Well, Magic Mike is not technically eligible for an SSL review. There are actually no depictions of female sexual response in this movie for me to critique. However, I felt like I should say something about it since it's kind of a milestone for female fantasy and desire in the media. So I decided to say 5 things.
1. First off, I'd like to defend the large amount of females whose reaction to this movie was disappointment, either with the quality or because there was too much plot, too little strippin'. I've been seeing more and more critics who seem to trivialize those feelings, and I've been feeling a tinge of annoyance about it.
Now, I may be reading into this too much, but I get a small feeling that maybe a lot of critics don't know how to process this movie and women's reactions to it. First off, most critics out there are men, and women are coming from a place that men could not possibly understand. We have been bombarded our whole lives with movies that have men as the dynamic leads and women (the people we most easily identify with in a movie) as cliche'd decoration. Yes, of course, there are exceptions to this but not nearly, nearly enough, and we really do crave something different - even if some of us don't quite know how to verbalize that feeling. Secondly, this movie's got a novel, exciting energy specifically because of the male stripping parts - which does give it a leg up over other movies full of the same ol' same ol', but a male hetero critic saying he liked that aspect but not the plot might feel too weird to some (but I'm sure not all) critics. Thirdly, maybe critics, as critics tend to do, just wanted to differentiate themselves from what the lay-viewers have been saying. Unfortunately most of the critics are men and the lay-viewers are women, so even though this is what critics do, it feels just a little more annoying for me to hear critics poo-pooing average people's reactions. Then on the other hand, there's just a lot of Soderbergh worship out there, and probably some critics just don't want to hear the complaints because they simply couldn't bear to not LOVE his work.
So, let me elaborate more about why I think women's disappointment and the "more man stripping, less plot" attitude is perfectly legit.
Because we would have loved to have seen a movie that was funny, light, and showed a lot of skin and sexy movin' from some hot dudes - which doesn't seem too much to hope for given that funny movies that gratuitously add in female nudity are a staple of Hollywood...we just wanted one movie of our own like that, just one. You should forgive our small disappointment.
Because honestly, the plot wasn't that good. It was a cliche dark-side-of-stripping/romance movie with some questionable acting, editing of that acting, and plot points. Oh yeah critics, I said it. I truly believe that if the movie had a really great plot (plus having Tatum's body), we would have LOVED it beyond belief. We're not movie idiots. We have some taste, and generally we know when something ain't so great.
I'm just gonna say it again. The plot and the overall acting was mediocre at best. I mean come on, are you telling me that Brooke's crying fit over her brother at the end was anything less than hilarious when it was supposed to be dramatic? And really, we're supposed to feel bad for Mike that he can't get a loan to start his business when his business is making furniture from stuff that rolls on shore in front of his beach house...and he already has $10,000 dollars in cash ready to invest? $10,000! How about you use your $10,000 to make some of them fancy tables and put them on Ebay or sell on consignment. There's your business, Mike. Quit whining and start stripping (I mean honestly, why did he quit? It was great pay. How about you just stop partying so hard and instead work on your table making while you continue to rake in the stripper money till you're too old or your furniture business pays off). I have plenty of other complaints about the movie which I'd be happy to elaborate on if you ask, but these are just the easiest pickin's. My point is we ladies have valid reasons for being disappointing with this movie, and I think the powers that make movies should take an earnest listen.
2. This movie gives me hope that those in power may begin to realize that catering to hetero female fantasy and desire could be appreciated and profitable. Almost every straight woman I know saw this movie. Wild ones, silly ones, atheist and religious ones, professional ones, uptight ones, married and single, ones that don't get out much, and ones that do. They all were interested in this movie so they could look at Tatum and McConaughey's skin (or probably also because some of their friends were going, and they wanted to hang out).
I say this because there is a long standing line of thinking within the science community and the culture at large that goes something like this: if women were actually interested in seeing naked men/objectified men/female fantasy inspired sex scenes then there would already be a market for it. This type of thinking assumes that since there isn't already a large market for objectifying men on-screen (they way there is for women), then that in itself proves women aren't interested in that kind of stuff like men are supposed to be.
That's just ridiculous though, people. There are still women alive who were born into a world where women weren't allowed to vote. It's hard to argue that times have change so completely that women and men are now actually playing on an equal field when it comes to influencing our media. I mean, really, this lack of a media market for female fantasy couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that women only direct about 7% of Hollywood movies and hold only about 16% of key roles in the the top 250 movies like producers and directors (2010 stats)? Or that women only made up 14% of writers in the top 250 films of 2011? And , really, it also couldn't have anything to do with all the cultural influences that make it harder, stranger, and socially more risky for a woman to overtly engage in or praise media that sexually objectifies men?
