SSL Advice On Best Sex Positions for Female Orgasm

Positions for Lady-gasm During Intercourse Advice is Bullshit
I was writing another blog post and started thinking about the type of advise women tend to get from sexperts in magazines and TV and internet about how to have orgasms hands-free during intercourse. What I thought was that it's some bull motha fuckin' shit. That's what I thought. Now granted there's some okay advise out there, but mostly it's not. Mostly, we ladies just get told how to squish and bend our physical needs into how sex is supposed to be rather than expand sex to mean things that meet our physical needs. I mean, it's not surprising. That's how it goes with ladies and sex . The 'norm' of sex and sexuality and sex drive and sexual imagery is all stuck revolving around male hetero desires, fantasies and orgasms. We ladies and our orgasms, fantasies and desires tend to be  afterthoughts - if thought of at all.

Anyway, this hypothetical sexpert advice that I allege is widespread, but am too lazy to go on the internet and get some examples, often say things about positions during intercourse so that the base of the penis or the pelvis slides against her clit or touches the clit on each entrance or each exit. I'm always, like, 'yeah, that's cool, but some dude's intermittent body pressure against my clit while he moves in ways that feel good for him ain't gonna do shit.' That body to clit touching already happens by chance a million times a day to a million different women as they take the D, yet still most women don't orgasm during intercourse AT ALL.

Ladies, if you want to orgasm during intercourse, you must stimulate your clit in a manner that would get you off...and do it while you have a dick up in you. 
That's how you will orgasm during intercourse. That shit is not going to happen while you lay motionless and let a man pump in and out of you. It's not going to happen while you ignore your clit, but bounce up and down enthusiastically on a dick. It'd not even going to happen when a guy tries to do all the positions that keep your clitoral/vuvla area rubbing against his body while he fucks you. Okay, it might here or there during one of those things, but if it does, thank the stars because you got lucky and you won't know when it will happen again because you are not in control and aren't actively a part of the process to bring yourself to orgasm. We ladies got to actively move our hips and position our bodies in ways that give us the stimulation we need to orgasm. We know what feels right. We can make it happen...as long as we have willing partners that works with us and not against us, of course.

There is a refusal to acknowledge intercourse is good for male orgasm but not female
The thing is, I don't think many women or men know that the clit needs to be stimulated in order for a woman to orgasm, and they don't think about incorporating it into their sex. Or...people know that clits are REALLY important to female orgasm and know good and well how women masturbate (spoiler: it's with clit stimulation), but some kind of fucked up, mind-controlling, mass-hallucination spell keeps our brains from fully putting 2 and 2 together when it comes to our own personal sexual interactions. Like, "yeah clits are important and great, but...intercourse!" And then the active thinking ends.

I'm kinda over the top here, but I'm also quite serious. There is a block we people have about this. I know had it real strong, and I see it all the time in how people talk. Annamarie Jagose hit the nail on the head when she wrote about the strange pervasive refusal for our culture to fully, specifically, truly acknowledge that the well known problem of women not orgasming as much as men will never end until we finally stop beating around the bush and admit that the idea of intercourse being mutually orgasmic for women as well as men is fantasyland.

But as a culture we have not admitted that yet. And that's why we get so much advise about male-female sex that acknowledges the importance of the clit to female orgasm (and really I'm just picking at the most progressive ones that even recognize the clit at all. There are plenty that completely ignore the clit and just tell women to get the dick in there the right way and hit the G-spot right or something), but doesn't go all the way and admit that the clit is not just important to female orgasm; it is female orgasm just like the penis is male orgasm. You don't hear people going around saying, "Now remember, the penis can be very important to most men's orgasm." Because that's obvious as fuck and you'd have to be a dumbshit sexpert to say something so obvious. We're too focused on intercourse and ignorant about the clit to have that kind of obvious knowledge about female orgasm, even though it is pretty obvious and we could acknowledge that because contrary to popular belief, the female orgasm is not more mysterious or fickel than the male orgasm.

So, here's my take on how this advise should go.

The SSL Advice on Good Lady-gasm Positions During Intercourse
Hi ladies and gentlemen! Do you want to know what positions can help get a woman off during intercourse? Here's the down and dirty details that will set your love life on fire!

Here's the secret, ladies:

Do whatever the hell you need to do to get his body pressed in the appropriate way against your clit area (while still having his penis inside your vagina so you can technically say you orgasmed during intercourse) and then grind your hips however you need to for as long as you need until you come. 

Here's some points to remember:

  • It's very likely you will need to fight against his instincts to move in a particular way that his dick likes or that he think you likes. You may need to physically hold him still against you while you grind off or straight up tell him to stop pumping for a goddamn second so you can get some fucking clit time already. It might take some training. He may forget what you have clearly said and again start doing whatever he wants to, but keep at it and remember, there is a lifetime of bad habits habit and a culture full of wrong information inside both of you to overcome!
  • You're going to actually have to know what it feels like to make yourself come before you get to this point. During sex with a sweaty man pumping on you is not the way to learn how you can grind your clit into an orgasm. If you have never masturbated, this probably ain't gonna work for you. Go masturbate. Take as long as you need, try whatever. Be by yourself. Stick with it. If you practice, practice, practice, you can be ready to adapt your method to the less than ideal situation of having a dude who's trying to come be all up in your grill while you try and make it happen.
  • If you're worried about if your movements are wierd or bothering to your partner, then grow a pair of lips and just decide to get over it. Fuck his orgasm. He won't have any problem figuring out how to move his penis in your vagina to make himself come. He'll be alright. I promise. You do you. I feel pretty certain you've already spent too many months, years, decades not getting yours when you could have been. Don't waste another day. And if he gets shitty about it, fuck that guy. 
  • Or, for real, just rub one out while he's in you. It's awesome, and it's ridiculous that it even needs to be said. It should be obvious and common and we shouldn't even worry about whether or not there's a dick in you when you rub yourself off during a sexual encounter. Here's the trick. Don't give a shit if it's easy or not for him to get off using your vagina during it. Just get in a position where 1) you can reach your clit with a hand or vibrator; 2) you have good range of motion; 3) it doesn't cause hand/arm/body pain or fatigue if you are working that clit for any length of time. 4) there's a dick in you so you can technically say you came during intercourse Then rub, grind, or vibrate (and ignore your partner if you have to) until you come.
  • Or, and hear me out here, maybe don't worry about whether his dick is inside you and just make sure your clit gets stimulated appropriately to orgasm. 'Cause that's an option too.

There. Lucky you. Now you are ready to find great sex positions for your orgasm!


The Americans S1 Ep13: The SSL Review

The Americans Season 1
First off, I LOVE The Americans. Charlie's brother told us to watch it, and we actually started watching it while we were in Brazil, but when the Russians spoke, the subtitles were in Portuguese, so we didn't know what the fuck they were saying, and they talk a lot in this show. So we had to stop. It was sad because we were like 2 episodes in and we really liked it. Months later, though, we got to watch, and I'm way into this shit.

There is plenty of sex in this show, but I believe - unless I wasn't writing stuff down during the very first episodes - this is the only depiction or discussion of female orgasm and/or masturbation in the first season, and as you know those are the specific things I review. I critique the realism (for instance, were the physical things happening to that women while she orgasmed things that could realistically cause orgasm for a woman?) and I also try to look at what the depiction/discussion reflects from and adds to the larger cultural discussion around lady-gasms and female sexuality.

You can see all the SSL TV Reviews HERE (and as always you can find all the movie SSL Reviews HERE).

This depiction is a pretty simple and easy one, and one that will be getting a high vulva rating - 'cause frankly there's some good eatin' out happening.

Season 1 Episode 13

A Little Background
For those who know nothing about this show, it is about 2 Russian spies, Elizabeth and Philip, living in America during the very early 80's. They came into America in the 60's and began living as a normal American couple. They had children, and they have a travel agency that  is real, but they do all kinds of cold war spy shit when they're not doing normal American family stuff.

