tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24278493234640391962024-03-15T21:10:13.843-04:00SSLA blog expanding on the subjects discussed in our movie "Science Sex and the Ladies." We blog critically on a specific intersection of science, sexuality, and feminism; particularly paying attention to how female sexual response is discussed, portrayed, and studied in our culture. So...if you're interested in science, sex, lady stuff, or indie movie making...this is the blog for you.Charleshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02337249592179616090noreply@blogger.comBlogger893125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2427849323464039196.post-42717042430106233382023-09-03T13:25:00.004-04:002023-09-03T13:25:57.585-04:00This Blog's Moving - More info soon<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php" name="fb_share" type="button_count">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript">
</script> </div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" href="http://twitter.com/share">Tweet</a><script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div> Hello! I am in the process of moving this blog from Blogger and giving it an update. I've been thinking about modernizing for a long time. <div><br /></div><div>The nail in the coffin for me was that Blogger started putting sensitive content warnings on my posts. At first it happened to a bunch of somewhat older posts, but I went through them and clicked on something to have them re-evaluated, and then the warning was lifted. Then it came up for my last post, which was a SSL Review of Jane the Virgin, and there were no options I could find to have it re-evaluated, and I was just kind of annoyed. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, given that Blogger is putting sensitivity warnings on posts that say words like 'orgasm' or maybe 'clit' or 'vulva' (I'm not sure what exactly triggers it, but it must be something like that), and literally the whole point of my blog involves saying words like that - I got to move on. Plus, let's be honest. Blogger is more of an older platform. When I started this in 2009, it was perfect - easy, free, and a big blogging player that people visited. Times have changed though. And there's better places for visibility, ease, look, and ability to be viewed nicely on all the many devices people may use.</div><div><br /></div><div>Also, I and this blog have changed too. I am not as frequent a poster as I used to be. I want to up that, but I also want to be realistic. I'm not a blogger that's churning out new content all the time. And the truth is over the last 14 years, this blog has become less about the newest post I popped up and more about the immense library of content that I've created for visitors to delve through and reference. Like I have 91 movies and 113 TV show posts covering 48 TV series that people can find an SSL Review for and get all the info about how clits, lady-gasms, lady-bation, or eat outs were depicted and discussed. Plus 20 book and 35 detailed scientific journal article summaries people can check out. I also have many posts on lady-gasm topics that I think of as a defining piece about my thoughts and understanding on that subject - not as just a recent musing that serves as my latest blog. </div><div><br /></div><div>All that to say, I'd like to re-imagine this as less of a blog, and more of a library with continually growing content; a place where all this writing and information lives and is categorized and easily searchable. I'd also like to add an element on the site where the Science Sex, and the Ladies movie information lives (what it is, who made it, who's in it, etc.), because that movie started it all, and I think it's part of the whole orgasm equality activism package I want to get out there. </div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway, I'm excited about it, and as soon as I'm ready to publish, I'll make sure you can get to it from here. </div><div><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitqXU80-fCH8YEGEClvH1FYibANQcq5fhMcXfvkXIpd-czQzL9HVue8kS3_l3UprnbJOVpmnCd9cI0ES9sWxCqvg3HjUZhM52TM3xkZg7XFzHxarD_x5e9Bg5pPNryEPnhPsypjcj9I8sg53OfPcmDyJltcotY2kwtV26HdXpzr-D1vHx1egWrHEwf0Nf8/s1821/New%20SSL%20Blog.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="753" data-original-width="1821" height="165" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitqXU80-fCH8YEGEClvH1FYibANQcq5fhMcXfvkXIpd-czQzL9HVue8kS3_l3UprnbJOVpmnCd9cI0ES9sWxCqvg3HjUZhM52TM3xkZg7XFzHxarD_x5e9Bg5pPNryEPnhPsypjcj9I8sg53OfPcmDyJltcotY2kwtV26HdXpzr-D1vHx1egWrHEwf0Nf8/w400-h165/New%20SSL%20Blog.JPG" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The start of creating the new SSL site. I found some old AnC Movies Pics to add to the SSL movie part of the site.</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div><br /></div>Trishahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08846980215552421591noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2427849323464039196.post-71566469683671901652023-08-05T21:54:00.008-04:002023-08-05T22:07:01.006-04:00Jane the Virgin Season 3 Ep 3 - The SSL Review<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php" name="fb_share" type="button_count">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript">
</script> </div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" href="http://twitter.com/share">Tweet</a><script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><span>***I know it's been a while. I have been working on stuff though - promise. The truth is, I'm part way through about 3 Scientific Journal Article Summaries. I started with one and then keep getting pulled into a rabbit hole when it cites another article that I think I should summarize first, and frankly, I need to just get on with it, but have not yet. I'm also working on my first co-authored journal article summary, which is very close to being done. I have the rewrite back from my partner, and I just need to finish. There are a ton of rabbit holes in this too distracting me that I could climb deep into, but I'm trying to keep focused. I just need to finish it up. Anyway, I feel pretty bad it's been so long since a post, so even though I have these others I could finish up and post, the time to finish them feel daunting right now. So, I feel like putting up a quick TV Show Review would lighten my head, and make me feel less worried...and hopefully more focused on just spending the time I need on these article reviews. So that's the story about me (also, although I don't feel like I have enough time for writing, I definitely have a lot of time for consuming media, which I only feel <i>very slightly</i> bad about). </span><div><div><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;">Jane the Virgin</span><div><div>I love me a fun, light show for when I'm doing things, and Jane the Virgin has been recommended to me a couple times. I honestly, saw something years ago that I thought in my head was Jane the Virgin, but now I know it could not have been. I don't know what that show was. I am now on the back side of season 3 for this show, and I do enjoy it. It's like a telenovela, with telenovelas in it, and also other genres poured in. It's drama and sweet and I like many of the characters, and honestly (and strangely maybe for this genre), I think it has a more responsible portrayal of relationships and gender and love and boundaries than I almost ever see on TV. Granted there are exceptions, but overall I respect that aspect of the show quite a bit. </div><div><br /></div><div>Okay, there actually is a fair amount of things to unpack in this show about female sexuality and religion and expectations, etc., but that's not what I do. There is really only 1 episode so far that specifically discusses orgasm. I'll just say, it's not up to my standards, but there is a level of realism and heart that puts it squarely on on the good side of basic shit you would see about ladygasm on TV. Honestly, I feel like if this wasn't network television it would have doubled down on some specifics, like including the clit. I imagine it simply couldn't outright say some things, but I believe there were insinuations that make me believe the intent for progressive clit-based sex depictions were there. I just read this <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2016/11/6/13503056/jane-the-virgin-has-sex-episode-chapter-forty-seven-recap" target="_blank">Vox article</a> about this episode, and I think thought it was sweet and delved into some of the more emotional aspects of the show and episode. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjiTMsMXOCny_F3dEimAvLgsu4Bqygx-fndtS8OtReNjh3858LtDeR3yTyaEY_ysZZUSgvh92BMhaeAtVz6ql7FGqPnzFdIBolx83R6RXcfa2ih4CfFUP3TpDlJLNmn2IeQc57ZqolwAYz5yJRqQKZiOTUjGMJ_E5dSiNlZNN2fdqkNTGWMc6iAAGi4owZ/s2880/Jane%20the%20V.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2880" data-original-width="2160" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjiTMsMXOCny_F3dEimAvLgsu4Bqygx-fndtS8OtReNjh3858LtDeR3yTyaEY_ysZZUSgvh92BMhaeAtVz6ql7FGqPnzFdIBolx83R6RXcfa2ih4CfFUP3TpDlJLNmn2IeQc57ZqolwAYz5yJRqQKZiOTUjGMJ_E5dSiNlZNN2fdqkNTGWMc6iAAGi4owZ/s320/Jane%20the%20V.jpg" width="240" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">An SSL Review (for those that don't know about them)</span></b></div>Only depiction or discussion of female orgasm and/or female masturbation and/or the clit and/or cunnilingus are eligible for SSL Review. Nothing else counts, including plain 'ol sex if it doesn't include anything listed above. I specifically 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 also speak on what the depiction/discussion reflects from and adds to the larger cultural discussion around lady-gasms and female sexuality.<br /><br />You can see all the SSL TV Reviews <a href="http://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2016/04/tv-ssl-reviews-master-list-of-tv-shows.html">HERE</a> (and as always you can find all the movie SSL Reviews <a href="http://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2015/09/master-list-of-movies-rated-on.html">HERE</a>).</div><div> </div></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Ladygasm Scenes</span></b></div></div></div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>This history and the sex</u></b></div><div>You may need some background here. Jane is indeed a virgin up until this episode. She did have a virgin birth, and I'll let you see how that all goes down, but this episode is about the first time she has sex with her husband. I won't say who that husband is. You'll have to watch. What I can say is that in the series so far, it is clear that Jane 'does other things.' There's a narrator in the series and at one point in an earlier episode Jane writes an erotic letter to a boyfriend. We don't hear the contents, but the narrator says something to the effect of, "Jane may be a virgin, but she's not a saint." We see her making out heavy laying in bed and stuff, but we don't actually get a clear idea up to this point about what exactly she's doing (a little oral? handies? clothes buringing?).</div><div><br /></div><div>So Jane and...we'll just call him 'Guy' in case you don't want spoilers...have sex in her bed. We see them making out and taking layers off and laying down. Guy asks if she's nervous. She says 'a little,' and he tells her he wants it to be good for her to which she replies that it will be perfect because it's with him. </div><div>They say they love each other, and the narrator says he can't show what happens, and instead we see a cartoon version of the two in a rocket ship that bust out through the roof of the house and flies around joyfully. </div><div><br /></div><div>We cut back and they are done and naked under a sheet, laying next to each other and looking up at the ceiling. Guy says, "Wow, you and me finishing at the same time. About as a good a time as I could have wanted. How do you feel?" She says, "Good. I feel good. I'm a little thirsty though. Do you want some water." She goes to get water and sees herself in the window. We know she's feeling a tinge weird - disappointed is way too strong of a word, but it's something about the reality of her feelings and the expectation related to the aftermath of this moment she's waited so long for. Outside of the orgasm part we'll get to, I like that the show is gentle and thoughtful with her feelings about this.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>But about the orgasm...</u></b></div><div><br /></div><div>She's at work the next day talking to her BFF Lina. She's telling her she finally did it, and Lina says:</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Lina:</b> ...how was the sex?</div><div><b>Jane: </b>Good...It was good.</div><div><b>Lina: </b><i>(noticing Janes demeanor)</i><b> </b>Oh, no. What happened?</div><div><b>Jane: </b><i>(breathing deeply) </i>Okay, I'm gonna tell you something, but you cannot tell anyone.</div><div><b>Lina: </b>Obviously. Go.</div><div><b>Jane: </b>I faked my orgasm.</div><div><b>Lina:</b> What! Why would you do that?</div><div><b>Jane: </b>I don't know. I panicked. I could tell that he was about to...finish...and he was trying not to, and I knew it was going to take me a while...</div><div><b>Lina:</b> Oh this is bad.</div><div><b>Jane: </b>I know.</div><div><b>Lina:</b> Faking orgasms are for nights when you need to get some rando out of your apartment, not for the guy you're supposed to have sex with for the rest of your life.</div><div><b>Jane: </b>I know! I'm gonna tell him what happened, explain...</div><div><b>Lina: </b>No, no, no. Stop. You cannot tell.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>But she does tell...</u></b></div><div>So later, Jane and Guy are home, He's interested in having more sex, and she's trying to stall. She says they have about 20 minutes until the baby wakes up. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Guy:</b> Perfect. I'll just do exactly what I did the last time. <i>(they kiss some more)</i></div><div><b>Jane: </b>uh...wait...<i>(they're kissing some more)</i>. Hey, so maybe we don't do exactly the same thing as last time..</div><div><b>Guy:</b> What do you mean? Why?</div><div><b>Jane: </b>Well, we can try something different, for variety.</div><div><b>Guy:</b> There's no time. 20 minutes. We gotta be efficient.</div><div><b>Jane: </b>'Guy', wait...but I faked it.</div><div><b>Guy:</b> What?</div><div><b>Jane: </b>My Orgasm.</div><div><b>Guy: </b>Wh-why-why would you do that?</div><div><b>Jane: </b>I<b> </b>got nervous and I wanted it to be perfect, and I saw that you were finishing.</div><div><b>Guy:</b> <i>(sitting down on the bed) </i>Wow.</div><div><b>Jane: </b>I know. I'm sorry.</div><div><b>Guy:</b> Have you faked it before when we did...other things?</div><div><b>Jane:<i> </i></b><i>(very seriously) </i>No. Definitely not.</div><div><b>Guy:</b> Okay, well, we'll just start with the other things then. </div><div><b>Jane: </b>Thank you.</div><div><br /></div><div>From there we see a downward shot of Jan laying face up on the bed. Clearly Guy is down below her waist doing something. My best guess is the insinuation is oral, but it could be just hand stuff. Either way, he's clearly focusing on her genitals while she's laying calmly. However, she gets into her head pretty quick and can't get there. 18 minutes later she tells him she doesn't think it will happen because she's too much in her head now, and he comes up and lays next to her.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>She tries more sexy...</u></b></div><div>Later she tries to spice things up a bit by waiting for Guy on the bed with lingerie and some <i>"Sexy and Wild Gel - with extra stimulation tinglers to enhance pleasure."</i> However we quickly see that when she puts some on, it burns like wasabi. She is fucked up for the whole night, but they talk. He tells her it was a nice idea, and then he asks her not to tell people details about their sex. He says he thinks they should work this glitch out privately. She says yes.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>She tries the orgasm doesn't matter approach...</u></b></div><div>Later Jane gets in bed with Guy and she starts kissing him.</div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>Jane: </b>So...I just ..I don't want you to worry tonight. This is about our love, you know? Who cares about the rest? <i>(starts kissing him again)</i></div><div><b>Guy:</b> <i>(looks perplexed)</i> What? What do you mean?</div><div><b>Jane: </b>Just that the most important thing is our connection and intimacy and... <i>(Guy sighs)</i> What's wrong?</div><div><b>Guy:</b> I'm just bummed that you think having sex with me is so bad that you've given up any hope of having an orgasm.</div><div><b>Jane: </b>No, no, no. That's not what I meant. I just didn't want to pressure you. I want us to get out of our heads.</div><div><b>Guy:</b> Well...now I'm in my head.</div><div><b>Jane: </b>I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I can talk dirty.</div><div><b>Guy:</b> Maybe we should just relax.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>She can't say shit about it, though...</u></b></div><div>The next day she's again talking with her BFF Lina:</div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>Lina: </b>You guys should just bite the bullet and try porn.</div><div><b>Jane: </b>Forget I told you. The sex is good, and I've had orgasms since.</div><div><b>Lina: </b>You're lying.</div><div><b>Jane: </b>No I'm not. <i>(then gets a call)</i></div><div><br /></div><div><b>But she does talk to her other BFF...</b></div><div>Later Jane is having a heart to heart with her mom. There's a gentle conversation about Jane's emotions related to losing her virginity after it was such a part of her identity for so long, and I really do love how the show acknowledges and approached that. At one point Jane asks her mom about Guy,</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Jane: </b>...but what if we're not compatible?</div><div><b>Mom:</b> It hasn't been great?</div><div><b>Jane: </b>We're not really talking about it with other people.</div><div><b>Mom: </b>Ah. Got it. Okay, so you know this has nothing to do with you. But, with sex, it can take time to find your groove, and figure out what you like, and what you need. You're just starting out. You'll get there. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Jane and he man get down to the nitty gritty about this...</u></b></div><div>Jane heads home to Guy, and finds he's looking at the video of their first time (it was an accidental video that, ya know, caused some other unrelated drama). She thinks he's resorted to porn at first. She texts Lina, and Lina says - 'Use it! Join in!' So, Jane heads in the room.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Jane: </b>I'm down to give porn a chance. <i>(sees the video)</i> That's not porn. It's us!</div><div><b>Guy:</b> Yeah, Lina asked for a play by play. I wasn't gonna give her that, but I realized it could maybe help me figure out where it went wrong.</div><div><i>Jan looks at him with a smile as he starts looking at the video and wanting to get into details.</i></div><div><b>Guy:</b> So...there. That was good, right?</div><div><b>Jane: </b>Oh yeah. Yeah, I really liked that.</div><div><b>Guy:</b> Was that moan real?</div><div><b>Jane: </b>Definitely. <i>(looking at it longer, then pointing) </i>And, I liked that.</div><div><br /></div><div>After a little more like that, they are turned on and start making out. We again see the cartoon of the rocket busting out of the house, but it's longer this time and they go all around the world and wave at people and stuff.</div><div><br /></div><div>It cuts back to them in the same position they were in after the first time, but they both seem more engaged and smiley and they high five.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The SSL Review</span></b></div><div>I'm gonna do this Bullet Point style with the thing that can be gleaned about lady gasm from this episode and the what I think about it.</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><i>That even with someone you love, and even if you've been waiting a long time for it, and even if you are a mature lady, you very well might not have an orgasm your first time having intercourse</i></li><ul><li>I mean, yes. I think just that simple thing is a useful point to put out into the world especially for the probably very female and very young audience. If this were more progressive, someone should have just straight out said that clit/vulva play is what is needed for orgasms, like penis play is needed for male orgasm, and that it's backwards to think of intercourse as some special, new orgasm unlock <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2012/10/yeah-you-heard-me-vaginal-stimulation.html" target="_blank">(For Real)</a>. In fact, intercourse just plain isn't good for orgasms and most women don't ever come with a dick inside them. But it wasn't that direct or progressive, and I can understand that given this is a Network show.</li></ul><li><i>That women do fake orgasms and that it's not unusual or crazy for a woman to just kind of fake an orgasm even in a loving situation just because she doesn't know exactly what to do...but that it's not a great idea with someone you want to have a real sexual relationship with </i></li><ul><li>I love that when Lina tells Jane that faking is for randos and not for long term partners that there is both a casual, accepting recognition that faking is something that happens and also that it is not helpful for having a good sex life. I also appreciate how Jane explains why she did it. There's a reality to it that the show doesn't unpack in detail, but I at least appreciate the realism. The truth is that there is an expectation that intercourse is orgasmic for women in and of itself - in fact it's held on a pedestal as the most important and best type of orgasm. It's just plain <i>not,</i> though, and many women hit that reality like a brick wall suddenly when they have intercourse the first time. So, it's really disorienting and confusing and sometimes (probably a lot of the time) the feeling that one needs to embody her expectation wins out over acting on her reality. </li></ul><li><i>That a man's ego can be bruised if they can't 'give' their woman an orgasm during intercourse, but it's not helpful to keep it from him or for him to be stubborn about it. Actually working specifically together as a couple to find out what works and what doesn't is what can get that lady-gasm.</i></li><ul><li>It was hard for Jane to tell him and for Guy to acknowledge and work on it despite his hurt, but nothing would change if they didn't. I do wish there were some more specific things said relating to Jane needing clitoral stimulation during the intercourse, but I think that just couldn't fly on Network TV. I like that their initial first discussions on how to work through this issue indicated that the non-intercourse stuff they had done prior to intercourse did cause orgasm for her (I think most would assume oral and manual stuff - especially from the depiction of Jane laying back for him to do it for her). This is 100% a sensible lesson to give viewers because although intercourse is shit for lady-gasms, stimulating the outer clit/vuvla is fab. So, although the specific aren't there at the end, it could be inferred, and that's not perfect, but better than most depiction.</li></ul><li><i> That taking the possibility of lady-gasm out of the equation during sex and assuming that closeness and love is enough to sustain the sex life...is maybe a big cop out.</i></li><ul><li>I liked this scene a lot because frankly even very progressive advice will just drift past the need for orgasm and say that the other parts of sex, including intimacy and love can be enough. Listen, I'm not saying they aren't important, and I'm not saying that a person engaging in sex for only those reasons is silly or wrong, but I am saying that there is a larger problem with the situation. I think there needs to be a clear recognition that way too much emphasis is put on the idea of orgasm not being important to sex <i>for women</i> (this isn't how it's discussed for men) because there is a refusal to admit that intercourse is shitty for lady-gasm. So, instead of critiquing a culture that ignores this truth and does little to break the pattern of hetero sexual interactions that stimulate the male organ of pleasure (the penis) but not the female organ of pleasure (the clit/vulva), we just keep pushing the idea that it's fine if you have sex where your male partner gets intimacy, love, arousal <i>and orgasm</i>; but you as a female only get the first 3. Like, we keep telling women (and we women in turn keep telling ourselves) to just accept that this is the way of things even though it doesn't have to be. If you choose to not orgasm during sex, that's fine, but for most women, most of the time, it's not really a choice. It's just how things are, and that's bullshit, so I like that Guy pushed back on her about that old (and actually really contemporary as well) trope.</li></ul><li><i>That you just need to talk about what you want and need and intercourse will become orgasmic.</i></li><ul><li>I think in the end one might look at this, at her mom's advice coupled with the lack of detail about what made the 2nd time better than the first, and see two people who just had to have a little experience and then intercourse would <i>become</i> orgasmic. This is a classic idea. In a way, it's true that communication is very important, but it's not true that intercourse - on it's own - will suddenly just become orgasmic for a woman. Intercourse, as is, is vaginal canal stimulation,<a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2012/10/yeah-you-heard-me-vaginal-stimulation.html" target="_blank"> which has never been shown in all of scientific literature to cause orgasm</a>. Orgasm can certainly happen <i>during</i> it due to outer vulva/clit stimulation, and maybe that can be unintentional sometimes, but it's more likely that there needs to be some intentional work on the outer lady parts to make that orgasm happen. I think the intention from the subtle clues in this episode were to insinuate that Jane and Guy incorporated the kinds of clitoral/vulva stimulation that they had found successful in their past experiences. However, there are such incorrect ideas out there about intercourse -as is- being as orgasmic for females as it is for males, that I don't think most viewers will get that subtlety and will assume that intercourse (but just, like, magically different in a way or something) was what made Jane come this time. So, I wish this show could have explicitly mentioned clitoral stimulation needs during intercourse, but it couldn't or didn't, and that's my only real criticism.</li></ul></ul><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>The Vulva Rating</b></span></div></div><div>I am pretty bothered by the lack of specifics that would help me make a clearer case that this show was telling viewers about the need for clitoral stimulation during intercourse. It unfortunately, I think, gives intercourse -as is- hype as a lady-gasm giver, and that's bad for orgasm equality. However, there were so many other discussions and depiction in this episode that insinuated thoughtful and realistic ideas about lady-gasm, that I can't be mad. I also think that there is a strong case for this show intending to not insinuate intercourse -as is- should be expected to cause orgasm. </div><div><br /></div><div>I can not give it a great rating, but I can give it a bit higher than I should. I'm giving this a 4 out of 5 vulva rating.</div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">(!)(!)(!)(!)</span></b></div>Trishahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08846980215552421591noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2427849323464039196.post-5664531404030303552023-05-30T22:19:00.000-04:002023-05-30T22:19:00.189-04:00Amy Schumer SNL S48 Ep5 - The SSL Review<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php" name="fb_share" type="button_count">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript">