All that said, I'd say it's hard to argue that the current state of our media proves that women just don't want to see men the way men want to see women. Yet this is a common line of discussion. The interest and delight I saw from the women while they were watching these men strip certainly tells a different story, and I suspect that as women become more comfortable in their subjective sexuality and as more women gain decision making roles in Hollywood, we'll be seeing more hot man skin on the big screen - which just might begin to balance out the types of depictions we see of women vs. men.
3. Ladies, make your men go with you to see this. Men expect their women to go to clearly male centered movies with them ALL THE TIME (I mean most of the movie out there are just that, right), and we don't say shit because we're used to living in a world that specifically caters to male fantasies and desires - particularly in our media. Well, this is a movie women want to see, and although it does, for once, cater to some aspects of female desire and fantasy, it is also a movie perfectly acceptable, if not fun, for a man to see. (In fact I would argue that most of the movie is actually geared specifically towards men.) He has no sensible reason to tell you no. If you have to look at an insanely large number of sexually alluring, unnaturally beautiful, under dressed women on magazines, tv, movies, billboards, then he can watch some sexy men stripping for a couple hours. That wouldn't even come close to the amount you have to look at in a day. Tell him to get the hell over it. It's just a flippin' movie. It won't turn him gay or psychologically hurt him. That this is still an issue is telling, very telling. My point is - we need to start expecting men to engage in media focusing on female fantasy/desire within our culture in the same way we unquestionably expect that from women. If we don't start expecting more from men then nothing will ever change.
4. Channing Tatum can move that fine body, and I enjoyed that for real.
5. Matthew McConaughey has a tiny, tiny little butt. We only saw it once, when he pulled the fabric from over his butt cheeks to make ass-less chaps, and I'll tell ya, it was surprising. It was more like seeing the butt of a tiny child getting out of the bathtub than a grown man's. I had no idea.
Well, I just couldn't help posting this. It's pretty appropriate for this blog, so please, Ladies and Gentlemen, give some love to Mike Litoris! (and thanks to Levi for bringing this to my attention)
|Poppy, Betty, and Lilly - A Hassenpfeffer Photo|
These women are part of the house show at White Rabbit Cabaret in Fountain Square here in Indy. The Hassenpfeffer house show also includes The Muncie Brothers, a funny duo of....mimes?, dirty clowns?...(I'm not sure what to call them, but they sort of MC, and one talks and one doesn't), and a lovely belly dancer called Aaminah. However, I'm focusing on the 4 ladies up top because they are the ones telling the twisted little Hassenpfeffer stories through dance up there on the stage.
I know I'm not going to say this in any sort of accurate knowledgeable-about-dance-technique-or-history sort of way, but here goes. The Hassenpfeffer show is kind of set up in cabaret style where the MCs interact a bit with the dancers, and there's a loose (and kind of dark) story line. The dance numbers are a mix of cabaret, burlesque, and straight up contemporary dance. What I really love about these ladies is that they aren't just putting on some corsets and trying out some moves cause there's a burlesque craze out there. There's some real technical skill in this group and the choreography (all done by the ladies themselves) usually has a unique quality with really great character performance from the dancers. Plus, the costumes are always fantastic and often unexpected.
I highly recommend you check out one of these shows. Lucky for you there is a Hassenpfeffer show this Saturday, July 28th (that's 2012 - for you readers from the future). Doors open at 8. Show starts at 10, and it's 10 well spent dollars. Also don't bring kids, cause this venue is a classy ass bar.
Now, I also have to say that I have extra love for these ladies because some of them have alter egos that you might just see in my movie (Science Sex and the Ladies - of course), and one of the alter egos may even own that classy ass bar. Thanks for being awesome and doing interesting things, ladies!
|Eleanor Stackhouse - A Hassenpfeffer Photo|
|Lilly Lou - A Hassenpfeffer Photo|
|Alabaster Betty - A Hassenpfeffer Photo|
|Poppy Staccato with the Muncie Brothers -A Hassenpfeffer Photo|
Diary of a Nyphomaniac clearly deserves an SSL review because the audience sees Valerie, the main character, while she is building up to and in the midst of orgasm many a time...and thus it is quite easy to critique the movie’s level of realism when it comes to how a woman orgasms – physically. However, I’m going to go about this one a little differently. Normally, I pick apart the 1, 2, maybe 3 instances where an audience member could infer information about the female orgasm. However, there are just too many instances in this movie, and frankly the instances are not interesting enough to spend time on. Why, you ask? Because it is just ridiculous in it's depiction of what brings a woman to orgasm.