They are bad ass, and a lot of what they do is have these secret lives (they have, uh, the best disguises) where they make strong emotional bonds with informants, who may or may not know they are informants and may or may not know what/who they are informing to. But anyway, they invest a lot of time and energy into people to do their spy work - sometimes it's friends. Sometimes it sexual or romantic. They do what they have to do. They're incredibly good at reading people and giving people what they need to get what they want.

They also have this dynamic I like where they are co-workers that respect and trust each other's decisions for the most part, but they also are in every respect marital partners. They are housemates, raising children together and sleeping in the same bed, so they have to be partners in that regard as well. I really like the way the couple interacts. They have an evolving relationship, but they carry that understanding of people into their partnership, and strangely, they interact, I think, with a level of kindness and respect that is unusual for married couples in TV and movies,  Anyway, that's part of why I like it. Now let's get down to business.

The eat out details
So Philip has this lady in his secret life (and I'm going to try not to reveal too much for those of you who haven't seen this yet), that he is basically a boyfriend to. It's sexual, but it's also an emotional entanglement. They had a very 'special' day, something that was romantic and incredibly important to her, and we cut back to them that night.

She's laying face up in the middle of the bed when the scene cuts in. She's slightly propped up, her arms are outstretched to either side of the bed like a queen, and the covers are up around her chest area. He is face down under the blankets. Clearly his head is in her crotch area. As we cut in she's letting out a loud AHHH, and then some breaths and then another. She has about 7 good AHHs, but after the first it's like she's coming down, and by the 7th, she's just sort of breathing sighs like she's enjoying the aftermath. During it she also touches his head a couple times from above the blankets. That all happens within about 10 seconds, and then we see him come up from under the covers and put his glasses on.

It's clearly showing us their celebratory sexual encounter. After it's over, Philip tells her he'll never forget this day, and she oohs and ahhs about what an amazing day they had as they relax.

My thoughts
I actually really love this scene. Let me count the reasons why.

  • It's physically realistic. Ladies need outer vuvla /clitoral stimulation in order to orgasm and a man's face and mouth grinding around in the vulva area could realistically get her there. Oral sex is a big fave for lady-gasm release. So I like that basic level of realism - realism that really should be part of almost every lady-gasm scene (like it is for gentleman-gasm scenes), but it sadly is not.
  • Her vocalizations were surely loud and clear, but they were not going on for way too long. The female orgasm, like the male orgasm, lasts approximately as long as those rhythmic pelvic muscle contractions last. That's a matter of seconds. Some females regularly last a bit longer than males but we're not talking porn-style perma gasms for 10 minutes*. We're talking 10 - 40 more second range. So, her vocalizations were not silly and not based in porn-fantasy land.
  • Philip didn't seem bothered or grossed out. He seemed loving toward her after it. She didn't seem embarrassed or worried that he was bothered. It seemed natural and like a normal and loving part of their relationship. This is important because men are too often depicted as dreading, grossed out by, or overexerted after cunnilingus and women are depicted as feeling bad about getting it - because they feel gross down there, or they're taking too long, or because it's an inconvenience to the man (who maybe would just prefer to get off while he fucks her instead). So, it's nice and cunnilingus-positive, and we need this kind of easy relationship depicted more often.
  • He didn't finish and then go right into intercourse with her. Maybe they had intercourse prior, or she blew him prior, but after she came, they were done and relaxing and talking in bed. Either way it's awesome. If this was the only sex act - then that's bad ass. We often see a guy getting blown as a lone sex act. I think it's be good for sexual balance to see that for a woman as well; to see a man okay with not getting off in a sexual encounter from time to time the way women are supposed to be okay with that? If he was blown first, that's good too. That would be a mutual exchange and a sex act that didn't involve intercourse. We need more of that depicted too. If he fucked her first, awesome as well. That's traditionally been known as a gross thing to guys, but given all the truly gross shit that we see women do in porn, movies, and TV, a little indication that men are willing to get gross in bed is a nice balance.
  • As I said before, these spies know how to please people. They are thoughtful and sensitive to people's needs, and thus good at giving people what they want, and I think to some degree any interaction with their informants has an element of them thinking about making the person feel good and comfortable. What would make a woman that you had a great importantly romantic day with feel better about you and your relationship than giving her an orgasm with your mouth? Nothing really. I think in a lesser show Philip would have just fucked her because a lesser show would not think much about it and just blindly assume having intercourse is the same to a woman as it is to a man. This show, I think, took the extra step to not just throw a sex scene in, but to make it meaningful as a story point and in doing so put actual realistic thought into it..and as a result, it's a more realistic depiction of what women like and how women orgasm. I think that's bad ass.

The Vulva Rating
So, because of all those things; because this was a realistic depiction, because it went beyond status quo depictions of male-female sexual interactions, because it showed female orgasm as a valid and important focus of sexual encounters, and because of all I said above - this show gets a full 5 vulva rating.


*You can find more info about that in Master's and Johnson's Human Sexual Response and also in studies like....THIS and especially THIS


5 Movies About Friday the 13th Type Stuff #DirectedByWomen

I started doing this categorized List of 5 movies thing where I showcase movies that were directed by women and that I have actually seen. It all started during the Directed By Women Worldwide Viewing Party in September, and it was pretty fun, so I've continued doing it from time to time.

It's a bit off-topic from my normal fare, ya know, being that it's not specifically about lady-gasms or anything like that, but I think it fits the blog because
1. this blog is also about indie movie-making, and
2. this blog is partially about getting the female perspective of sexuality into our media. So, to me, supporting female voices in our media  means we're creating more room for female voices to speak on all types of things, which sometimes will be sex, orgasms, and sexuality. You can find all my 5-movie lists HERE.

So, since today is Friday the 13th, this is a  LIST OF 5 MOVIES THAT ARE ABOUT FREAKY FRIDAY THE 13TH STUFF! That's right, in these movies, terrible shit happens. On a day such as Friday the 13th, you should probably stay home and watch things that make you a little scared for your life or for the future of humanity...also in my neck of the woods there will be freezing rain tonight, so all the people in my general area should for real stay home tonight. Anyway, you're real lucky I'm giving you this list. So get a snack, a beverage, and get ready for a selection of of lady-made movies that are worthy of this freakiest of days.

1 Pet Sematary - This is directed by Mary Lambert. this is from 1989, but I only just saw it a few years ago. Me and Barnaby, one of my beloved movie-making partners, decided to watch it one Halloween, and so we did, and it was a joy to watch. I honestly can't remember how I felt about it. I think it was fun...and I know it was an appropriate and awesome watch for that Haloween just as it is for Friday the 13th.

2 American Psycho - This was directed by Mary Harron. This is for real, one of my favorite movies of all time. I saw it one night at our friend Levi's mom's house back when we were all young folks. I wasn't that excited about seeing it when it started because I thought it was just some horror flick, and frankly, I'm not really into horror movies. I'm just not. However, I was wrong as hell, because it is an immaculately put together work. I've watched is a few more times since then, and it continues to hold up well for me...and it's pretty bloody and all that so it makes this list.

3 Twilight - This one was directed by Catherine Hardwicke. I saw this in the theater. Charlie had listened to the whole book series on tape because his coworkers at the time had read it and they were all talking about it and wanted him to read it, so he listened while he printed pictures. Anyway, he basically told me the whole story, and so obviously we checked it at the movies. I enjoyed it alright. It's a fine popcorn flick. Also, it's about werewolves and vampires, so that's Friday the 13th as hell.