</script> </div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" href="http://twitter.com/share">Tweet</a><script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;"><div><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div>SNL S48 Ep 4 Amy Schumer </span><div><div>We all know Saturday Night Live, right? I hadn't seen it for a while because it used to be on Hulu, and then it disappeared, but I have access to Peacock now, so I'm checking it out again. As one might expect the one with Amy Schumer as host has a little lady-bation in it, so an SSL Review was needed.</div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgejNg1Xpvs4Y2sxCMsYIR8a1Pe_VM3pYfucWre0SMHetnaURlPyrETEOOVa64anQyqRaJ7fDAlOLy7BfFhmyXMWf54UiUYWpq85WeoRakSsMGMsCIx6REZEjfo_4jftJYEnIji-ueFHRDea0BgAXTOaaLqVVYeZoW_q93K6VJEFRmGZy03xg1dEMVmEg/s480/Amy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="480" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgejNg1Xpvs4Y2sxCMsYIR8a1Pe_VM3pYfucWre0SMHetnaURlPyrETEOOVa64anQyqRaJ7fDAlOLy7BfFhmyXMWf54UiUYWpq85WeoRakSsMGMsCIx6REZEjfo_4jftJYEnIji-ueFHRDea0BgAXTOaaLqVVYeZoW_q93K6VJEFRmGZy03xg1dEMVmEg/s320/Amy.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">An SSL Review (for those that don't know about them)</span></b></div>Only depiction or discussion of female orgasm and/or female masturbation and/or the clit and/or cunnilingus are eligible for SSL Review. Nothing else counts, including plain 'ol sex if it doesn't include anything listed above. I specifically 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 also speak on what the depiction/discussion reflects from and adds to the larger cultural discussion around lady-gasms and female sexuality.<br /><br />You can see all the SSL TV Reviews <a href="http://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2016/04/tv-ssl-reviews-master-list-of-tv-shows.html">HERE</a> (and as always you can find all the movie SSL Reviews <a href="http://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2015/09/master-list-of-movies-rated-on.html">HERE</a>).</div><div> </div></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large; font-weight: 700;"><i>The Watcher </i>(wherein Amy plays a mother that masturbates to Property Brothers)</span></div><div>I'll give you a quick rundown of the lady-bation stuff in this skit, and then give a quick assessment and vulva rating.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>This skit is called, "The Watcher,"</b> and basically a family (mom, dad, teen son, teen daughter) get a letter from someone claiming to watch them. He describes things they each do in the house, and they all get freaked out. Things people are doing are basic things, but when it talks about the mom, it's stuff she acts like she doesn't do; like eat a whole 2nd dinner after everyone's asleep like a greedy, panicked raccoon. Then it describes what she does as soon as her husband goes out for his morning run.</div><div><blockquote>"She gets a snack, turns on the TV and pleasures herself...to the Property Brothers"</blockquote></div><div>We see her reclining on the couch from afar. She reaches down inside the front of her pants, and then the shot move in to her from the chest up. She's putting a chip in her mouth with one hand and aggressively moving her hand in small circles on what one can only assume is her clit/vulva area. She look wild.</div><div><br /></div><div>The letter eventually begins talking about the mother having trouble in the bathroom and giving herself pep talks to get herself to poop.</div><div><blockquote>"She gets so frustrated, she'll go downstairs and blow off some steam with one of Property Brothers. Why is she so aroused by that show? Is it the brothers...or the property?"</blockquote></div><div>We see her on the couch again with a shot from the shoulders up, and her head's leaned back and eyes closed. She almost looks in pain, but then we hear a slight gravelly "ahhh" as she's breathing out, and then she tilts her head down in a kind of relief with an 'oooo', seemingly like she came.</div><div><br /></div><div>It cut back to the family reading the letter, and the son has the remote and is pointing to the TV. He says,</div><div><blockquote>"Oh my god! Mom, someone downloaded every episode of Property Brothers!"</blockquote></div><div>The mom says, <i>"What?!"</i> as if it wasn't her and The Looker is like trying to frame her or something.</div><div><br /></div><div>Then the daughter goes up to the TV and says, </div><div><blockquote>"And only watched 5 minutes of each one!" </blockquote></div><div>as we see shots of episodes with minutes watched like 5:01 and 4:48.</div><div><br /></div><div>The creeped out family decided that they should stay at a hotel, but the mom volunteers to stay behind. We see her back on the couch watching Property Brothers, and she says, </div><div><blockquote>"If you're watching, it's the property I'm into, not the brothers."</blockquote></div><div> As she's saying this, we see her from afar on the couch in the same way, but this time she's pantless with her legs wide open and a big blur over her vulva. The shot moves to a close of her face. We hear a click and a buzzing sound and then she gets a goofy, cross-eyed, happy look on her face. </div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>I'm into it</b></span></div><div>I mean, I am definitely into this. It's a goofy skit, and the things the mom does that The Looker sees are personal, kind of embarrassing things, so it's not like this was a shining light of acceptance and joy regarding masturbation, but it also wasn't like humiliating or shameful. It was just like a dumb joke. It's a skit that probably any other time would have been written about a dad and his masturbation habits. So, to me, this skit is just normalizing ladies masturbating through humor, and I'm into. It also insinuated a vibrator, and I'm very into normalizing that. </div><div><br /></div><div>Oh - and she clearly masturbates from zero to come in about 5 minutes, and I love that. It's normalizing the idea that women can masturbates as quickly, easily, and reliably as men...because they can - in surveys and in actual lab <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2013/06/oxytocin-orgasm-muscle-contractions-and.html" target="_blank">studies that actually measure and observe physical orgasm</a>. There's an strong idea out there that it takes women longer to come, but that's not true. It just seems true because so much of the time women are not just getting banged, and their vagina is getting stimulation instead of their actual pleasure organ - the clitoris (in the glans vulva area specifically - you know, where the clit nerves are). </div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Vulva Rating</b></span></div><div>I'm gonna say this isn't a progressive take on masturbation acceptance, but it is something a bunch of 8 year old girls staying up too late on a Saturday night will see before they even reach puberty, and that is progress. They will see a woman masturbating on regular old TV and their whole life they will know that is a thing, and that's progress. That is not something most of us had available to us, so I'm gonna say fuck yeah to that. I'll give this a full 5 out of 5 vulvas.</div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">(!)(!)(!)(!)(!)</span></b></div>Trishahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08846980215552421591noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2427849323464039196.post-68791314630501176742023-05-16T13:14:00.003-04:002023-05-17T19:49:24.779-04:00Girls Seasons 1-6 SSL Review - The Cunnilingus Scenes<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php" name="fb_share" type="button_count">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript">
</script> </div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" href="http://twitter.com/share">Tweet</a><script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Girls SSL Review - Cunni-motherF'n-lingus</span></b></div></span></b><div><div>I watched Girls a few years ago and took notes on the SSL Reviewable scenes, but I just didn't do anything with them. I was kind of overwhelmed about how to do them. I was planning to write about all the SSL scenes for the series in groups by category (instead of by episode or episode group), but I just didn't. Then I got the chance to re-watch the series recently while I was doing other shit, and I was able to refine my descriptions of the scenes in question. It also allowed me to kind of think about the sex and sexuality and orgasms in the series from a wider perspective, which helped me understand a bit better how I'd like to write these SSL Reviews, and I'm starting with the eating out scenes.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAgY6EPx_oCBZB9il9NAElRy4o-aO8JJIfP6xDLBKAXUJsjYePFhMtFDs6QHfUtfhZbsrl3O-XRbA8-VvtS0p8B3LEDS3JO2qh3NNVooFpYEhdg0hVOf6Xf3gC189NIWlnQ7FZWjwANmK_JBTQe_ka0DlWE7pd-9j614Gm5rYdDE5ifEMRD508MxFYgA/s259/Girls.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="194" data-original-width="259" height="194" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAgY6EPx_oCBZB9il9NAElRy4o-aO8JJIfP6xDLBKAXUJsjYePFhMtFDs6QHfUtfhZbsrl3O-XRbA8-VvtS0p8B3LEDS3JO2qh3NNVooFpYEhdg0hVOf6Xf3gC189NIWlnQ7FZWjwANmK_JBTQe_ka0DlWE7pd-9j614Gm5rYdDE5ifEMRD508MxFYgA/s1600/Girls.jpg" width="259" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">What is a SSL Review? - The Basics (skip if you already know)</span></b></div>Only depiction or discussion of female orgasm and/or female masturbation/cunnilingus and/or the clit are eligible for SSL Review. Nothing else counts, including plain 'ol sex if it doesn't include anything listed above. I specifically 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 also speak on what the depiction/discussion reflects from and adds to the larger cultural discussion around lady-gasms and female sexuality.<br /><br />You can see all the SSL TV Reviews <a href="http://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2016/04/tv-ssl-reviews-master-list-of-tv-shows.html">HERE</a> (and as always you can find all the movie SSL Reviews <a href="http://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2015/09/master-list-of-movies-rated-on.html">HERE</a>).</div><div><br /></div></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The General Sense of Eating Out In This Series</span></b></div><div>I'm going for the vibe...the feel...this time in these categories of SSL Reviewable scenes, because I think it's more important for this series than the one scene at a time details I usually do. I started the Girls posts in the old way, but only because Season1 Episode2 scenes struck me as a microcosm of the whole series and I wanted to dig into it a little - if you wanna <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2017/04/share-tweet-girls-im-going-to-be-real.html" target="_blank">check that one out</a>. I also did a <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2017/03/girls-ssl-review-overview.html" target="_blank">general feel post </a>of the series way back when I first watched it. </div><div><br /></div><div>The thing I find interesting about this show is that: </div><div><br /></div><div>1. a lot of young women watched this, and with all the sex in it, it's influential media and thus important, I think. </div><div><br /></div><div>2. It's got a rawness and strange realness when it comes to bodies and sexual experiences. Granted the experiences depicted are in no way everyone's experience, but they are experiences that exists and that aren't usually dwelled on in this casual way in media....and to be honest, I think there are core elements of these experiences that are a lot more universal that we'd like to admit. </div><div><br /></div><div>And, 3. Girls as a whole really, and I think intentionally, does well at giving a sense of what sex is like for these characters, these girls, at this time in their lives. It's a truly mixed bag, some loveliness, and bravado, and hope, and confusion, and a whole lot of kinda fucked-up, and I don't think, if you step back and consider sexual culture for women as a whole, it feels that off-base - even though it's pretty intensely messed up at times...and I think that's incredibly interesting and telling. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, this post focuses on oral sex and how it fits in the lives of the characters based on how it was depicted. I'll give you the overview and then more details about each scene will be below for reference.