Valerie is within the tradition of female characters who are hyper responsive sexually. She orgasms easily from just about anything, but the vast majority of orgasms she has in this movie, clearly arise from straight up intercourse with no additional clitoral stimulation. She is like Samantha from Sex and the City or like so many romance novel heroines, or like Anastasia Steele from the recent Fifty Shades of Grey Trilogy. Valerie and those characters like her are, well to be blunt, fake. Yes, her enjoyment of sex is believable, her worries and her life are believable. Her orgasms, however, are just silly – just like Samantha’s and just like Anastasia Steele’s. What’s fake about them?
Well, it's the bull shit all-I-need-is-your-penis-pumping-in-me thing. I've said it a million times in this blog. The organ of sexual pleasure in women is the clit not the vagina. I'll explain a bit (although the movie will explain this in much more detail). The only sexual release recorded that came as the result of pressure or friction inside the quite un-nervy vag is an ejaculation - which means ejaculate spurts through the urethra. That is what "working the G-spot" is known to do.Think of it in terms of males. For both men and women ejaculation and orgasm are 2 different things, and the physiological qualities of an ejaculation are completely different than an orgasm. So it seems reasonable to assume that ejaculation in women (again, the only thing recorded from inside vag rubbing) is similar to a man having an ejaculation minus the usually simultaneous orgasm (this would most likely happen as a result of prostate manipulation without additional penile stimulation). It may well be a physical release, but it's not some kind of mind-blowing uber-orgasm like is so often described in media.
You know what actually can give some knee weakening orgasms during intercourse?? Rubbing the clit against something during the ol' in and out could work just fine. Using a hand (yours or another's) during the act will work great, in fact. A heavenly vibrator on the clitty cat is just dreamy. Or, if you absolutely refuse to pay attention to your clit while you're intercoursing, then according to Masters and Johnson (the people who did the defining physiological studies on male and female orgasms), you can indirectly stimulate the clit when the clitoral hood is pulled back and forth over the clit as the penis pulls on the labia while it's thrusting. Those Rube-Goldberg things are the only type of just-from-intercourse orgasms ever recorded, and they seem most likely to be the type that characters like Valere, Samantha, and Anastasia were experiencing in their mind blowing excursions.
However, those orgasms were the weakest of all the ways the women studied elicited orgasm - both on a physical level and by report of the women themselves. This actually makes sense knowing that the clitoral stimulation in these orgasms were so very, very indirect. Masturbation was the most intense and a clit handies by a skilled partner were the 2nd most intense.
I know I am going to have people reading this; yelling that I don't know shit and that they have 1st hand experiences with deeply amazing "vaginal orgasms." So to you, I say this; I only said that these orgasms you speak of haven't been physiologically recorded (and the ones that look most like these "vaginal orgasms" are super weak). So, if you have these mind-blowing-uber-orgasms just from a a little in and out with no extra clitoral stimulation, then you are very rare indeed, and I suggest you get yourself into the next big physiological orgasm study. I'm not saying the don't exist, just that the only evidence we have is hearsay.
The point here is that characters like Valere, Samantha, and Anastasia make this crazy rare (if even actual) way of orgasming seem normal - or at least seem like it's the way a percentage of normal, albeit lucky women can come. I think it's such a weird warped depiction of the female orgasm, and it's ridiculous that it's strangeness is simply not discussed. I think that characters like these women shouldn't be a written just as particularly sexual women. They should be written as they actually are - which is like almost magically sexual women, like one would write about a person who could communicate with animals, hear people's thoughts, or who have the physical prowess of a Jason Bourne type spy.
So that's my take on this movie. The whole flick is just a big reinforcement of the warped view of lady-gasms I just discussed, and because of that, I give this movie only 1 vulva. I spared it a 0 vulva rating because this movie is not such a bad one in general. If you generally like foreign movies, indie movies, or sexy movies, you'll probably like this one just fine. Unfortunately, though, it just goes against most of the ideals present in my life's work, so, you know....
HERE). I just saw a surprisingly good comedy shorts show. There was only 1 real klunker in the bunch, and that's saying a lot for a festival group of shorts. (If you've ever been to a film fest, you know what I mean)
I've been checking this Festival out since it was in its infancy, and I can honestly say it gets better every year. I think those people do a really great job with the movie selections, and I say this as a person who has seen and been burned by a lot, I mean a lot, of shitty low-budget, indie movies (short and full length), and some really crap festivals.