4 Seeking a Friend for the End of the World - This was directed by Lorene Scafaria. This was a movie that I caught in a hotel room. I love a hotel room movie - one I haven't seen, but not one I've been waiting to a see....a movie that I forgot came out but when I see it's coming on, I'm like, "yeah, I'll watch that." Anyway. that's what happened, and I enjoyed it. It's about the end of the world, so I think that makes it belong in my Friday the 13th list.

5 Deep Impact - This was directed by Mimi Leder. This was a Blockbuster rental back sometime near the time it came out. I have to tell you I can't rememeber much about it, except that I think it was one of those 'pair' movies where 2 movies come out around the same time, and they are both kinda similar premises. There was another like this and I saw that one too. Anyway, comets destroying the earth? Yeah that's Friday the 13thish.


Random Hite Report #21

Hello, welcome again to one of my favorite segments on the SSL blog, Random Hite Report! It's simple really. I flip through the pages of the The Hite Report: A Nationwide Study of Female Sexuality  (or sometimes The Hite Report on Male Sexuality) by a one Ms. Shere Hite and copy the contents of the page where I land - no more no less. Anyone who reads my blog will know that this 1976 book is a fave of mine; not only because of its realistic and progressive insight about the female orgasm that is still shockingly relevant 40 years later,  but also because of its very touching insight into the lives of the women who took part in this huge, comprehensive survey. This is an under-appreciated and under-read book if you ask me - I suggest you buy it online (seriously, you can get them for like 1 cent) and read it.

 So, sit back, getcha a beverage, and enjoy a little...Random Hite Report...you never know what yer gonna get!

The Hite Report: A Nationwide Study of Female Sexuality Dell. 1976.
Pg. 113 From chapter "MASTURBATION" in the section called 'Types of Masturbation' under the heading 'Type III,'

...dant. And I used to move my hnds more than me, now I move me more.
                                                                  Type III
   Type III means masturbating by thrusting into a pillow or other soft object. Four percent of the women masturbated this way, plus an additional 1.2 percent who could also masturbate in other ways. Type III is similar to Type II because it is done on the stomach, in the face down position, but different because no hands are used. It involves thrusting or grinding the pelvis, especially the pubic area, against the bed, some pillows, or a clump of clothing, or perhaps moving one's body in pressing movements against the bed. Legs are usually together, and often there are some sheets of fabric wadded up and held between the legs. Thus stimulation is spread over a rather wide area in an indirect way. Six of the Type IIIs are unusual, and four of these quotes will be found at the end of this section.
    "When I masturbate, I usually lie face down on the bed with some cloth, like a blanket or spread, pulled together so there is a mound I rub back and forth on."
    "I lie on my stomach with some material pulled firmly between my thighs and pressing against my entire mons area, then bounce gently until orgasm."
    "Yes I enjoy masturbation. I have masturbated since babyhood and I don't see any reason to stop ever. However, I prefer sex with a partner because I like company. I always have an orgasm and usually several of them, depending on the mood I'm in. I don't masturbate like anyone else I've ever heard of. I make a clump in the bedding about the size of a fist (I used to use the head of my poor teddy bear, but since I became too old to sleep with a teddy bear, a wad of the sheets has to suffice) and then lie on my stomach on top of it so that it exerts pressure on my clitoris. I then move my hips in a circular motion until I climax - very simple. It works with legs apart or together - either one, although when I am in a particularly frenzied state, together sometimes...


Bojack Horseman S1 Ep. 1-4: The SSL Review

I had heard some good things about Bojack Horseman, so Charlie and I watched about 8 of the first season's 12 episodes. At that point we both got a little bored with it and haven't watched any since. However, in writing this, I was looking some stuff up about the show, and apparently it got A LOT better after the 1st half of the 1st season. So, if you think you might be into this show, maybe it's actually better than I am letting on - if you stick with it. You do you. Who knows, maybe I'll watch some more myself.

Anyway, there was some lady-bations/lady-gasm type stuff in there, so here I am doing an SSL Review for you all. As most of you already know, an SSL Review is a critique specifically of a depiction or discussion of female orgasm and/or masturbation. I look toward realism (for instance, were the physical things happening to that women while she orgasmed things that could realistically cause orgasm for a woman?), and I also look at what the depiction/discussion reflect from and add to the larger cultural discussion around lady-gasms and female sexuality. A show could be good with a bad SSL review or vice versa, and I really try to keep an SSL review to the SSL reviewable scenes, but if I feel like it, I can talk about anything I want to - because it's my blog.

You can see all the SSL TV Reviews HERE (and as always you can find all the movie SSL Reviews HERE).

So here we go:

S1 Ep. 1 Orgasm Interrupted
The scene
BoJack is in bed, lying on his back. A human woman (oh - Bojack is actually a horse. I mean he stands on two legs and  wears clothes, but he's a horse) is riding cowgirl on him bouncing up and down. Her upper body is fully upright, so there's no leaning forward to push the ol' clit/vulva area against his body - just hole on pole.

We don't see what her hands are doing. We're looking at it from behind her back, and her hands are in front of her, so it is possible she could be rubbing the clit while she's bouncing on his literal horsecock, but there is no specific indication that is what's happening. More likely the intention (because it's drawn, so there probably has to be some intention there) is that her hands are on him, helping her steady herself as she bounces. I assumed this, and I assume most people would too (if they actually put active thought into it at all) because we're used to seeing women have sex this way, but not used to seeing a woman rub her clit during intercourse.

His arms are definitely not on her clit area either. Anyway, she starts saying, "Oh, oh, oh, Bojack, I'm almost theee..." But, he stops her before it fully happens in order to look past her and see the beginning of his old TV show "Horsing Around." She gets an annoyed look on her face and goes silent.

The orgasm and my take
So, somehow she is getting the stimulation to orgasm even though it seems to be all in the vagina, and as any good SSL reader knows, there is no physical record of a woman coming from stimulation inside the vagina anywhere in scientific literature. So, I deem it an unrealistic but very common depiction of female orgasm.

There are complications to this though. The fact that her hands were not clearly away from her clit area is a bit more unusual, and leaves some doubt. However, the woman's hands on the dude's stomach/chest is a very common way to depict this position (unless she is supposed to be really wild or really insane, and then she is running them through her hair and waving them in the air like she just don't care....or if the position is on regular TV and she's naked up top, then her hands would be on her boobs so they are covered), so I think there was no intention to show this woman touching her own clit, and I doubt viewers would see that insinuated because ladies rubbing their own clits to orgasm in movies and TV is just not even on the radar...but getting banged into orgasm sure is.

Oh, and to complicate it further- I also just realized that it looks like she has her underwear on the whole time...maybe it's a panties to the side kind of thing? OR...maybe she was all panties on, just grinding her clit against his stomach the whole time. That would be cool. I'm certain it wasn't the intention, but that would be cool.

S1 Ep. 3 - They said the word 'clitoris'
The scene
Sextina Aquafina, who is a fish that is a hot sexy new singer starlet, says,  "My clitoris is ginormous!" It's not really in relation to anything. She's on the TV a lot, and she's used in the show as comparison to a now 30-year old actress who was once a kid on Bojack's show and then became a sexy starlet and is now just drugged up and washed out.

Why talk about it???
Okay, this one is technically not SSL reviewable being that there was no orgasm or masturbation involved, but I wanted to mention it anyway because the word 'clitoris' was mentioned. The truth is, clitoris is not mentioned in pop culture that much. It just isn't. 'Vagina,' 'pussy,' 'hole' - these types of things are mentioned on the regular, and you know dick is mentioned all the damn time.

So, I like to point it out when I hear it, because I think people like Sophia Wallace and her Cliteracy campaign are correct. The clit is a bit invisible. It's the thing that causes women to orgasm, but how often do you hear about it or see it insinuated in depictions of female orgasm - even in porn? Rarely...it's almost always the hole, which is a bunch of bullshit that just goes to show you how deep the problems with societal misunderstanding of lady-gasms are.