</div><div><br /></div><div>Here's my hot take. Cunnilingus is just not that common in their sexual interaction with men. It's WAY, WAY more outnumbered by simply getting fucked with no lady-gasm (but definitely a dude-gasm) associated. That's the 100%, for sure, #1 type of sexual interaction in this show by far. On the contrary licking lady junk is not at all common, and it's sex with a woman - not a man where it tends to happens. In fact, it's depicted often as surprising when a dude does do it. </div><div><br /></div><div>I'd like to say this is BS and unrealistic, but this doesn't <i>feel</i> that strange. It's pretty consistent with the idea of the Oral Sex Gap. The data on that largely originated from one study, but the idea that there is way more giving going on than receiving <a href="https://metro.co.uk/2016/08/26/the-oral-sex-gender-gap-is-real-and-its-not-okay-6092821/" target="_blank">s</a><a href="https://metro.co.uk/2016/08/26/the-oral-sex-gender-gap-is-real-and-its-not-okay-6092821/" target="_blank">eemed to resonate with some </a>- particularly in casual sex; and the orgasm gap, which is statistically found in many more than 1 study, also resonates (these articles are pretty good <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/oct/10/sex-positivity-sexuality-ambivalence-feminism" target="_blank">HERE</a> and <a href="https://www.thecut.com/2015/10/why-consensual-sex-can-still-be-bad.html" target="_blank">HERE</a> about the issue of consensual, but shitty sex that I think Girls puts in full, unblinking view). Point is, I think pussy eating in this series isn't prominent because as much as we'd like to think otherwise, it seems not to actually be as prevalent as it should be in the single sexual life of liberal, city-dwelling millennials (or any other generation living anywhere and with any political stance, really). </div><div><br /></div><div>The rundown is this. Marnie gets ate out twice. The first time it's with a boyfriend she's dated for 6 years, but then breaks up with, and they get back together. She's super surprised at how good he is at it. Which, ya know, kinda indicates that in the their long 6 years of relationship, this was not something that was a common and/or super pleasurable part of their sex. Later in the series Marnie is eaten out by a casual, but regular, hook-up guy, and we just see him go down and her face seeming to really enjoy it. This is really the only uncomplicated, hetero cunnilingus scene in the whole series. The other 2 scenes are Jessa and then later Hannah going down on a woman they met at, I guess you could call them both certain types of retreats. They were both one-night stands, really. The final scene was just a dude on a one-night stand telling Shoshanna, "I like to eat pussy too. I know it seems really weird, but I do." She is trying to lose her virginity - which means to her (and unfortunately is also the most standard cultural definition) getting a dick in her vagina, so she's not into it, and there ends up being no pussy eating. </div><div><br /></div><div>All in all, no character is depicted getting her pussy eaten in a 1 night stand (and many are depicted getting banged). Only 1 character gets any pussy eating at all, and it's only twice. One time in which it's indicated this is uncommon for their 6-year relationship. Half of the pussy eating scenes are lesbian encounters, and the only significant discussion of cunnilingus is a dude saying he likes it and knows it's weird to like it. There is ton of intercourse in this show and all the women characters are shown having it a number of times, so that 3 of the 4 main characters aren't shown getting ate out at all, is a marked absence. </div><div><br /></div><div><b style="font-size: x-large;">The Vulva Rating</b></div><div>A vulva rating on these Girls scenes are hard. On one hand the lack of actual physical actions that could realistically cause female orgasm is not great. It normalizes the basic hetero sexual script of intercourse and dude-gasm as the main (and often only course) in a sexual encounter. It reinforces these sexual expectations that make the physical act easily orgasmic for penises and barely if at all orgasmic for vulvas and vaginas. </div><div><br /></div><div>On the other hand, it depicts a sort of gritty, realism in the way sex plays out for these characters, and I have an appreciation for that because telling the truth is always important, and the truth often looks, quite rightly, shitty in this show. On the other other hand, even though the truth is shitty and should be seen, continuing to show hetero sex acts that are not inclusive of realistic female orgasm simply piles on the already large problem of our culture's normalization and expectations of male-gasm-centric sex, and that's not progressive. I can't give a good vulva rating for that even if I do have a strong appreciation for it and an understanding that laying the truth out in the light of day is an important part of creating real change. To get a great vulva rating, I want to see depictions of lady-gasms from sexual acts that one could sensibly assume would physically cause an orgasm in a female...AND I would love for it to feel normalized and contribute to the culture of sexuality as something people could/should expect of a sexual encounter. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, all that to say this is getting a low vulva rating because of the lack of cunnilingus depicted in hetero relationships, and especially hetero hook-ups, but not the lowest because the truth in these sexual scenes resonate. I will give this 2 vulvas out of 5.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">(!)(!)</span></b></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>The Scenes In More Detail</b></span></div><div><br /></div><div><div><b>Season 1 Episode 4 - It's weird, though, right?</b></div><div>Shoshanna is about to have a one-night stand with a dude. She's trying to lose her virginity and is trying to get him to have intercourse with her specifically. She, and sadly ya know all of our culture, sees losing her virginity as getting a penis in her vagina, so she's in a hurry to get this done. They are making out and talking about it, and he says, "And I like to eat pussy too. I know it seems really weird, but I do." She seems freaked out by that - maybe because she's weird about sexual things and oral seems more freaky or maybe just because she just wants to lose her virginity and be done. So, she just asks if he wants to have sex. Things happen after that, but there is no cunnilingus or discussion of it again.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Season 2 Episode 10 - Wait!? What did you learn when we were broken up?</b></div><div>Marni and Charlie were dating for 6 year. They broke up, but recently got back together, and the show cuts to a scene of him eating her out. She's on her back, and he's facing her down between her legs - a classic position. She says it feels so good and asks him seriously how he got so good at that and how many women he's been with since they've been apart. By her face and her movements, it clearly is feeling real good to her. He tells he's not going to do this with her and tells her to relax. She obliges and lays back. The scene cuts just after that and before any orgasm, but the insinuation is it's going in that direction.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Season 3 Episode 1 - Rehab treat</b></div><div>Jessa is in rehab, and well, basically she hooks up with this woman. We see Jessa eating her out. The woman laying on her back and Jessa is laying with the face in between her legs, and her legs out towards the bed - again - a pretty classic position. The woman is moaning. It's loud but not too porny, and it's working up to, but not an orgasm yet. It's maybe a bit exaggerated, but I think that's because this is this woman's first lesbian sexual experience, and she's been closeted for her whole life. All in all it seems authentically like it could bring her to orgasm if the scene didn't cut. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Season 4 Episode 3 - Going Down</b></div><div>A casual but regular guy sex partner is eating out Marnie. It's a quick scene, and it's above the waist, but there's certainly a mouth on the vulva, and she's clearly enjoying it and aroused. There is no orgasm by the time the scene ends, but the insinuation is that they are on their way to it.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Season 5 Episode 4 - The hottest oral sex</b></div><div>So, for reasons, Hannah ends up eating a woman out in a sauna. Hannah is not experienced with giving cunnilingus, but this woman clearly seems to be an old-timer at this receiving of it and likely giving too. The lady is very into it and aroused, but Hannah is getting way too hot (literally temperature-wise) and stops. The woman really wants to orgasm, and tries to get Hannah to do it for just like 30 more seconds. She even tries pushing Hannah's head down, but Hannah slips away and gets up. The woman rubs off in about 10 seconds and comes loudly...and then cries.</div><div><br /></div><br /></div></div>Trishahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08846980215552421591noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2427849323464039196.post-45739231367188256022023-04-22T18:59:00.001-04:002023-04-22T18:59:03.554-04:00Match - The SSL Review<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php" name="fb_share" type="button_count">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript">
</script> </div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" href="http://twitter.com/share">Tweet</a><script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;">Match - The Movie</span><div><div>So, I wouldn't blame you if you hadn't seen this move. It was pretty independent and low budget, and it's based on a play, so it's one of those movies that were obviously a play because it has like 2 sets and a lot of dialogue. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi43eR5C8_WH_SHeyVSHZ8_BpCb-QqZcAKR-EjLSrLvJs9iYb-H29BH1f0yecNynD2TzyG4uWYh-5x1tVQrPHw3CZsxkD4FIs1l_-kfpeWj29qjYNcnCkOIWeSUBNJDs_0IyOIPR8ZB9rsLNcN0k3TIj44Wekl4n_QoRlJzdDZWpzxwNvI2QWGpKi4XFw/s1200/Jean-Luc-Picard-jean-luc-picard-24183226-950-1200.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="950" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi43eR5C8_WH_SHeyVSHZ8_BpCb-QqZcAKR-EjLSrLvJs9iYb-H29BH1f0yecNynD2TzyG4uWYh-5x1tVQrPHw3CZsxkD4FIs1l_-kfpeWj29qjYNcnCkOIWeSUBNJDs_0IyOIPR8ZB9rsLNcN0k3TIj44Wekl4n_QoRlJzdDZWpzxwNvI2QWGpKi4XFw/s320/Jean-Luc-Picard-jean-luc-picard-24183226-950-1200.jpg" width="253" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div>All that said, I was into it. And, it's not just that it stars Jean-Luc Picard of the USS Enterprise, who I've had a heavy crush on since the 80's when I started watching him and Data and all the fab starship crew. It helped, obviously, but I actually think Patrick Stewart usually for real brings it to a role. Anyway, I liked the movie, and he said one thing in it that makes it SSL Reviewable. It's super simple and barely SSL Reviewable, but I just wanted to write about my Jean-Luc saying something I would like to think he actually says in real life. Also, somewhat recently Patrick Stewart married a brunette white lady, who is not famous and my age, so I feel like I missed out on my true path somehow. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgunFo_GFhbJ8GXZ8jGJETYRjydQ6XXuccDE9gWIsUdXc73qUmpBMp6CGIC2EIaZzUxxGsN3dwl2tsARTthv9tm4XmHS7g1g--jkjula7pBJNeKjdVAX8cwNhyhPQZfrFAw3imOCoJsQO3pGgwySM6_s-uaDO2Ec159RbDnET6yGTzzsV7cmhhg72u2hg/s384/Match_poster.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="384" data-original-width="259" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgunFo_GFhbJ8GXZ8jGJETYRjydQ6XXuccDE9gWIsUdXc73qUmpBMp6CGIC2EIaZzUxxGsN3dwl2tsARTthv9tm4XmHS7g1g--jkjula7pBJNeKjdVAX8cwNhyhPQZfrFAw3imOCoJsQO3pGgwySM6_s-uaDO2Ec159RbDnET6yGTzzsV7cmhhg72u2hg/s320/Match_poster.jpg" width="216" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">An SSL Review (for those that don't know about them)</span></b></div><div>Only depiction or discussion of female orgasm and/or female masturbation and/or the clit are eligible for SSL Review. Nothing else counts, including plain 'ol sex if it doesn't include anything listed above. I specifically 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 also speak on what the depiction/discussion reflects from and adds to the larger cultural discussion around lady-gasms and female sexuality.<br /><br />You can see all the SSL TV Reviews <a href="http://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2016/04/tv-ssl-reviews-master-list-of-tv-shows.html">HERE</a> (and as always you can find all the movie SSL Reviews <a href="http://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2015/09/master-list-of-movies-rated-on.html">HERE</a>).</div><div> </div></div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Eat ME Out, Captain</b></span><div>So, I won't give away anything about the plot of the movie, because I don't want to spoil anything. It's that kind of movie. What I can tell you is the my Jean-Luc plays Tobi, a high-end ballet teacher at Julliard that back in the day used to live the good dancer life. He tells some stories of the old days, and in one he says:</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Tobi Powell:</b> God, I used to love to perform cunnilingus. Sorry, too much information. </div><div><b>Lisa Davis:</b> Uh... no. </div><div><b>Tobi Powell:</b> I was actually quite good at it. A little like the slip stitch knitting that I would later take up, over and under... mark thumb placement in the gap between needles, [both laughing a little] </div><div><b>Tobi Powell:</b> break yarn, thread tail, draw up, fasten off...I've offended you. </div><div><b>Lisa Davis:</b> No, uh... just catches me a bit off guard. </div><div><b>Tobi Powell:</b> Well, most good cunnilingus conversations do.</div><div><br /></div><div>I mean, I'm gonna give this a good vulva rating - not the very best, but good. It wasn't like anything super amazing was said here. It wasn't like there was an incredibly progressive discussion about how <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2012/10/yeah-you-heard-me-vaginal-stimulation.html" target="_blank">banging a vagina was not a good or even slightly sensible way to get a lady-gasm</a>. It was just a dude talking about how he enjoys eating out pussy, but ya know what? We could use more of that, so I will celebrate it a little. I do believe each year the idea that pussies (or if you want to call them by their proper name, Vulvas) should be eaten as much as dicks are sucked, grows the tiniest bit, but we still have a long, long way to go. The <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2017/09/ellen-scott-badass-article-on-about.html" target="_blank">Oral Sex Gap</a> is sadly very much still alive and well, and certainly a no small part in the overall Orgasm Equality Gap. </div><div><br /></div><div>The more we hear people in the media say they like cunnilingus; the more we hear women saying they masturbate; the more we see the clit being rubbed out or a vibe used on the vulva during a fuck; the more we hear a woman say she expects her clit to be as involved in the sex act as much as the penis is, the more normalized all those things will be, and that's a big part of what's needed if we ever want lady-gasms to be as prominent in sex as dude-gasms. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, thank you Jean-Luc. I'm going to masturbate tonight to you cunnilingussing me. 4 out of 5 vulvas from me.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>(!)(!)(!)(!)</b></div><div><br /></div>Trishahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08846980215552421591noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2427849323464039196.post-73101206081205690512023-04-11T19:10:00.004-04:002023-05-28T21:12:21.318-04:00Girls S1E2 - The SSL Review<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php" name="fb_share" type="button_count">Share</a><script src="https://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript">