In fact, even though I actually make low budget indie movies, I don't even know why I still chance watching them. Well, I guess I do. I have a movie addiction. I watch a lot of them. I'm more drawn to new movies, but I'll watch old ones. Any genre will do. I will watch bad movies, trashy movies, long, slow artsy movies. I don't walk out of movies or turn them off. I will watch them all the way through, even if they are stab-a-pencil-through-my-eye-boring. I have a sick masochistic need to finish a movie because maybe, just maybe, it will be worth it in the end. With the exception of the crazy shit at the end of Dogtown, they never become worth it in the end, but I always keep hope.
Then again, sometimes (and, granted, it's a low percentage) my masochism pays off in that I get to see a really cool indie movie, and I truly love that. So what I'm saying is that if you like the idea of seeing a good indie movie that you would never have gotten the chance to see or hear about otherwise, check out the Indianapolis International Film Fest - cause honestly, you'll have a much better chance there than at other festivals I've been to or by just choosing some indie flick on Netflix. Go IIFF!!!!
Anyone want to contribute to the discussion about what slang to use for the term "mutual masturbation"? It's going on in the comments of a THIS Reddit post. So far we've clubrub, dubrub, and the tandem hand em'. We need more, more I say! So all you Reddit folks out there, pop over and give me all the ideas you have. I'm looking forward to some fantastic ideas....
p.s. that Reddit post is about this SSL blog post
I'm still working on coming up with a good slang word/phrase to be used for mutual masturbation, but it ain't no easy task, not no how! However, I did think about a good phase for lady-bation. Maybe this is already used somewhere, but it's new to me. Hand Gliding. I like it. It sounds nice, and it is a fairly accurate description. Just thought I'd let ya'll know about it in case you need a new way to express your intentions to go "hand gliding" before bed or something.
Welcome to another installment of LIKDIT (Ladies I Know Doing Interesting Things). As always, our lady is someone I actually know, and she is putting herself out there with something interesting. LIKDIT isn't about something related to job or family or normal private life. This is about something creative or philanthropic that these LIKDIT ladies are doing in a more public arena. Check out the whole LIKDIT group here. Ah...there are so many to choose from, but today I decided on Ms. Emma Alyce Weber.
Emma came into our lives as a pre-teen actress. She did a small non-speaking role as a1950's daughter in Science Sex and the Ladies during our principle shooting in Spring of 2009. Just a few months ago we called her back, now a rather talented teen, to do a line in our re-shoot of the movie's ending scene. She was fantastic with the line, professional and easy to direct. We also learned that she's a singer/songwriter with a recently recorded album.
I'll be real honest. I love music, but I'm not a music buff. I'm not one to seek out new music, and I don't usually get into random indie/local/rock bands/musicians. It's just not my cup a' meat, ya know. However, I know the gal, and I thought her gumption to write and record music at this age was pretty cool, so I took a listen. There are 4 songs on her album, all available streaming on her MusicStore site HERE, and you know what? I liked them. I was really pleasantly surprised. I came home and had Charlie listen to 'em too...and then we laid down the 4 bucks and bought the album. It was a good decision. (Here's her iTunes site)
Like I said, I'm not a music buff nor any type of music critic, so I'm not gonna try and convey what her music is similar to or give you a big critique. I'll just tell you what I liked. It has a kind of raw sound which I enjoy, and her lyrics were - I don't know - emotive and unusual, a bit unexpected from a 15 year old. The songs never get repetitive or boring - which is one of my biggest annoyances in music. They make me want to play them again and listen to the lyrics some more.
All I can say is I'm impressed with this young lady. She's doing her thing and doing it well...and at only 15. I guess it's possible she may be 16 now. I'm not sure but either way...Rock on Emma.
She's also a local Indianapolis area gal, and you can hear her live next week at the Earth House Collective on Friday, July 20th at 7pm (that's 2012 - for those of you reading this well in the future). Check the details HERE
As I have mentioned before, it is my dream to live in a world where people recognize when books, movies, tv, and other media are depicting or discussing female sexual response in ridiculous and unrealistic ways...and then call them out for it. I couldn't have been happier when a spectacular lady approached me with just this type of criticism for the breakout Fifty Shades of Grey book Trilogy by E.L. James. I was even more excited when she agreed to air her thoughts out in this blog. Today, friends, may I welcome the first guest SSL review by the mysterious and perceptive, Ms. Kat von Sass!