My thoughts
I don't have too much to say about this. I think probably it was just a funny line the writers made up to show this woman is throwing her sex out there real hard. That said though, I do also want to mention that I feel that her specifically talking about her clit and specifically about it being large is tailored to make the audience feel a little gross about her in a particular way.

I say this because I feel like talking about the clit seems a bit more raucous - more wild and dirty for a girl to do because we just don't do it much and it seems a little selfish too. Then saying it's big is almost saying she's man-like - which I think has an 8-year-old boy style humor of  'Oh gross, she's trying to be sexy, but it's just gross because its not feminine,' feel to it. Anyway, maybe this was just a simple rhyming line some writers shit out, but maybe there was some thought put into it, and maybe it emphasized  the grossness and non-femininity of the clit and the women who talk about them - and that's not awesome.

And yeah - that's probably getting too deep into the weeds with this, but that's how we roll here sometimes.

S1 Ep. 4 - "not even inside me"
The scene
BoJack is face down missionary style on top of his agent - a cat named Princess Carolyn played by Amy Sedaris. (I mean, a horse should not be penetrating a cat, really - but I assume they were written as lovers for the inherent joke in the wrongness of it).

He is straight pounding her and breathing real hard as he's speaking. She's on her back. Her arms are at her side. So, no one's hands are on her clit area. She's straight-faced and annoyed.

Bojack: Are you close?
Princess Carolyn: No. (exasperated)
Bojack: How 'bout now?
Princess Carolyn: No. (even more exasperated)
Bojack: Now?
Princess Carolyn: You're not even inside of me.
Bojack: Oh gaaaaaahhhhhhd! (as he comes)
He immediately rolls off her and immediately says
Bojack: Did you get there?

Then someone comes into the room and interrupts them with something completely different, so this isn't discussed any further.

My thoughts
It was a scene to show, like in the first scene I discuss above, that Bojack is oblivious to the circumstances of the women he's having sex with...i.e. a classic way to show a man as being selfish.

The scene's on point in a way. A dude banging on a woman without any extra external stimulation is not going to get her there, so that's not unrealistic. I think the interesting thing is in the punchline of this scene: "You're not even inside of me." Hilarious, right? He's so oblivious that he's not even inside her (I mean, probably best given she's a cat and he's a horse, but whatever). He's just rubbing up against her or something.

The thing is, that punchline really shines a light on one of the main unchecked assumptions we have about female orgasm in this culture; that at the very least, you must be inside her vagina. I mean if he actually cared about her orgasm instead of just caring enough to mindlessly ask her about it, he would at least do the most basic of things a man must do to get a woman off - be inside her, right? Well, that only works if your audience strongly feels that a penis inside a woman can cause a woman to orgasm, and of course the audiences does because our society does, But it's not true. In reality, the penis inside the vag has never been shown to cause orgasm, but rubbing stuff against the external genitals has.

So, it's like if we look at this situation in a physically realistic way, him rubbing against her outer parts might actually be super duper nice for her. That, unlike banging a vagina, has actually been shown to cause orgasm in women. So, the scene works for what it's supposed to be - showing Bojack as a thoughtless, selfish lover, but in doing so, it point out clearly how badly the culture misunderstands how women actually orgasm.

The Vulva Rating
This is status quo stuff here. This is women getting off from bouncing on a dick with no external clitoral stimulation. This is jokes about a dude being so bad in bed that he doesn't even put the dick in her. It's not new or exciting or progressive. It's just jokes about sex and selfishness from a male perspective.

"Haha," the writers I'm sure said, "wouldn't it be funny to demonstrate this dude's selfishness through caring not about his partner's orgasm?" Yes, it would be funny if 1) the anatomical aspects of how they made that joke were correct and 2) if it were't like everyday life...if women not orgasming with men during sex wasn't more common than not.

These kinds of sex jokes are from a very male perspective. I mean, I think they're meant to be thoughtful of the female perspective, but they're not really. I know they're trying, but the jokes are more like a dude's idea of what a female perspective might be. It's played out, kinda tone-def, but it's born from a huge cultural miseducation about the female orgasm and the clit being necessary for it...so in the end, since this miseducation is pretty ubiquitous, it's also still fine as a joke...which is sad.

This did not take the discussion of female orgasm back any and it wasn't mean-spirited. It also didn't move it forward, and it's not realistic. So, I'm giving these first 4 episodes of Bojack Horseman a 2 vulva rating.


Mozart in the Jungle Scene Re-imagined

I already posted about all the actual SSL Reviewable parts of seasons 1 and 2 of Mozart in the Jungle. However, there is one more scene that I want to comment on even if it's not technically SSL Reviewable. To be so, it would need to discuss or depict female orgasm, and this does not. It merely discusses and depicts sex, but it's from a woman's perspective talking about the quality of the sex, and I think there is something to be said about it.

The Scene
So here we are. This is in the very first episode of the first season. It's 2 women who have just met. One is older, cultured, and established in her career as a musician. The other is young and just beginning the same career but with a different instrument. They are having a drink and their waiter is deemed attractive. They are looking at him as he leaves the table.
Older Lady: Bet he's a dancer. They're the best.
Younger Lady: The best?
Older Lady: Anecdotal evidence and my personal scientific research suggests there's a direct correlation between what a man does for a livng and the way he fucks. Violinists, for example, they tend to come quickly. It's all those arpeggios.
We then see her in bed with a violinist (I assume). She's next to him, kissing his ear. We see a condom in his hand by his chest, and he quickly moves it down his body putting the condom on his dick. As soon as he does, she climbs on top of him, presumably starting intercourse cowgirl style. Almost the second she seems to get on it, he starts to make orgasm noises / faces. Then it cuts back to the women at the table.

Older Lady: Percussionist, pound you like they're in a porno.
We then see her bent over a stand-up drum. He is standing behind her and thrusting against her rhythmically. He is close-eyed and seemining lost in the beat. She is wide-eyed, focused -but not in a pleasure sort of way, with pursed lips, panting rhythmically like she's in labor.

Older Lady: Kinda fun...for about 10 minutes. It's good cardio though.
Younger Lady: Oh - what about...(they look at the pianist across the room)
Older Lady: Pianists, tricky. Typically they fall into 2 general groups, jazz and classical. I'd go for jazz.
Younger Lady: Why?
Older Lady: Improvisation.
We see her making out with a guy as they walk into a public bathroom.
Older Lady: They play off you. Also they're into ensembles.
We see her gesture through the bathroom door and a girl walks in and the 3 start making out.

Younger Lady: What about conductors?
Older Lady: Too complicated.

I mean, it could be better. That's all I'm saying.
This is a fine enough scene. It makes sense for the pilot episode. It's a bit titillating and gets the audience thinking about the show as a bit sexy. It also shows off the older woman's sophistication and the younger woman's naivety. But, and I'm just being dreamy here, but wouldn't it be cool if the sophisticated, sexually experienced lady spoke about how good men are in bed with a bit more lady-gasm focused perspective?

For instance...
the violinist
What about the guy that comes too quick? I mean if we look at it realistically, who gives a shit as long he helps her come too, right? Maybe it's not that violinists are bad because they come too quick, but that it actually makes them more desirable. Maybe violinists play your clit with their fingers as passionately as they'd play a Tchaikovsky piece, and when they've  made you come so hard you want to just fall asleep, lucky you! You can do just that because they pop off as soon as they stick it in...probably all those arpeggios.

the percussionist
Alright, what about the percussionist?  I have to say, I like that she tells the young gal that the percussion banging is more like a fun-ish workout than anything else - that's pretty realistic given that banging penis in the vag or any other inner vaginal stimulation has never been shown to cause orgasm in scientific literature (and also that the majority of women when surveyed say they cannot orgasm during intercourse alone). So, that's realistic girl talk that acknowledges the non-orgasmness of straight banging.