</script> </div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" href="http://twitter.com/share">Tweet</a><script src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<br /><b><span style="font-size: large;">Reviewing Girls</span></b><div>I put up a post about the overview of the entire Girls series in 2017 - 6 years ago. I just reread it, and I liked it. It did present the feel in that show of female sexuality and orgasm pretty well as I remember it - a mixed bag of old-timey and contemporary notions and experiences with sex; where the women are overly accommodating yet straightforward, invested yet taking things as they come with a lightness and humor, enjoying it yet having a pretty shitty time. It feels very raw and real in a certain way, and I appreciate it, even if I'm not so sure this complicated relationship to sex is particularly thoughtful and intentional. I suspect it's more likely just written from earnest experiences and it comes off this way because real women are existing in this plane and writing from that point of view. You can <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2017/03/girls-ssl-review-overview.html" target="_blank">give it a read</a>. It's a good starter to these Girls SSL Reviews that I'm finally doing. <div><div><br /></div><div>My plan is to do these reviews in categories based on the series as a whole. Like, I'll have a post about all the masturbation scenes and then all the scenes where a girl gets fucked and just doesn't come, and then another where a girl gets banged and "orgasms." However, the sex scenes in S1 E2 spoke to me a bit. It feels to me like they need to be discussed together as their own thing because, well basically, I see them as two sides of the same coin. Women not caring about their own desire and orgasm; men not thinking about anyone but themselves.</div><div><br /></div><div>There are 2 scenes. The first is with Hannah and Adam - not even really dating - just some hook-ups. Hannah is desperate to please him. Adam is aggressive, says disgusting shit, does whatever he wants. The second is Marnie and Charlie. They are 23 and been dating 4 years. Marnie seems over him. Charlie is gentle, says loving shit, and does things he thinks will please her. What the two men have in common is that neither notice how completely unaroused the woman they're fucking are...and it's pretty obvious. The thing the two girls have in common is that neither has brought their physical sexual desires into the bed. </div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvH8yv-6ZqQBxDIYKUUuLYPgfK044-RZ1-HmpdsKtewq9pyYKMBkjZ_PHtFmFKOSB7G5H93obEyPz0TD69tZ1yucQfllY9T1iFYQE_M95QVscqhY2STJ_UuOh4BalX_c3lXfMtZ0furt9SuuPNQzO_H36-XfwtdcWD3CwgaAhDFiJZ70wvsDaNj8dJPA/s1440/girls.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1440" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvH8yv-6ZqQBxDIYKUUuLYPgfK044-RZ1-HmpdsKtewq9pyYKMBkjZ_PHtFmFKOSB7G5H93obEyPz0TD69tZ1yucQfllY9T1iFYQE_M95QVscqhY2STJ_UuOh4BalX_c3lXfMtZ0furt9SuuPNQzO_H36-XfwtdcWD3CwgaAhDFiJZ70wvsDaNj8dJPA/s320/girls.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">SSL Review basic (skip if you already know)</span></b></div>Only depiction or discussion of female orgasm and/or female masturbation and/or the clit are eligible for SSL Review. Nothing else counts, including plain 'ol sex if it doesn't include anything listed above. I specifically 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 also speak on what the depiction/discussion reflects from and adds to the larger cultural discussion around lady-gasms and female sexuality.<br /><br />You can see all the SSL TV Reviews <a href="http://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2016/04/tv-ssl-reviews-master-list-of-tv-shows.html">HERE</a> (and as always you can find all the movie SSL Reviews <a href="http://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2015/09/master-list-of-movies-rated-on.html">HERE</a>).</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>The Scenes!</b></span></div><div>Let me explain each scene quickly, and then I'll give the big overview. It'll be very exciting. <br />
<br /><b><span style="font-size: medium;">
Hannah and Adam</span></b><br />They're on his bed. Adam's pounding her, missionary with her legs pushed up against her stomach. He's way into it and saying all kinds of gross shit. She's in no way aroused and just kind of talking back to him in a very casual way. He's telling her he found her in the street. She was 11 with a Cabbage Patch lunch box, and he's going to send her back to her parents covered in cum. At first she's slightly confused but nonchalant as he's saying this stuff, but then she starts to catch on that he's role-playing and starts to play along. She's doing that in a way that is not her getting aroused by it, but her understanding what she is supposed to do in the situation and doing it. He flips her around a bit, then pulls out and asks where he should come. She's incredibly nonchalant and still not at all horny in this situation too, and he starts wanking to come on her tits. He's like crazy aroused, and she is absolutely not. He tells her to touch herself. She asks where, and he tells her she knows where. To that, she says that honestly it's a little hard from that angle. He drops it and is continuing to say dirty shit. He goes into telling her she needs to ask his permission to come, and if she even thinks she might come she has to call him. She just says, "you want me to call you?" Then he puts his hand on her cheek and presses her face sideways on the pillow, comes, and rolls off.</div><div><br /></div><div>She says, "That was really good. That was so good. I almost came." He doesn't care. He just asks if she wants a Gatorade.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;">
Marnie and Charlie</span></b><br />
They are on her bed in her and Hannah's shared apartment, in the same position as Hannah and Adam when their scene started. She is also very much not into it, and he very much is, but he's not pounding. He's slow stroking, but not grindy. He's saying sweet things like asking her to look at him so they can look into each other's eyes when they come. First, she's nowhere close to even thinking about coming, and also she's clearly annoyed and looking to the side. She tells him she wants to turn around and do doggy. They talk about how he thought she hated doggy, and then he gets inside her and starts going on and on about how good it feels and how he's going to have to go slow. She clearly just wants him to finish the fuck up so they can be done.</div><div><br /></div><div>Later we see them arguing in the living room as he's about to leave. He's telling her he doesn't even know how to make love to her anymore. She's annoyed by that and tells him he should just do what you want and go on with his day because that's what guys do. He's annoyed by that. He tells her it's crazy, and asks her if he should just be some dumb abusive sex dude. </div><div> </div><div>Then Hanna gets home and the two gals have a conversation where Marnie tells Hannah that Charlie is too busy respecting her and just looks past her. Hannah points out they've been together 4 years, and it's probably normal if she's just bored. That annoys Marnie in its simplicity, but Hannah holds her ground and says she doesn't buy that Marnie's problem is that she has <i>too </i>good of a boyfriend. Then Hannah tells Marnie that Adam's still on with the gross stuff; the hooker stuff, daddy stuff, a platter of 'stuff'.' Clearly it's a thing they'd previously discussed as gross. Marnie is appalled and tells Hannah that Adam can't do that to her - he's not her boyfriend. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Discussion</span></b></div><div>First, in neither of those sex situation was there anything even slightly involving the clit. There were no hands, no vibrators, not rubbing the pelvis against bodies or bedding. For these ladies, there was just a penis moving in and out of a vagina. That does not an lady-gasm make. Contrary to popular belief, the stimulation of the inside of the vagina has never been shown to cause an orgasm in all of scientific literature (<a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2012/10/yeah-you-heard-me-vaginal-stimulation.html" target="_blank">For Real</a>). For the vagina-haver, that is. A penis rubbing into a vagina, on the other hand, has many a time shown been shown to cause orgasm in scientific literature for the penis-haver. That is also true for stimulation around the vulva/clit area. Many a time has that brought about observable, physical orgasm response.</div><div><br /></div><div> All that to say that the sex these 2 girls were having might seem different, but they're not. They are both doing what so many a lady have done for ages - having intercourse and not orgasming. It's the most basic it can get. The talking and the style of the two dudes is kind of irrelevant because either way, their partner's bodies are in no way getting the kind of orgasmic stimulation that their own bodies are. And, yeah, one might be saying gross things and one sweet things, but neither of them are looking at their partner and acknowledging what a very, very different experience their lady is having. Both of the dudes, in the end, are authentically and understandably getting incredibly physically aroused by their penis being simulated by a vagina and then, very incorrectly, assuming their partner is feeling similarly. </div><div><br /></div><div>Both the women are having sex with a person in a completely unaroused state and are doing their very best to ensure that their partner orgasms while having absolutely no expectation or intention to come themselves. Even Marnie, through her annoyance, is determined to get him off. She absolutely doesn't even want to be there at all. She is annoyed as hell with him, but she doesn't have any intention to stop until he comes. Granted she wants it done fast, but she is letting him use her unaroused body to come, like it's his right or something - just as Hannah is. </div><div><br /></div><div>I like these 2 scenes juxtaposed because I see it as examples of how big a part non-physical things become in a sexual relationship when the physical parts are not in the equation. I mean, this must be how Marnie and Charlie have done it for years, right? He seems like he's confused about why her attitude suddenly changed. He says he doesn't know how to make love to her anymore as if he's doing the same thing, and she has changed her attitude about it. He's confused, and she might be to some degree too, but I'm not. It's the oldest story in the book. I highly suspect she never or rarely came while they were making love for the past 4 years, but she was enamored with him - just like Hannah is with Adam right now. We're so fucked up and confused about sex and lady-gasms in this world that she probably just thought that's how things were. That's what sex is like, and she focused on the love and closeness and all that jazz, but when those things drop out, the sex is just a piece of a body poking inside her body. It's not arousing. Charlie, on the other hand, had always come, so even if the feelings leave, at least the orgasm is left. </div><div><br /></div><div>Marnie and Charlie have likely been experiencing sex completely differently for the last 4 years, but don't really realize it. The same is true for Hannah. She's the same as Marnie, but early in the relationship and willing to put ups with just really bothersome shit because she likes that he is engaged with her when they fuck. I feel like the extreme sweetness from the long-term relationship and extreme grossness from the new relationship really drives that point home. </div><div><br /></div><div>These two scenes feel very real. Like these are situations, give or take some elements and extremeness, that many a woman or her friend have gone through, and don't ya just know, we can, as always, thank a male-gasm centered sexual culture that has very little realistic room for clitoral stimulation and thus very little room for female orgasm. </div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Vulva Rating</b></span></div><div>I have to say, because these scenes struck me as speaking, in their juxtaposition, about the plight of a female sexuality devoid of orgasm across the timeline of a relationship, I'm feeling generous with the Vulva Rating. It feels poignant to me. It's also realistic in its <i>lack</i> of orgasm depictions, because there were simply not physical things happening to these women that could realistically be said to cause a lady-gasm. I, obviously, appreciate that...and further - I appreciate that the lack of orgasm wasn't sort of hidden. It was really obvious neither of these women were even aroused. There was no ambiguity there. </div><div>On the other hand, my hot take on this is a bit in the weeds here. I think it'd be easy for someone to just watch this and see two gross/funny/strange sex scenes. In the end they are in some ways like most sex scenes out there - a woman getting banged. So, it's not really progressive in that it's not modelling better, more lady-gasm friendly ways to go about sexual interactions, and we desperately need scenes like that to make clit-focused sexual interactions seem more mainstream and expected. So, I can't give it a full 5 vulvas, but it gets a super respectable 4 out of 5 vulvas.</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>(!)(!)(!)(!)</b></span></div><div><br /></div><div>