Kat von Sass has a degree in English and is finishing another in Nursing. She’s spent most
of her life on stage doing something or other. You can rest assured that she’s down with
words, bodies and sex.
First off, I think we should acknowledge that this is a specific brand of escapist fantasy. It's Twilight fan fic - for ladies who weren't - ahem - satisfied by the Mormon values-laden tween romance series. But it is also a much broader phenomenon, because just about every girl I know has asked me if I've read it and made a comment about the benefits it would yield for my marital relations. So much has already been written on why women like the idea of submission, why this type of erotica appeals to a certain responsible, partnered, exhausted American woman, etc., so I won't rehash that. But it's clearly there. Secondly, according to the avid researchers of Wikipedia, this was published in varying stages on fanfic websites, on its own website and then by a virtual publisher as an ebook and as a print-on-demand paperback. It seems highly questionable as to whether professional editing was part of the contract in any of these scenarios. Editing is an important part of publishing books. We might not notice if it has been done well, but if it hasn't been done at all (as seems likely in this instance), it's highly irritating.
What annoyed me most, however, was the lack of a certain degree of ... reality. Verisimilitude, if you will. I'm not that worried that young college graduates are going to start interviewing absurdly young, wealthy and hypersexualized CEO's in an attempt to land their own Fifty Shades, but it seems like every lady I have talked to has taken these books straight into her marriage bed to spice things up (which I heartily endorse and support, naturally.) My friend base is primarily married and often has children, so we are right in the target demographic. Generally speaking, we all have a pretty good idea of what happens in a bedroom and are in solid partnerships that could perhaps use a little spicing up. This book seems to fit the bill, playing on an established franchise and selling so well that everyone is reading it while at the same time offering an introduction into sexual practices that are somewhat outside the norm. What concerns me is that this book is written by a woman for the express purpose of titillating and arousing other women (and presumably their partners), and yet seems to fall so firmly into patriarchal images of female sexuality.
Central to the book is great discussion about consent, hard and soft limits and safewords. For the sake of plot the time Anastasia should have safeworded due to physical pain she doesn't and at that point they aren't even having sex. The only time she safewords in a sexual encounter is when he denies her orgasm and she feels that he is being emotionally cruel to her. Birth control is discussed often although it isn’t employed very skillfully. They start with condoms, which he handles beautifully, then try the mini-pill and then Depo- Provera. Christian calls the doctor, he pays for the house call, and gosh darn it if Anastasia doesn't get a) too distraught over their break up to remember her pill and b) just too busy to get her next shot. Her assistant has been rescheduling her appointment every time she asks her to clear her schedule, so even her appointment is not her responsibility. She is not responsible for her own reproductive choices and doesn't even realize she's pregnant until the OB chases her down a hallway in the hospital and forces her to sit down and take a test because she's late for her shot.
Christian is solely responsible for Anastasia’s sexuality; she's been practically asexual before she met him at the age of 21. Let's take the scene where Anastasia loses her virginity, for example. Multiple times she uses the language “gave him my virginity”, making it clear this is an honor she's bestowed upon him. What an honor it is. Prior to this experience, the heroine has been kissed twice by other boys, and once by our hero. He approaches her to begin a BDSM relationship under a very legal sounding contract, then discovers she is a virgin after giving her a tour of his 'Red Room of Pain'. Upon her shocking confession, he decides to “fuck the paperwork” and take her virginity outside of the bounds of the contract - because of course he is already emotionally involved despite his traumatic childhood and emotional scars. He orders her to touch herself, to show him how she pleasures herself so that he can give her a more satisfying experience. Awesome! Rock on. Except that she doesn't touch herself. Ever. Has no idea what that's about. They start to get down, and he makes her come from nipple stimulation alone. I haven't researched this particular brand of orgasm but it seems to me highly unlikely. I'm sure someone out there can do it, but someone out there can also swallow knives and someone else can wiggle their ears. Most of us are neither of those people. We are told over and over and over again how she is instantly wet, always ready, so responsive - just because. Her second orgasm comes from vaginal intercourse, after he touches her clitoris for about three seconds. His initial entry is pretty brutal - she uses the phrase “rips through my virginity” with only “a weird pinching sensation”. Uh... right. He happily pounds her for a few minutes, she loves it, can't get enough, yadda yadda, and then he whispers “Come for me, Ana” in her ear and voila! Orgasm numero dos. Almost immediately after this delightful interlude, she asks to do it again. He obliges, this time
I was watching an old Louis C.K. stand-up special from 2008 last night, and he had a running joke about how his wife will never have sex with him ever again. This is not a new genre of joke. There is a long-standing stereotype that wives stop having sex once they become wives. It's part of the larger genre of jokes about women simply being less sexual. If you ask me, I think there is an underlying issue here that is regularly ignored.