But just take a step back for a minute, won't you? When was the last time you saw something like this in reverse? Have you ever seen a show where a sophisticated, hot, sexually experienced guy was talking with his friend about women he's had sex with and was all like, "Well this type of lady loves you to stand behind them and rub their clit for 30 minutes. It's a pretty hot position, but I'm over it in about 10 minutes. It's a good forearm workout though."

Ain't nobody seen some shit like that because we as a society assume guys actually feel that coming is a pretty important, almost necessary part of sex...something we refuse to assume about women. It seems really odd that a dude would have sex without coming and be that cool and easy-going with it.
So, let us extend the courtesy to women that we give to men and assume that this sophisticated sexually experienced women cares that sex with percussionists is orgasm-less.  Maybe she continues her assessment with an indication of how percussion dudes deals with you trying to get yours. Why not note that these dudes are pricks that pretend not to hear you over the banging if you ask for a reach around, so best always to bring a vibrator with you to whip out and take care of business while you get banged!...then never fuck a percussionist again.

the jazz pianist
I actually don't mind what she says here. I actually think improvisation, playing off you, and being into ensembles could all be solid aspects of a good sensual sex partner for a lady. But if I could make this a little more lady-centric, I'd make one change. The 3rd person should be a hot dude, ya'll!

I know lots of straightish women are into a little sexual fun with a lady, and that's all cool, and it's not unrealistic or un-lady-centric at all. But, I think just for sake of balance, why not see a little more 2 dude 1 woman threesomes where straightish men get into a little sexual fun with another guy? Why, you ask? Because 2 is better than 1, because dudes need to get over their homophobia about this, and because why the fuck do people get that 2 women touching each other is sexy to look at but don't get that two men touching each other is also sexy to look at?

Anyway, if a gal likes men eating you out, why not 2? Why not a dude eating you out while another guy fucks you? Ladies and gentlemen, the possibilities are endless (and in my fantasy here, the dudes have to actually work together to pleasure the woman...can't just finger trap her...soooo boring). So, I say the 3rd here should have been a hot guy, and he should have dropped to his knees in front of her just before it cut.

Okay, that's it. Happy New Years Eve! Be safe, Have fun, and get that clit touched!


Freudian BS in a Legit, Peer-Reviewed Journal: A Journal Article I Read

Welcome back to 'A Journal Article I Read,' a series where I summarize a lady-gasm related journal article in a way that is hopefully both comprehensive and also not too long. You can find a list of all the journal articles in this series HERE.

Here is what I'll be summarizing today.

A woman's history of vaginal orgasm is discernible from her walk.
Nicholas A1, Brody S, de Sutter P, de Carufel F.
J Sex Med. 2008 Sep;5(9):2119-24.

The BS intent of this article - a background from me
This is a unique summary for me because I have a lot to say about not only this article, but also about the author of this article and the background of why this article exists. Spoiler alert: I'm pretty darn disappointed with the amount of bias, the direct link to Freudian BS, the incorrect assumptions about scientific understanding of vaginal orgasm, and the experimental design. 

Let me begin with the quickest summary of my discontent that I can conjure up.
 Freud thought the vaginal orgasm was the only mature way for a woman to orgasm and that ability to orgasm from clitoral stimulation only was a sign of immaturity. He just made that shit up. Like if I just decided to say that for men, orgasm from penile stimulation was infantile, and to gain full maturity a man must be able to orgasm from anal intercourse...and people believed me and acted like it made sense.

Anyway, it was not backed up by reality or scientific investigation and it still isn't. In fact, there actually is still not any physical evidence at all in scientific literature that women can orgasm through vaginal stimulation alone. This is after decades of research into female orgasm - which does btw clearly back up the knowledge that women can and do orgasm from outer clitoral/vulva stimulation just as men do from penile stimulation. Clitorally stimulated orgasms have been observed and physically verified numerous times. Just like penile orgasms, it is fairly clear in scientific literature how they can happen, what happens in the body when they do, and to some extent who can have them...i.e. any intact healthy body is capable of a penile or clitorally (really anything around that tissue even if it's somewhere in between a clit and a penis) stimulated orgasm. Female orgasm is not mysterious or confusing, but vaginal orgasm is because as much as it's discussed, researched, and advised about, scientists have not yet found physical evidence that orgasms can happen though stimulation inside the vagina without additional external genital stimulation.

So, to be real clear, when a person (and believe you me a shit ton of these people are scientists in peer reviewed journals*) speaks about the vaginal orgasm, about what women and/or their bodies are like who have them, about their health benefits, about what they look like in the brain, these people are, if you will, talking out of their ass. If they make no mention that orgasms caused by stimulation inside the vagina, with no additional outer vulva/clitoral stimulation, have never been physically verified, then they are not speaking, and may not even understand, the whole story. We don't actually know if these orgasms can happen. We don't know what is actually happening in the body when the women who say they have vaginal orgasms are experiencing what they call vaginal orgasms. So please tell me how we can make distinctions between women who do and do not have them?


So...what exactly pisses me off so much
Incorrectly going about a study as if vaginal orgasms (orgasms caused by stimulation inside the vag only w/ no additional outer stimulation) are a scientifically understood and verified phenomenon is sadly pretty normal for female orgasm studies in peer reviewed journals. Me critiquing that uninformed assumption in these journal summaries is par for the course, so that's not what I'm most worried about in this one. I'm worried about the Freud-was-right-vaginal-orgasms-are-the-only-mature-sexual-climax-a-woman-can-have-and-clitoral-orgasms-make-women-less-mentally-and-physically-healthy agenda this article and this author seem to have. Because I do feel like there is evidence for this kind of agenda.

A little history of clit hate
Freud made that shit up about vaginal orgasm in his whole psychoanalysis deal. Wilhelm Reich was a student of Freud. Alexander Lowen was a student of Reich. All of them had similar feelings about the supremacy of the vaginal orgasm. Reich combined elements of the body into psychoanalysis and Lowen updated Reich's philosophy. It's called bioenergetic analysis. A main tenet of which is "blocks to emotional expression and wellness are revealed and expressed in the body as chronic muscle tensions which are often subconscious. The blocks are treated by combining bioenergetically designed physical exercises, affective expressions and palpation of the muscular tensions." - from Wikipedia.

Stuart motha-fuckin' Brody
Let me also point out that this is an article by a man named Stuart Brody, who is an absolutely prolific writer of scholarly, peer reviewed research articles jocking hard on vaginal orgasms, penile-vaginal intercourse, and even barebacking. He's not the lead author in this particular one, but I see him as a constant player in Freudian BS studies, so I'm picking on him. Please see a list of some of his articles at the bottom of this post - and it's just a few. This dude really cranks these out. But seriously, just take a minute to check out the names of these articles. I think it will help orient you.

The premise of the article
Anyway, Brody was an author on a previous article that claims to show that women who orgasm vaginally use less immature defense mechanisms. Since one must find some type of measurable aspect of maturity in order to prove someone (non-vaginally orgasming women, perhaps?) immature, that study uses a series of self-report questionnaires about personality and psychological defense mechanisms against a questionnaire about their sex lives...and voila, proof that non-vaginally orgasming women are less mature. And do be sure, Brody cites that study several times to back up a variety of statements he makes in his article I will be summarizing below.

This, I would argue, is the first backbone intent in the article I will be summarizing below: Freud/Reich/Lowen were actually right about vaginal orgasms reflecting female maturity! The second backbone intent takes it all a bit further to prove, as Lowen's bioenergetic analysis would tell us, a mental problem (immaturity) manifests itself in us as a physical problem...often tension or 'muscle blocks.'