<br /><br /></div></div></div>Trishahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08846980215552421591noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2427849323464039196.post-41505162579809982342023-04-04T21:56:00.008-04:002023-04-04T21:56:59.351-04:00Firefly Lane Season 2 - The SSL Review<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php" name="fb_share" type="button_count">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript">
</script> </div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" href="http://twitter.com/share">Tweet</a><script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;"><div><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div>Firefly Lane - Season 2</span><div><div>I SSL Reviewed the first season of this show, and it only got 1out of 5 vulvas. One of the characters on here is a classic <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2014/10/dear-kim-cattrall-can-we-talk-about.html" target="_blank">Samantha from Sex in the City</a> archetype; a woman that is touted as being uber-sexual and confident by simply being REALLY into the types of sexual interactions that are realistically orgasmic for males but not females. It's kind of a pretend (but not uncommon) idea of a strong female sexuality. Tully in this show is that - <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2022/10/firefly-lane-season-1-ssl-review.html" target="_blank">HERE's</a> the S1 Review. This is a Netflix show recommended me by my BBF. We've been friends since about the 2nd grade, and this show is about childhood BFFs as they move through life. It's originally a book, I think. I'm always looking for shows to have on while I'm doing stuff. They keep my interest but not too much; a little bit drama, a little bit sappy, occasionally genuinely sweet. This show meets the requirements. I actually burned through this season 2 while I was cleaning, and it was pretty much exactly what I wanted. This season has less SSL-reviewable moments, but don't worry, they're still pretty bad. </div><div><br /></div><div>As I often say, just because women are involved in the making of something about female orgasm, doesn't mean you should expect it to be more sensible or anatomically accurate than something made by dudes. The sad truth is we're all largely miseducated and confused. I mean, Romance Novels are written largely by women, and although there's some with very sensible lady-gasm scenes, there are also tons of wildly inaccurate ones - often hilarious, but completely unrealistic and sometimes straight up bonkers. </div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMMcTgxZNigjcrlbFbY4FRCJICq8YggaRLicKawJb972UYyQoHX1YZK8v_uu6hsrOwPjBfCaMtTEhbIOTbf8QPzSGuQrGWqoL9Mf7bNF6ittrJ7ykiXI1JT6qf4JH6k6vXnC9B6hkvHqR94e0x4j6eDxn91qdvTCKJqhOEVunBB4GqPH68TxuPxv0IgA/s1280/FireflyLane.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMMcTgxZNigjcrlbFbY4FRCJICq8YggaRLicKawJb972UYyQoHX1YZK8v_uu6hsrOwPjBfCaMtTEhbIOTbf8QPzSGuQrGWqoL9Mf7bNF6ittrJ7ykiXI1JT6qf4JH6k6vXnC9B6hkvHqR94e0x4j6eDxn91qdvTCKJqhOEVunBB4GqPH68TxuPxv0IgA/s320/FireflyLane.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">An SSL Review (for those that don't know about them)</span></b></div>Only depiction or discussion of female orgasm and/or female masturbation and/or the clit are eligible for SSL Review. Nothing else counts, including plain 'ol sex if it doesn't include anything listed above. I specifically 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 also speak on what the depiction/discussion reflects from and adds to the larger cultural discussion around lady-gasms and female sexuality.<br /><br />You can see all the SSL TV Reviews <a href="http://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2016/04/tv-ssl-reviews-master-list-of-tv-shows.html">HERE</a> (and as always you can find all the movie SSL Reviews <a href="http://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2015/09/master-list-of-movies-rated-on.html">HERE</a>).</div><div> </div></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Office Closet Bang - The Basics - 1st scene</b></span></div><div>I'll cut straight to the chase. There's a scene where Tully gets banged in an office closet. It's quick. You see them making out and then she's sat on a shelf, facing the dude (we'll call him 'Dude'). He's facing her with her legs straddling him. They seemingly start the intercourse. He really bangs her, and then they both seem to come at the same time. There's no hands or vibrators down there near her clit area. Her pelvis isn't grinding up against him. It's just straight bangin'...just a penis stimulating the inside of her vagina (which is absolutely not something one should realistically expect to cause orgasm - <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2012/10/yeah-you-heard-me-vaginal-stimulation.html" target="_blank">for real</a>) They finish, and it was clearly amazing for both of them. HOWEVER, if we throw in the reality of female anatomy, and what is actually known about how females orgasm in the scientific studies over the last...oh, say, forever years, then it's incredibly unrealistic that the action we saw would actually get Tully off. That ol' Dude got off, however, is completely in line with scientific, anatomical, and real-life experience understanding of how a male body might orgasm.</div><div><br /></div><div>As is often the case this very common and basic scene just reinforces the very incorrect assumption that ladies should just come from getting banged...or maybe even more damaging - that certain (special) women can just come from a penis stimulating their vaginal barrel because, well, their lady junk is somehow different than others or they are cooler or more relaxed/sexual/confident or something like that. It's not an assumption has a base in reality, but it is a super common assumption and one that haunts many a person as they navigate their sex life. Scenes like these keep that alive and well.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b style="font-size: x-large;">Sometimes A Girl Just Likes To Get Banged - 2nd scene</b></div><div>This is a line Tully says to her BFF Kate...and Kate agrees. I find this scene incredibly troubling. Basically, Kate is talking about her boyfriend - a guy we know she will not end up with because we already know who that guy is. Kate's saying how nice and perfect he is. Tully starts calling bullshit because she's too syrupy. I actually like that part - she was absolutely too syrupy and bullshit should have been called, but Tully makes an assumption and starts questioning the sex in their relationship. Basically Kate says he's great and attentive, and sensitive, but eventually, against Tully's continued skepticism, agrees with Tully when she says, "but sometimes a girl just likes to get banged." In fact, clearly it's a bother to Kate that this dude doesn't just ram the shit out of her. </div><div><br /></div><div>Okay, so I get that getting and certainly giving a hardcore bangfest can be fun, crazy/wild, arousing, and lots of other things, but for <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2012/10/yeah-you-heard-me-vaginal-stimulation.html" target="_blank">all the reasons</a> I talked about above, it's very, very, likely not orgasmic - women are already not coming nearly as much as we could/should. So, yeah, maybe Kate wants a good banging. I'm not against a bang or someone wanting a bang. We already know Tully loves a bang. But, I am against glorifying the already <i>overly</i> glorified bang by throwing under the bus the very attitude from a man that could realistically create lady-gasm inducing sexual situations. So, this scene hits a nerve for me. It strongly insinuates that a man who is attentive to a woman's sexual needs and is thoughtful and sensitive is lame in bed, and what women really want is a dude that fucks her brains out. It's egregious to me because this isn't some hot take that only women could give about what women want with sex. It's not a funny, interesting tidbit between close women friends about the no-hold-barred reality of what sex is like for the ladies. It's just the basic cultural story we're told about what sex should be like, but spit back out thorugh the mouths of lady friends. And the gross part is that this cultural story is the very age-old cultural story that keep vaginal intercourse as the be-all-end-all of sex and thus keeps the female orgasm largely out of sexual encounters. </div><div><br /></div><div>Listen, if Kate were a real person that said this, and not a TV character, I'd put insane amounts of money down that she'd be changing her tune down the road. After a few years of getting banged by the same dude over and over, of largely not orgasming when she has sex, of still being aroused after he comes and not getting the physical relief of an orgasm, of watching her dude orgasm almost every single time while she doesn't so much, of naturally losing all the excitement that comes with a new person/new sex/ new love that made orgasmless sex seem so exciting...I mean you know that other cultural story we often hear about where women stop wanting to have sex after they get married? It comes from some place, and I venture to say that place is a sex life full of lady-gasmless banging that over time lost the excitement/newness/arousal that it had at the beginning and slowly makes sexual encounters less desirable for her but fairly similar to him and his orgasm-<i>full</i> sex life. I think this is incredibly common - and sadly neither party truly understands why. </div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway, this scene just that shitty cultural story deeper into our collective conscious and makes it seem like it's a story women want and need in our lives, when it's quite the opposite. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Vulva Rating</span></b></div><div>For all the reasons above, and because I just really hate that "sometimes a girl just likes to get banged" scene so much, especially because this should be more of a lady-centric show, and is in other ways, I give this season 0 vulvas out of 5.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div>Trishahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08846980215552421591noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2427849323464039196.post-62781945909709196582023-02-23T23:02:00.003-05:002023-02-23T23:02:48.432-05:005 Movies Related to Friendship #DirectedbyWomen<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php" name="fb_share" type="button_count">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript">
