaci Stephen Photos & video Promotions Webchats Message boards YOU Mail online bingo Diet centre Mail wine club Dating Money shop DVD rental GCSE results 2006 A-level results 2006 Funny viral emails Primary school tables Home delivery Mac cartoons Book club Email newsletters ING Direct Varilux Varifocals School leavers Discover Britain Whiskas Oh so...

Channel 4, scraping the bottom of its favourite barrel in an effort to titillate its jaded viewers, has come up with a wheeze that makes the rest of reality television look like high culture.

It is preparing to screen a programme called Masturbation For Girls that features — I kid you not — an 'orgasm coach' who teaches three ladies all her tricks, which they will demonstrate, live, to camera.

Should you seek to escape for a night out at the pictures instead, you may find you fare little better. The eagerly anticipated high point of the up-coming London Film Festival is Shortbus, a movie that has astounded many by getting a standard 18 certificate in the first place, and which has as its central character a female sex therapist who is in pursuit of achieving climax for herself.

Perhaps she has never heard of the Rampant Rabbit — although if she hasn't, she soon will; this shocking-pink plastic contraption is also to make its film debut this week.

For the uninitiated, the RR is a vibrator that lays claim to being 'the world's favourite sex toy' following a starring role in TV's Sex And The City.

Bizarrely, its (first time) writer and director have somehow persuaded our good and great to take cameo parts, among them Emily Mortimer, Germaine Greer and Stefanie Powers.

Their collective effort might well prove to be — as Mail film critic Chris Tookey informs me — one of the worst films of all time; nevertheless, it conspires with C4 and Shortbus to place female masturbation as quite the fancy of the moment.

There is, of course, nothing new about the activity — nor would anybody suggest it to be unhealthy, either. Whispers of ruination, infertility and going blind went out (at least one has to hope) with the Dark Ages.

What is new, unhealthy and, I would argue, retrograde is for it to be made this public, dished up for the entertainment of the mass market with a defiance which proclaims that to do so is, in some way, a mark of women's progress and of liberation, when in fact it's nothing of the kind. It's just cheap.

THE unforgettable scene where Meg Ryan faked an orgasm in When Harry Met Sally was funny precisely because of the incongruity of its public location; had she been in the privacy of a bedroom, it would have been just another sex scene in just another film. In a café filled with ogling strangers, it became hilarious by dint of its toe-curling embarrassment.

There is an excuse, mind. There always is. Sometimes it is justified as being in the interests of science or education. Or failing that, there is that great old standby of describing prurient tosh as 'art' that challenges 'bourgeois sensibilities'.

Whichever the excuse, it just doesn't wash. Because however high-minded your justification for exposing your private parts to public scrutiny, you still wouldn't be doing it unless either you enjoyed it or you were paid for it.

And if they thought for a moment that their antics make them liberated women — the product and achievement of the years during which many of us fought for newer, brighter freedoms — then, my deluded little darlings, you can take it from me: it doesn't.

What women fought for was to become the equals of men, not to become exactly like them — which is just what this current vogue appears to invite them to try to be.

Take, for instance, the sales pitch for our friend the Rampant Rabbit: it promises, much in the manner of a Boys' Own guide to sports cars, 'zero-to-orgasm in 60 seconds'. Perfectly suited to the sexuality of Neanderthal men, perhaps, but not — surely not? — the sexuality of most women.

Boasting, showing-off and notches on the bedpost have always been the province of the male, and in particular a certain type of oaf who will go to great lengths to lie about bedding wenches while dismissing as trollops any wench whose promiscuity is rumoured to match his own.

challenged — but apeing the swaggering male strut is not the way to go about it. The right we seek is not the right to be like men but the right to be like women. And respected for it.

Female sexuality, left to itself, is altogether a more personal, nurturing thing. Few women feel arousal in the abstract; it's not like a hunger or a thirst which they pop out to assuage with whoever is handy.

Which is why this latest rash of explicit offerings on the TV and cinema screen fills me with such a profound sense of disappointment and unease.

For when misguided dollies are persuaded to prove their 'liberation' by letting it all hang out in the most public of arenas, who do we think they are appealing to? Not other women, that's for sure.

No. All they have done is turned themselves into sex objects, there for the salacious pleasure of priapic men, to be exploited and gawped at and belittled by those who get their kicks from peeping at women's naughty bits.

How horrible. Can't we put on some good old fashioned war movies on instead, for those people who actually spend hours in front of their televisions? That's some wholesome entertainment! Why should we be subjected to watching people experiecning *pleasure* rather than agonizing death?

This story first appeared in the . For more stories like this, buy the Daily Mail every day. Plus, to get the paper delivered to your home click here .

This is cache, read story here