So, put those together, and we get why the fuck someone (Brody) would even care to study whether a woman's history of vaginal orgasm is discernible from her walk...because immature clitorally orgasming women probably have tension and muscle blocks, and they won't have that swaaang in their walk like the mature vaginal orgasmers...and this article will prove this and Freud and bioenergetics were right all along!!!!!!

What annoys me? Let me count the things.
  1. So, the premise here in itself is annoying to me. Freud just made shit up. Just. made. shit. up. There's been decades since then that have shown us he was pretty off base - particularly about female orgasm. Why are people still acting like what he says is worth further scientific investigation?
  2. The fact that in this study, and in every other study, Brody and his cohorts assume vaginal orgasms are a verified and scientifically understood entity and that the women in their studies who say they orgasm vaginally are actually orgasming vaginally shows ignorance of the existing scientific data and bad experimental design - and is annoying to me. 
  3. That this study bases its data on how some 'experts' visually rate women's body movement instead of using technology to actually take measurements of things like women's hip rotation is lazy and possibly extremely biased - and is also annoying to me. 
  4. Maybe the most annoying thing is that this shit is somehow legitimate lady-gasm science. This article's in a respected peer reviewed journal - a lot of his studies are. Brody is legit. He doesn't seem to be an outcast from the mainstream lady-gasm researchers (although he does have critics- thank you Prause and others, he's still getting his work into mainstream journals). He teams up occasionally with some of the most well known scientists in female orgasm research (Komisaruk for example) and gets included in major journal expert reviews on the topic of vaginal orgasm. This article has also been referenced a fair amount in pop culture. It was even used in a quite popular book Vagina by Naomi Wolfe to emphasize the importance of and help prove the existence of vaginal orgasms.  

More proof of Lowen/Bioenergetic asshole-ery
Before we begin the summary, I'd first like to show you I'm not completely making assumptions about how deep into the vaginal-orgasms-are-real-things-and-also-the-best-things agenda this article, this author, and Lowen/bioenergetics has. Below is a quote from a book written by Lowen (the father of Bioenergetic Analysis). This book is cited in this here article I am about to summarize. I repeat. This is not from this Brody article, but from a book that is referenced in this Brody article.
Most men feel that the need to bring a woman to climax through clitoral stimulation is a burden. If it is done before intercourse but after the man is excited and ready to penetrate, it imposes a restraint upon his natural desire for closeness and intimacy. Not only does he lose some of his excitation through this delay, but the subsequent act of coitus is deprived of its mutual quality. Clitoral stimulation during the act of intercourse may help the woman to reach a climax but it distracts the man from the perception of his genital sensation and greatly interferes with the pelvic movements upon which his own feeling of satisfaction depends. The need to bring a woman to climax through clitoral stimulation after the act of intercourse has been completed and the man has reached his climax is burdensome since it prevents him from enjoying the relaxation and peace which are the rewards of sexuality. Most men to whom I have spoken who engage in this practice resented it.    
I do not mean to condemn the practice of clitoral stimulation if a woman finds that this is the way she can obtain a sexual release. Above all she should not feel guilty about using this procedure. However, I advice my patients against this practice since it focuses feelings on the clitoris and prevents the vaginal response. It is not a fully satisfactory experience and cannot be considered the equivalent of a vaginal orgasm.  
-Lowen, A. Love and Orgasm: A Revolutionary Guide to Sexual Fulfillment. New York, Collier Books, 1975. pp.216-217.

So, that's the point from which I'm starting this summary, but I'd like to let you see for yourself. I will summarize below as straightforward as I can - just as I always try to do, and I will only add in my thoughts or opinions in the me brackets "[Me:]" So, please enjoy,

Summary quick-style
This article is actually quite simple. 16 women take a survey with a question about how often they reach vaginal orgasm. 8 said they vaginally orgasm always or usually and another 8 say they vaginally orgasm rarely or never. The ladies then meet the researchers outside and walk for 100 meters while thinking of something nice, and another 100 meters while thinking of a man they are interested in romantically. They are taped from a distance doing this, and then 4 people, "two appropriately trained (in Functional-Sexological therapy) professors of sexology...and two female research assistants" watch the tapes and come to a consensus on whether or not each woman has had vaginal orgasms or not. "The basis for judgment was a global impression of the woman's free, fluid, energetic, sensual manner of walking (with an emphasis on energy flow through the rotation of the pelvis and the spine)."

The raters made a correct assessment for 6 of the 7 women who claimed vaginal orgasm and 7 of the 9 women who claimed not to have vaginal orgasms.

I'm going to go over some main points the authors put forth in the introduction with a quick discussion of the studies they cited to support their statements;

This article begins with, "A growing corpus of empirical research has clarified that orgasm triggered by stimulation of the vagina and cervix differs physiologically from climax induced by clitoral stimulation." This is backed up by citations for 2 Komisaruk studies about women with spinal cord injuries having 'cervical orgasms' that are facilitated by the vagus and not the pudendal nerve and also by Brody's own studies about vaginal orgasms being associated with less use of immature psychological defense mechanisms and about there being more prolactin hormone releases after p-in-v intercourse vs. after masturbation.
[Me: Not one of these studies actually verifies that the women who claim vaginal orgasm are having an orgasm, so they're, let's say, not all that convincing. Also, the 'cervical orgasms' in the Komisaruk studies are not only never physically verified as orgasms, but furthermore they are strangely 'achieved' by a method of cervical stimulation that is not something one could do at home or even with a penis during intercourse. These Komisaruk studies referenced here are cited in pretty much any study talking about vaginal orgasms, but are rarely cited, in my opinion, in a way that could actually back up what the authors presume to back up. I detail the main Komisaruk study HERE].

"At a more speculative, theoretical level, the idea that chronic muscle blocks (or excessive muscle flaccidity) impair sexual function by impairing feeling, sexual motility (and perhaps being a tangible representation of corresponding  psychological blocks), and the discharge of sexual tension has it's roots in a theory developed by Reich [11]. His student Lowen [12,13] developed that theory (and safely distanced it from one of Reich's less well reasoned theories later in his life) and the corresponding psychotherapeutic approach of  bioenergetics, which sought to integrate psychoanalytic psychotherapy approaches with direct liberation of chronic muscle blocks. Other body therapies focus more exclusively on the muscle blocks alone. These body therapies and the underlying theory have rarely been subject to empirical evaluation."
[Me: The citations [11-13] are Reich and Lowen's philosophical work including the book by Lowen that I quoted above.].

"However, one study of men found that the Rolfing method of tissue manipulation led to both a decrease in standing pelvic tilt angle and an increase in cardiac vagus nerve tone associated with improved parasympathetic function [14]." [Me: Maybe check out the Wikipedia on Rolfing HERE] There is then a quick discussion of a few more studies, including one that these authors admit does not have clear controls, that relate physical therapy to improved sexuality. The articles cited in this section are pictured below.

"Observation of the characteristics of a person's walk can convey diagnostic information beyond the obvious musculoskeletal an neurological disorders" It goes on to point towards a few studies (pictures below) that illustrate the point.

The Introduction ends with: "The primary hypothesis in the present study is that clinical sexologists appropriately trained in the relationship between personality, sexology, and body movement will be able to differentiate between women with and without a history of vaginal orgasm purely on the basis of observing the women walking. As an exploratory measure, there is also an examination of the association of vaginal orgasm history with specified components of the walk (described below)."

[Me: The introduction of a scientific article, in my opinion, is meant for a few things. It orients the reader to the history of research on the subject thus far. It also sorta justifies why this the experiment being undertaken is a worthwhile experiment and what the outcome of this experiment might mean to the science of this subject. So in many ways, the introduction is an incredibly important thing to read because it gives you a look into the authors' mind. It exposes biases that aren't usually discussed as biases.]

