22

Within the broader context of the politicisation of sex and sexuality, this article seeks to explore the reasons as to why in gynaecological care practices, sexuality is facing difficulties to be recognized as a professional problem. I explore the enigma of gynaecology being a medical discipline focused on women’s reproductive health while marginalising questions of sexual health (issues pertaining to recreational sexuality). I surveyed female health professionals (gynaecologists, general practitioners, midwives) who have developed what could be called a “care for sexuality” within their professional practice. I show that addressing questions of sexuality has a moral cost. Considered an illegitimate professional subject, sexual healthcare is complex to incorporate into medical practice and has an impact on the ability of professionals to access positions considered to be more prestigious (i.e., positions focused on cancer or pregnancy). Moreover, addressing sexual health has “contaminating” effects on professionals (who might be perceived as themselves having problems with their sexuality) and on the perception of their work, which might be confused with sex work. Finally, addressing sexual health is an intimate challenge for these professionals inasmuch as doing so repeatedly and structurally exposes them to gender-based violence, which in turn generates forms of moral exhaustion. The “care for sexuality” thus proves to be above all a form of care for sexual violence and the effects it has on patients.