In the show Louis C.K. talked about how at first he was like (and these are not actual quotes), "why would she do this to me? Why would she stop having sex with me?" Then as he got older and more mature in his marriage, he flipped his thinking to, "How did she put up with having sex with me for so damn long? I mean she must have taken about 500 for the team up to this point." He was, as is the comedian way, being self deprecating and referring to his overall (lack of) attractiveness including the disgustingness of his genital area and his fat-assness, both of which he discussed in great detail earlier in the show.
That's all well and good I guess. I mean, he's not my cup of tea, but he's not hideous. I think someone who loved him could easily get into doin' him dirty style. I think he, and so many other comedians miss the point (and miss some unique joke angles too).
He started in the right direction later, when he was discussing how men and women were different. He says men will have sex with a woman even if he's not really in the mood for having sex. Men will make that shit work. Women can decide that they are not in the mood almost any time - including while they are having sex. He jokes that while he's in the midst of sex, someone could show them a picture of his mother with her head ripped off, and he'd basically finish up before getting to that piece of information. Women, on the other hand, just aren't made that way. He then gets even closer to the point when he says he just has a need to come. He needs to come like every day. Then he goes on to joke about masturbation and stuff.
But, back to coming...I'm just gonna put this idea out there. Maybe this stereotype about wives exists because women just don't orgasm very much during sex. And ...it's actually true. They don't. Most women don't orgasm from intercourse and only about 1/3 (give or take) of women say they orgasm most of the time or always during sex. Men...well, men mostly do orgasm during sex - at teh very least - it's more common that it is for the ladies.
After the excitement and elation of the first sexual experiences with someone fades away, after the emotion of a new love ain't so new anymore, what's all that exciting about sex? Oh yeah - the orgasm, and if that ain't happening all that much, do we really have to think too hard about why so many wives have no problem avoiding sex? Is it so hard to see that it's no biggie to opt out of sex, even during the sex act, if you're not on the way to coming during that act? I mean without that orgasm it's just a hurdle to climb before you get to go to sleep and a mess up in your hoo-hoo. I mean it really is just takin' one for the team.
I played with Barbie and her friends for way too long. I'll just come right out there and admit that. At the end of our Barbie careers, my partner in crime and I would spend hours just putting together these elaborate Barbie houses based on bandanas as carpets, beds, and furniture - carefully placed across our bedroom floors. We had tons of bandanas in all colors and patterns.
The older we got, the more time we spent just making their houses and the less time we took to actually play with them, but we still put in a lot of Barbie play time in through our childhood and early adolescents. I used to want a shit ton of kids back in the day, and so my Barbies always had 7 kids (like the Von Trapp family) or 8 (like Just the Ten of Us). My kids would be a mix of Skipper dolls, She-Ra dolls, and those little plastic Cabbage Patch figurines. My BFF didn't really want kids back then - or wanted to adopt (1 boy and 1 girl of course), and that's what her Barbies did.
So, my point is we did all the things with Barbies that everyone supposes little girls do...dating, marriages, pregnancies, babies, divorces, interior decorating, dressing them up, and doing their hair...But, they also had a whole lot of sex. They had to have sex if they wanted to get pregnant and have 7 kids, right?
I bring this up because a woman I know recently admitted with some embarrassment that she had a "wild imagination" while playing Barbies as a kid. She thought it was really weird. I guess I have no shame or something, but I never thought making your barbies do it seemed that weird, and I figured most gals played that way. I know everyone I played with did.
It's hard for me to remember exactly how they had sex, and I'm not sure what I completely understood at those times in my life. I know that it was a fun part of the Barbie playing experience, and it was as standard a part of the play as having babies and going on dates. I know they got naked and rubbed against each other. Probably "sex" sounds were made. I believe there were times they got a little more creative with some kissing all over the body and such, but I don't have a lot of specific memories anymore.
I think it's interesting. I don't have any particular deep important insights from this, but I think this kind of play for girls is probably quite common, and has to both reflect to some degree how we, as little girls, came to understand sex and also must influence our future feelings about sex - at least a little.
So, that said, what, pray tell, did your nasty little Barbies (and Kens) do?