[Me cont: So, to put this in perspective, let me piece together what the authors of this article are trying to do here. They are linking together 1. the Freudian/Reich/Lowen assumption that vaginal orgasm are better for women in the mind, body, and soul. 2. The idea in bioenergetics that psychological/emotional problems manifest themselves in the body, i.e. 'chronic muscle blocks' and 'excessive muscle flaccidity'  and 3. that if a woman were to have these psychological/emotional problems manifest in their body, one might be able to see it in her movement. So, in essence, the authors are going from the hypothesis that vaginally orgasming women are mentally/emotionally/physically  healthier people who will express that health in their energetic movement. Women who do not orgasm vaginally are less mentally/emotionally/physically who will express that unhealthiness in their bad, unenergetic movement.]

Materials and Methods
  • Female psychology students in Belgium were asked (by a female researcher) to answer a preliminary questionnaire on sexual behavior.
  • Of the women who did the questionnaire and who indicated their willingness to be contacted further, 10 were chosen who responded that they 'always"'or 'often' had vaginal orgasms (vaginally orgasmic) and 10 were chosen who responded that they 'rarely' or 'never' had vaginal orgasms (vaginally anorgasmic). Vaginal orgasms being defined as "triggered solely by penile-vaginal penetration." [Me: Are women who 'rarely' have vaginal orgasms the same as women who 'never' have them? I mean, I'm obviously skeptical of all these answers, given that their ability to have vaginal orgasms is not physically verified (and vaginal orgasms themselves have never been physically verified), but even if one believed these women's answers to be completely true, wouldn't one wonder if they were grouped incorrectly? Maybe women who 'rarely' have them are physically capable of vaginal orgasm and the 'nevers' are not. So grouping them together would confuse the results. The authors don't discuss this as a possible problem. Experimental design, people.]
  • The women also reported their ability to have clitorally stimulated orgasms on the questionnaire
  • After anonymity and confidentiality were assured, the women were given a complete description of the study although participants "were blind to the experimental hypothesis." Written informed consent was obtained, and they were scheduled individually to meet the researchers in a public place
  • 4 participants (3 vaginally orgasmic and 1 vaginally anorgasmic) did not show up, making 16 total participants.
  • Participants were asked to walk 100 meters while "thinking pleasant thoughts of being on a vacation beach" and then another 100 meters while "being in the same local but with in the company of a man for whom they had thoughts of love."
  • These walks were filmed at a distance and the videotapes were then rated by "two appropriately trained (in Functional-Sexological therapy) professors of sexology...and two female research assistants." 
  • "The raters conferred and agreed on a vaginal orgasm status for each woman."  [Me: Why did they confer? Why not let them all rate separately and see if they match each other and match the women's self reports? Did they try it that way first but found it made the results messy as hell, so they had them confer and luckily got better, more positive results? It makes me wonder.]
  • "The basis for judgment was a global impression of the woman's free, fluid, energetic, sensual manner of walking (with an emphasis on energy flow through the rotation of the pelvis and the spine)."
  • The researchers all also rated each woman's walk (from 0-10) for the extent of their: hip adduction, hip rotation, stride length, arm movement, and fluidity of movement. [Me: this was made in 2008. It was very possible at that time to use video of women walking to not just visually rate these things, but to do actual objective measurements of things like stride length and arm movement. Since the authors are trying to create evidence that the psychological problems from not orgasming vaginally can literally manifest physically as muscle tension and 'blocks' that make the women walk less 'fluidly,' you would think it useful to show that there are real objectively measured limitations in these non-vaginally orgasming women's movement. Yet, all the ratings on the movements are just, like, the rater's opinions, man. I mean, I'd at least like to see the authors acknowledge their choice and give a quick explanation for why they chose to have only subjective ratings of these women's movements. And, in case you are wondering if 2008 was too early for people to be thinking about the technology to do objective measuring from video and the pros and cons of rating movement that way, you're wrong. Here's a 2007 textbook dedicated to analyzing human movement patterns in relation to sports biomechanics.]
  • "An additional derived variable reflecting the movement of the leg through the back (sum of ratings of stride length and vertebral rotation) was calculated."
  • The correlation between women's reported experience of vaginal orgasm and the researchers' guesses of vaginal orgasm was examined using "chi-square and Fisher's exact tests (a similar analysis was performed for clitoral orgasm history)" 
  • The associations between the researchers ratings of the individual components of a woman's walk and her history of vaginal orgasm were examined.

  • "The hypothesis was supported, because the trained sexologists were able to infer vaginal orgasm history on the basis of watching the women's walk."
  • "Reported clitoral orgasm ability was unrelated to both rated vaginal orgasm ability and to reported vaginal ability."
  • The only statistically significant correlation found between history of vaginal orgasm and any of the ratings of individual components of the women's walks were from the data points made from the sum of stride length and vertebral rotation. [Me: it seems a little fishy to me that this combination was the only element of the researchers' individual movement ratings to show correlation with the women's reported vag-gasm history. What actual meaning does that combo number have in the end? Clearly none of the straight-forward movement ratings such as stride length or hip rotation correlated, and it makes me wonder if that lack of correlation led them to start combining the ratings in every possible way until they found one that happened to have a statistical correlation with the vaginal orgasm self-reports. They call it exploratory, so I imagine this is close to the case. that kind of thing is probably not an uncommon practice and not really unethical or wrong, but it sure seems like it's sort of a disingenuous way to make a study show more positive results. To their credit I will say that when they spoke of this correlation in the Discussion section. They said "However, the exploratory nature of the secondary finding implies that less emphasis be placed upon it pending appropriate replication."  So, I think even the researchers don't place much meaning on this combo rating of stride length and vertebral rotation.]
  • "Age was unrelated to the sexual variables."

  • "Appropriately trained sexologists were able to infer vaginal orgasm history on the basis of watching women walk. The sexologists made global inferences about the women's vaginal orgasm history based on the extent to which the women had a fluid, sensual, energetic, free gait. The ratings were unrelated to the women's reports of clitoral orgasm with a partner, and clitoral orgasm was unrelated to vaginal orgasm."
  • 6 women who claimed to be vaginal orgasmers were rated correctly, and 1 was rated incorrectly.
  • 7 women who claimed not to be vaginal orgasmers were rated correctly and 2 were rated incorrectly.