</script> </div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" href="http://twitter.com/share">Tweet</a><script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>I have never let this blog go so long between posts. 2 1/2 months is too long. I mean, obviously my ideal is to write a lot, and I'll get back to it. I've been consciously focusing on other stuff, but I'm feeling more available lately,. Baby steps, though. Right now, it's late on a Thursday, and I'm watching The Divine Secrets of the Ya Ya Sisterhood. I earlier walked to the store and got some Cheez Wiz and Triscuits, which I'm eating and it's great. I also got a box of strawberry cake and strawberry icing. I just pulled the cake out of the oven and am waiting to ice it. I like to add a little sugar sprinkles to give it a bit of a crunch. Anyway, I thought I could get a quick 5-movies-by-lady-directors list up, and since I'm watching one about friendship, I figured I could do the list with that theme. So here ya go. Enjoys.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>A Little History of These Lists</b></div><div><div>I started doing this categorized List of 5 movies thing where I showcase movies that were directed by women and <i>that I have actually seen</i>. It all started during the <a href="http://directedbywomen.com/">Directed By Women Worldwide Viewing Party</a> in September 2015, and it was pretty fun, so I've continued doing it from time to time.</div><div><br />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<br />1. this blog is also about indie movie-making, and<br />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.<br /><br />You can find all my 5-movie lists <a href="http://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2017/09/tons-of-movies-directed-by-women-you.html">HERE</a>.<br /><br /><b>So, here friends, are 5 great lady-directed movies that touch on motherhood.</b></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Movies</span></b></div></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large; font-weight: 700;">1 </span><b><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0279778/" target="_blank">The Divine Secrets of the Ya Ya Sisterhood</a> </b>was directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0451884/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Callie Khouri</a>. I think that I saw this back when it came out in 2002. It seems kinda familiar as I'm watching it right now, but not completely. I read the book back then, so I'm not sure if it was just that making it seem familiar. Anyway, my mom had read it - maybe for a book club - and recommended it to me. I might have actually listened to it on tape. I had a long commute to college and work back then, and I would often get books on cassette tape from the library. Anyway, I enjoyed it. I say if you want to watch a fluffy and dramedy about rich old southern women that have been friends since childhood, it's a good bet. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_Qq_DwizL0k" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large; font-weight: 700;">2 </span><span style="font-weight: 700;"><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077613/" target="_blank">Girlfriends</a> - </span>This was directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0918041/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Claudia Weill</a>. I actually just saw this movie today as well. It just popped up when I was searching on the HBO streaming app. It's from 1978, and I thought it was a pretty solid movie - especially as 70's indie movies go. I almost wondered if the movie Frances Ha had been influenced by it. The director, doesn't look like she did much except for an after school special after it, which sucks because I would definitely watch another movie from this write/director. It's for sure about friends. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5CXtQmQSSqM" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large; font-weight: 700;">3 </span><b><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1691323/" target="_blank">Attenberg</a> - </b>This was directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0718125/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Athina Rachel Tsangari</a>. I caught this a few years ago streaming. It's a Greek movie, and the friendship between 2 young women is a huge part of it. It's strange, and sweet, and sad, and I think it's well worth a watch. I'm just now thinking I should probably check out another of this women's movies.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZyfGZpzoDDc" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large; font-weight: 700;">4</span><span style="font-size: xx-large; font-weight: 700;"> </span><span style="font-weight: 700;"><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2404465/" target="_blank">Troop Zero</a> - </span>This was directed by the directing team <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2134432/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Bert</a> and <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1232262/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Bertie</a>. This was a sweet, fun ol' movie about a bunch of kids forming a Girl Scout style troop. It's a good watch if you haven't seen it. I think it was a pandemic watch for me.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Gi4C6GncmQ4" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-weight: 700;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">5</span></span><span style="font-size: xxx-large; font-weight: 700;"> </span><span style="font-weight: 700;"><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13308316/" target="_blank">Babysitter</a> (2022) - </span>This was directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2873161/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Monia Chokri</a>. I'm telling you what. I just happened upon this movie, not thinking it'd be much, but I was wrong. It was weird as fuck, and I was into it. I'll let you make your own decisions, but I'd watch whatever this women makes. I can also say it's at least a little about friendship. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7IygwowW3I8" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>Trishahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08846980215552421591noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2427849323464039196.post-12374637228917214312022-12-10T21:21:00.005-05:002023-05-28T21:20:35.817-04:00The New York Times Recent Clit Article - To Better Clit Knowledge in Medicine!<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php" name="fb_share" type="button_count">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript">
</script> </div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" href="http://twitter.com/share">Tweet</a><script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Just in the off chance anyone was hoping for more content in the last month and a half and was disappointed at my disappearance, I'd like to assure you I'm still here, and I'm still thinking about clits and lady-gasms and all that. <div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXCBHw-Vk1On88DJYHcc49RMb9n8bCkK04csPPbf6b6QTEwAe6mOHy5ERcShH-FUJdYpgO-3fFZQa0nZf8UP_yYPWC1LTFJB-2-LqvUuyzQvE6VvqeKjCcXmDmlc9tZzcxkeL127hRRvyjfRfGrNuyc5u8FTFzAVk4Q9DpwGkGK7l-JosnxwX0NVxZ6A/s1334/1_HAr-10fuuHirXsKhR0y3Ww@2x.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="750" data-original-width="1334" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXCBHw-Vk1On88DJYHcc49RMb9n8bCkK04csPPbf6b6QTEwAe6mOHy5ERcShH-FUJdYpgO-3fFZQa0nZf8UP_yYPWC1LTFJB-2-LqvUuyzQvE6VvqeKjCcXmDmlc9tZzcxkeL127hRRvyjfRfGrNuyc5u8FTFzAVk4Q9DpwGkGK7l-JosnxwX0NVxZ6A/s320/1_HAr-10fuuHirXsKhR0y3Ww@2x.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div><br /><div><br /></div><div>So, at the end of October an article came out in the the New York Times titled, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/17/health/clitoris-sex-doctors-surgery.html?unlocked_article_code=7gf1EB2gPR5XJ_7jXQhsbf2ZPd33VB-Nq3UeOvfZRv6WRhYkpBoY00H85x6siPK_ZG-L2wnYMs0LV8rCCHZ5KIn_OQVmuT1ugKH153Vg9AbKGp0yTnzegjmywUzf-Xqz8gdrBhJhKOi2JwHmPw31jeNK-lj75xYuNJCTz1BEnBkulxlmCunWpve9Nnm0xdRHOR0XxRI1NUNF01CG9mQx2Uhk8Q7k-c8P_LTetatXfXDih1MIp4iW0joWBZKlfT71vhrRsQqREqAnNfZ483HsuttNyipC1LK8DYuYanE3SQCXAB-5DZzhDuQqPjF2mRwtH8jENmnJ8JBVDDVBR_cRVyGzDT93&smid=em-share" target="_blank">"Half the World Has a Clit. Why Don't Doctors Study It?"</a> I kept seeing people post it on social media. Obviously, I was super interested, but I'll be honest, when new clit or lady-gasm related media comes out, I get...I don't know...exhausted, maybe? So, I avoided it for a while. I get worried that as is the case often, I will find they reinforce ideas that <i>seem </i>progressive and <i>are</i> super popular among the sex-positive, educated crowd, but are actually quite scientifically incorrect and backwards. I have to kind of get in the mood for them because I know I'm going to want to write about them in a critical and detailed way. I know that not only will it take a fair amount of time and effort, but it will just be a drag that this shit fake-science is still making its way into high end media outlets where a large chunk of otherwise educated, thoughtful people take it in as if it's settled fact. It's annoying and little depressing, ya know. However, a cousin in New York sent me the link, and I was like, 'alright, it's time. I gotta check this out now.'</div><div><br /></div><div><b>And you know what? I was pleasantly surprised because this article really just stuck to the absolutely sensible assertion that there is a lack of care and knowledge related to the location of nerves, which is a huge problem for surgeries, etc. I'm 100% down for getting that info to a wider audience.</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>It begins by following the story of a woman that had a biopsy around her clit that resulted in damaged nerves to her clitoral glans which seemed to sever her ability to orgasm. It was possibly related to some extremely hard pressure from the doctor's hand put against her pelvic bone to stop some bleeding. When she realized what happened and how permanent it seemed, she talked to all kinds of doctors. They didn't really believe her, and suggested things like hormone creams, that she get over the trauma of the biopsy in her mind, or get an <a href="https://drjengunter.com/2016/07/05/does-the-o-shot-give-insanely-good-orgasms-or-it-it-a-no-shot/" target="_blank">"o-shot"</a> in her vagina (a completely unverified, and frankly silly attempt at helping women with low libido and orgasming). She said the doctors just avoided the topic of her clit all together. </div><div><br /></div><div>I mean, this so tracks in my opinion. Even though the clitoral glans is absolutely as important to female orgasm as the penis, it is ignored and minimized constantly in discussion about female orgasm. It's bonkers actually. It's similar to if the penis were often only mentioned in discussion of how males come after a long discussion of mental relaxation, overall arousal, hormone balance and all the other erotic spots on the body like the anus and nipples (and vaginal canal - but that doesn't fit in my male body metaphor at this moment), and then only mentioning the penis as <i>just another</i> important erotic area - and if there's real progressive thinking - that 'most' men need penis simulation to come. It's like even though the clit gets name dropped by the sex-positive and progressive professionals, it still doesn't really factor in a deep, real way as the central piece for female orgasm. It's just skipped over. Why would the medical profession be any better? The discussion from her doctors, just like general discussion about female orgasm, minimizes the clit and focuses on those same things that get thrown around to try and justify why women seem to have such a problem reaching orgasm with a partner; hormones, mental strength, and vaginal-related topics. The very first topic that should be discussed is ensuring that the clitoral glans is getting the stimulation it needs. Is there actual, appropriate, physical simulation happening to the clit, and such as in the case above, is the stimulations getting where it needs to go through healthy nerves? These would be the first thoughts given to a male and his penis if orgasms were not happening. All that to say this lack on knowledge, interest and focus on the clit is a whole world problem, so of course it's a medical problem. I very much love that there is more and more push on the medical community, with things like this article, to not be so fucking stupid about it...because that just might trickle down into the rest of the world. </div><div><br /></div><div>The article goes on to talk about a <a href="https://twitter.com/drrachelrubin/status/1142139436462985216" target="_blank">Dr. Rachel Rubin </a>, who after an internship with Dr. Irwin Goldstein, has focused on the clit in her practice and advocates for other gynecologists' to take more notice as well. She exams women's vulvas and clits when they come in. There are common problems that could be easily helped with this simple practice, such as <i>"clitoral adhesions, which occur when the hood of the clitoris sticks to the glans and can lead to irritation, pain and decreased sexual pleasure."</i> Also, it is noted that, <i>"There have been documented injuries to the clitoris in procedures including pelvic mesh surgeries, episiotomies during childbirth and even hip surgeries. When performed poorly, a labiaplasty — a procedure to reduce the size of the labia minora, and one of the fastest-growing cosmetic surgeries worldwide — can also damage nerves, leading to genital pain and loss of sexual sensation."</i></div><div><br /></div><div>I only had one problem with this article, which in the scheme of things is pretty small and nitpicky. There's this 1998 article authored by Urologist, Dr. Helen O'Connell that sometime in the late 2010s got picked up in pop-science media as a scientific article that finally discovered the full structure of the clitoris - as in that there was this huge inner portion that people didn't know about. You might have seen things online showing the outrageous "fact" that the the full structure of the clit wasn't discovered until 1998! Yikes, right? But, it's 100% not true. I have <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2021/01/was-clitoris-really-discovered-in-1998.html" target="_blank">a whole, long-winded, piece</a> showing how that article did not and never claimed to have discovered the inner structures of the clit, and that it actually only asserted that another known structure close to the clit should also be called part of the clit - a still controversial, not settled anatomical idea. </div><div><br /></div><div>However, TONS of pop-science media refereeing to this article goes even further, and absolutely incorrectly assert that O'Connell article also now allows us to understand where vaginal orgasms come from. It in no way does, and now I've been seeing pop media less referencing the 1998 O'Connell article, and more references to some of her later articles that expand on the work in that 1998 article, but again, don't assert the things pop media says they do. So, when I saw O'Connell's name in this NY Times article, I was worried, and indeed it incorrectly spoke of her 2005 article as <i>"showing that the outer nub of the clitoris — the part that can be seen and touched — was just the tip of the iceberg." </i> As I said, her article did not do that, and she does not claim in the article to have done that because the full clitoral structure was well known for at least a century prior. </div><div><br /></div><div>I'm happy to say, though, that this NYT article stopped at that first incorrect assertion about the O'Connell article and didn't take it to the place that really infuriate me - very incorrectly asserting it shows us how 'vaginal orgasms' are actually 'inner clitoral orgasms.' All that to say, it was actually quite a delight to see that. It's truly a relief <i>not</i> to read a wildly popular article in a widely respected news outlet that isn't riddled with backwards, uninformed, incorrect lines of discussion about clits and orgasms. </div><div><br /></div><div>Actually O'Connell, interviewed in the NYT article, was beautifully advocating for better understanding and awareness of nerve structure in the female pelvis from the medical community. <i>"By failing to appreciate this anatomy, she warned, surgeons working in this region risked damaging the sensitive nerves responsible for pleasure and orgasm, which run along the top of the shaft. In procedures like pelvic mesh surgeries or urethral surgeries, 'things are potentially in the crossfire,' Dr. O’Connell said. 