  • "Although the couple of incorrect diagnoses could simply be that, it is also possible that in the case of the two false positives, it might be that the women have the capacity for vaginal orgasm, but have not yet had sufficient experience or met a man of sufficient quality to induce vaginal orgasm." [Me: I'm assuming the 2 women who were rated incorrectly as vaginally orgasming are not ones who marked themselves as 'rarely' vaginally orgasming (since clearly they DO have a capacity for it), because if that were the case, I feel REAL confident the authors would have been real quick to tell us that and make their results look even better.]
  • The study goes on to say that these women who were pinned by the researchers as vaginal orgasmers but were not, may not have a man with a '"penis of sufficient length to produce cervical buffeting" or that isn't able to keep his erection (either because of erectile dysfunction of premature ejaculation) long enough. They also note the there are studies saying women are most likely to have vaginal orgasms with men who have signs of greater fitness - like attractiveness. [Me: Can I just quickly mention that 'buffeting' can be defined as 'to strike against forcefully and especially repeatedly; batter.' So cervical buffeting with a big ol' dick sounds to me not like a good way to bring about lady-gasms as these researchers seem to say it is, but like a terribly painful sexual encounter akin to a really long and brutal gynecological exam. This banging the cervix for orgasm thing seems kinda out of touch with reality to me, and it's also not backed up in scientific literature, and contrary to what this article would have one believe, it's certainly not backed by the Komisaruk article they cite here. They cite the same Komisaruk article they cite and I discuss in the Introduction that finds women with spinal cord injuries can orgasm from cervical stimulation, but the conclusion is a stretch of the evidence at best (I detail it here). And seriously, this study does not include buffeting the cervix. It actually uses a make-shift thing that does not actually touch the cervix but creates a suctiony stimulation at the cervix, so even if this study did find that orgasms were created from this stimulation (which it doesn't in any verified physical way), it would not be something that could be replicated by ramming a big dick into a woman's cervix. This is the only study I know of (and there are no others referenced) that can support the idea of women needing cervical stimulation or  'buffeting' to orgasm... and it's not a great one.]
  • They point out that "as in any correlational study, a universe of possible unmeasured forces could play a role in the observed findings." They mention that maybe some anatomical features could predispose women to less readiness for vaginal orgasm, and specifically use a recent study correlating more distance between the vagina and urethra to women who claim vaginal orgasm [Me: you can see more on that study HERE. Surprise surprise, there are no actual vaginal orgasms verified in this research, so one should be skeptical of its conclusions] "such characteristics might conceivably influence both vaginal orgasm and pelvic movement directly, whether they are a true precursor of vagina orgasm, or develop as a consequence of developing vaginal orgasm." 
  • They also mention that it might be that women who orgasm vaginally might feel more confident or comfortable or have a better relationship and it shows in their walk. [Me: Ooooorrrrrr...maybe being vaginally orgasmic is a thing women covet because of how much women in movies and porn and books are able to do so, and how much it seems that men like it (remember: stimulating the clit is pretty inconvenient and men resent doing it according to Lowen up there), so after saying they can do that on a survey, those women feel all good about themselves, but the women who just had to admit that they are lame and can't orgasm vaginally on a survey feel, well, lame. Ooooooorrrrr...there were only 16 women in the study, and the raters only got about 82% right, so it might be the luck of the draw and their walks are not really different between groups at all.]
  • They point out this was a small convenience sample of volunteers so that may "limit the generalizability of these results to older women and to the wider community"
  • "The present finding of vaginal orgasm being associated with a more fluid, sensual, energetic, free, unblocked gait adds to the empirical research findings of penis-vaginal orgasm history being specifically associated with the indices of women's better psychological and interpersonal function." 
  • They mention that a recent study [their own previous study] associated women who could orgasm vaginally with having less use of immature psychological defense mechanisms - and say that "Two of the specific immature defense mechanisms (somatization and dissociation) that differentiated vaginally orgasmic and vaginally anorgasmic women might be related to aspects of the present finding. Dissociation involves disconnection of the usually integrated psychological (including sensory-motor) functions of the self, and somatizations involves converting psychological problems into physical complaints and impairments." 

The authors say that even with the small sample, the results are consistent with both theory [Me: made-up Freudian and neo-freudian theory?] and previous empirical findings about vaginally orgasming women having better psychological function. [Me: Let it be known the 'previous empirical findings' they cited were all Brody's own previous studies - 4 of them were cited]
They also say the present findings provide some potential support for "theoretical assumptions of a link between muscle blocks and impairment of sexual and character function" [Me: this is cited with 3 works by the neo-Freudians Lowen and Reich - including the book by Lowen that I quote above.]
The authors also say the findings are "consistent with the possible utility of incorporating training in movement, breathing and muscle patterns into the treatment of sexual dysfunctions"

*I want to give Dr. Nicole Prause a shout out for being a scientist in the lady-gasm field who speaks out in direct ways against those non-sense assumptions about vaginal orgasm. I talk more about here HERE.]

More Articles By Stuart Brody!
Vaginal orgasm is associated with vaginal (not clitoral) sex education, focusing mental attention on vaginal sensations, intercourse duration, and a preference for a longer penis. Brody S1, Weiss P.
J Sex Med. 2010 Aug;7(8):2774-81.

Slimmer women's waist is associated with better erectile function in men independent of age. Brody S1, Weiss P. Arch Sex Behav. 2013 Oct;42(7):1191-8.

Women's partnered orgasm consistency is associated with greater duration of penile-vaginal intercourse but not of foreplay. Weiss P1, Brody S. J Sex Med. 2009 Jan;6(1):135-41.

Simultaneous penile-vaginal intercourse orgasm is associated with satisfaction (sexual, life, partnership, and mental health). Brody S1, Weiss P. J Sex Med. 2011 Mar;8(3):734-41.

Condom use for penile-vaginal intercourse is associated with immature psychological defense mechanisms. Costa RM1, Brody S. J Sex Med. 2008 Nov;5(11):2522-32.

Immature defense mechanisms are associated with lesser vaginal orgasm consistency and greater alcohol consumption before sex. J Sex Med. 2010 Feb;7(2 Pt 1):775-86.

Vaginal orgasm is more prevalent among women with a prominent tubercle of the upper lip. Brody S1, Costa RM. J Sex Med. 2011 Oct;8(10):2793-9.

Greater tactile sensitivity and less use of immature psychological defense mechanisms predict women's penile-vaginal intercourse orgasm. Brody S1, Houde S, Hess U. J Sex Med. 2010 Sep;7(9):3057-65.

Vaginal orgasm is associated with less use of immature psychological defense mechanisms.Brody S1, Costa RM. J Sex Med. 2008 May;5(5):1167-76.


Merry Clitmas!!!!

Merry Clitmas, my dear SSL readers! I'll make this quick. You see, I had planned to get a new 'A Journal Article I Read' post up today, but I haven't quite gotten it finished, and I have a strong feeling that from now until after Christmas day, I won't have time to finish. So, you won't get to read a fun new summary of some journal article relating to female orgasm this Christmas Eve/Start of Hanukkah. To tide you over, though, if you really need to you can go read some of the old ones HERE.

For now, I just need to get a post up to keep up with with my blog posting schedule (one can't get in the habit of getting too far off schedule, now can one?). So, I thought I would just take this time to tell all of you that I am feeling the tiniest bit more renewed. I still have a lot of shit going on with the health of the ol' family, but I've gotten a bit more focused and gained the slightest touch more time to do what I am most passionate about -  policing the discussion, depictions, and scientific investigation of female orgasm. I've got lots more journal summaries up my sleeve, tons and tons more SSL Reviews, and plenty of writings about orgasm equality heroes doing the good work out in the world, and you will see them all in the coming year.

I want more than anything to continue making this blog a strange resource to help other people - sexperts, advice columnists, teachers, parents, researchers, and curious folks - to do their jobs and go about their lives with a more clear, realistic, evidence based understanding of the female orgasm. I hope very much that some random person out there finds my strange blog and pees their pants with excitement at seeing that I have already done some of the legwork of identifying TV shows that depict female orgasm for them to use in their doctoral thesis. I'd love if some internet sex adviser stumbles across SSL, reads the journal summaries, and adjusts their advice to reflect a more accurate understanding of what scientific investigation can and cannot tell us about lady-gasms. I'd especially freak if some young scientists reads this stuff and takes this perspective into their future scientific investigation of the physiology of orgasm. I have dreams, people - dreams of helping other people make the world better for ladies and our orgasms.

Anyway, enjoy whatever vacations or holidays you are enjoying this end of year. I do love you all.

Oh, and just to tease you a bit, here's the journal article you'll be reading about in a couple days

A woman's history of vaginal orgasm is discernible from her walk.
Nicholas A1, Brody S, de Sutter P, de Carufel F.
J Sex Med. 2008 Sep;5(9):2119-24.

Spoiler alert: Freud's grubby little hands still have a tight grip on the world of scientific investigation into female orgasm, and it's gross and stupid and annoying, but Merry Clitmas anyway!

Here's a picture for your enjoyment. 1) All three of my cats sleeping with me while I write is all I ever dream of really. 2) Tina is making it hard for my laptop to be on my lap 3) I think I'm wearing that hoodie in every pic I ever post here. I wear it a lot. 4) I'm wearing that hoodie now.

Ramona, Eds, and Tina, me (left to right). I am the one that's not a cat.