'You always need to be thinking of what’s underneath, what’s hidden from view that you’re potentially altering.'"</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>The article goes on to point out some doctors and advocates that are doing the damn thing. They are investigating female pelvic nerves, relaying information to areas of the medical community about this and showing 'danger zones' for cutting to surgeons. There is advocacy for more information in medical books and medical training, and social media consciousness raising. </div><div><br /></div><div>If you area able to get a free read or have a subscription to the NYT, I highly suggest a read. Despite my sometimes avoidance of and exhaustion with clit/ladygasm pop science article, this was a good one that gave me some hope. This element of the Orgasm Equality Movement is getting a bit of traction. I mean, a good first step in ladies having more partner orgasms is to, ya know, not accidently sever their clitoral nerves during routine procedures and for gynocologists and urologists to actually care about and talk about the clitoris. Love it.</div></div>Trishahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08846980215552421591noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2427849323464039196.post-27592611674983236242022-10-31T00:31:00.002-04:002022-10-31T00:31:27.615-04:005 Classic Style Horror Movies #DirectedByWomen <div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php" name="fb_share" type="button_count">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript">
</script> </div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" href="http://twitter.com/share">Tweet</a><script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>It is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beggars_Night" target="_blank">Beggars Night</a> in Des Moines. If you don't know what that is, I'm not surprised. It's the strange way they do trick or treating in Des Moines...and I just now realized when I linked to the Beggars Night Wikipedia page that there are actually a few other cities that do it. It's usually the night before Halloween, although it could be different. The city sets it, and in Des Moines, the kids have to tell jokes to get candy instead of saying "trick or treat." In my few years of experience, though, a lot of kids don't tell jokes, which is a little disappointing, but I love it anyway. It's the best part of Halloween for me.<div><br /></div><div>Another part of Halloween that is less cute and fun is the scary movie portion of Halloween, and that is why I'm here: to give you a list of movies you can watch while waiting for kids in costumes to knock on your door and ask for candy. <br /><div><br /></div><div><b>A Little History of These Lists</b></div><div><div>I started doing this categorized List of 5 movies thing where I showcase movies that were directed by women and <i>that I have actually seen</i>. It all started during the <a href="http://directedbywomen.com/">Directed By Women Worldwide Viewing Party</a> in September 2015, and it was pretty fun, so I've continued doing it from time to time.</div><div><br />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<br />1. this blog is also about indie movie-making, and<br />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.<br /><br />You can find all my 5-movie lists <a href="http://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2017/09/tons-of-movies-directed-by-women-you.html">HERE</a>.<br /><br /><b>So, here friends, are 5 great lady-directed movies with that classic horror feel.</b></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Movies</span></b></div></div><div><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;">1 </span><span><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084695/" style="font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">The Slumber Party Massacre</a><b> </b>(1982)<b>- </b>This was directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0427468/?ref_=tt_ov_dr#director" target="_blank">Amy Holden Jones</a>. I just saw this a few days ago. I looked up a list of women directed horror movies, and I had to check this one out, amiright? Glad I did. It was an interesting watch because it was like it was trying to do some 1982 style feminist shit, but it also had to be a horror movie of the time, which is super misogynist. Like there's a whole shower scene that's just about T&A for no good reason, so many of the shots are ass level, and there's a whole drill-as-metaphor-for-dick killing a woman...which ya know thinking about it could be a feminsit statement too depending on how you look at it...maybe... Anyway, it's all classic in that way, but also, the slumber party gals are all on a basketball team wiht a cool woman coach - granted they don't seem to wear bras when they practice, but ya know they tried. Also, the telephone repairwomen and the carpenter are women, and the slumber party gals know how to check the fuses when the power goes out. I mean it's not everything, but I feel like it's an attempt at representation, and I appreciated it. Also, I looked it up, and it was written to be a spoof on the horror genre, but ended up getting shot as a straight up B horror movie - I'm assuming because that's what could get funded. Either way, I liked the little peak of progress in it, and it was silly in only the way a 1982 horror movie can be. As of Halloween 2022 - this was on Amazon Prime, so no reason not to watch.</span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div></div> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-vrSx--k0_k" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">2</span></b> <b><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14449392/" target="_blank">Slumber Party Massacre </a></b>(2021) - This was directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0261629/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Danishka Esterhazy</a>. There's some sequels to the original directed by men that I did not seek out, but this 2021 lady-directed remake of the original, I definitely did. It's a solidly fun, yet classically ridiculous horror-style re-imagining of the original complete with Easter eggs. It also had some gratuitously unnecessary (but oh so necessary) hot-bodied dude scenes. Top notch.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1D2PzVAotio" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">3</span></b> <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093605/" target="_blank"><b>Near Dark</b></a> - This was directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000941/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Kathryn Bigelow</a>. It's the whole 80's western vampire teen movie vibe. Never heard of it until I found and watched it, but well worth the watch. Check it out.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7HL3JgadNlY" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">4</span> <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067929/" target="_blank">The Velvet Vampire</a> - </b>This was directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0580571/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Stephanie Rothman.</a> I mean, if you wanna check out an oh-so-70's B-movie swingin' vampire in the desert situation that makes sense sometimes, maybe...and you really do want to check it out, I'm pretty sure, then do watch this movie. I saw it on Tubi - free with commercials. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/n14rbnUtE94" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">5 </span><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103893/" target="_blank">Buffy the Vampire Slayer </a>- </b>This was directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0476900/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Fran Rubel Kuzui</a>. I saw this movie back when it came out with my BFF. We loved it - particularly that Pee-Wee Herman made his post-jacking-off-in-an-x-rated-theater-and-getting-kicked-out-of the-biz debut as a vampire in it. I hated the tv show when it came out and never watched it. I'm definitely team movie Buffy. Anyway, it's a pretty dumb, fun teen vampire comedy. Worth a watch if you haven't already seen it.</div><div><br /></div> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cw584-A9sAU" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>Trishahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08846980215552421591noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2427849323464039196.post-42463313088662086342022-10-09T20:40:00.005-04:002022-10-09T20:40:44.933-04:00Firefly Lane Season 1 - The SSL Review<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php" name="fb_share" type="button_count">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript">
</script> </div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" href="http://twitter.com/share">Tweet</a><script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;"><div><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div>Firefly Lane - Season 1</span><div><div>So this is a Netflix show recommended me by my BBF. We've been friends since I was 8 and she was 9, and this show is about childhood BFFs as they move through life. It's originally a book, I think. I'm always looking for shows that I can put on and not pay too much attention too but that also hold my interest to some degree- and if they make me cry for sappiness sake - even if it's not that great, well that's just icing on the cake. This show meets the requirements. I watched Season 1, and there were a few SSL moments for me to review. Spoiler alert. It's not gonna be a great vulva rating. </div><div><br /></div><div>If you were of the mind that something made for women with women involved in the making of it should be well done in the discussion/depiction of lady-gasm department, then you are mistaken. They might be, but they also very well might <i>not</i> be. Romance Novels would be a case in point. </div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMMcTgxZNigjcrlbFbY4FRCJICq8YggaRLicKawJb972UYyQoHX1YZK8v_uu6hsrOwPjBfCaMtTEhbIOTbf8QPzSGuQrGWqoL9Mf7bNF6ittrJ7ykiXI1JT6qf4JH6k6vXnC9B6hkvHqR94e0x4j6eDxn91qdvTCKJqhOEVunBB4GqPH68TxuPxv0IgA/s1280/FireflyLane.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMMcTgxZNigjcrlbFbY4FRCJICq8YggaRLicKawJb972UYyQoHX1YZK8v_uu6hsrOwPjBfCaMtTEhbIOTbf8QPzSGuQrGWqoL9Mf7bNF6ittrJ7ykiXI1JT6qf4JH6k6vXnC9B6hkvHqR94e0x4j6eDxn91qdvTCKJqhOEVunBB4GqPH68TxuPxv0IgA/s320/FireflyLane.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">An SSL Review (for those that don't know about them)</span></b></div>Only depiction or discussion of female orgasm and/or female masturbation and/or the clit are eligible for SSL Review. Nothing else counts, including plain 'ol sex if it doesn't include anything listed above. I specifically 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 also speak on what the depiction/discussion reflects from and adds to the larger cultural discussion around lady-gasms and female sexuality.<br /><br />You can see all the SSL TV Reviews <a href="http://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2016/04/tv-ssl-reviews-master-list-of-tv-shows.html">HERE</a> (and as always you can find all the movie SSL Reviews <a href="http://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2015/09/master-list-of-movies-rated-on.html">HERE</a>).</div><div> </div></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">4 Wild and Crazy Orgasms - The Samantha Effect</span></b></div><div><div>Basically there are 4 scenes where Tully, one half of the Tully-Kate BFF unit that is the center of this show, has wild, vocal orgasms in situations that are super unlikely to ever cause a human female to orgasm. Basically, she's just getting banged by a dude with a penis, and there is no sense that anything (a hand, bedding, a vibrator, the dude's pelvis area) is stimulating her clitoral glans/vulva area. Despite pop-sexpert, pseudoscientific talk about how the <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2021/01/was-clitoris-really-discovered-in-1998.html" target="_blank">"inner clit"/c-spot</a> or the G-spot is supposed to be a valid thing that can be stimulated by penises and dildos in order to make a woman come just from getting banged - it's just not backed by any of the serious, physical scientific research of the last century - despite LOTS of trying to do so. <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2012/10/yeah-you-heard-me-vaginal-stimulation.html" target="_blank">Seriously</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>I call this the <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2011/01/kim-cattrall-samantha-split-in-all-of.html">Samantha</a> Effect because it makes me think of Samantha from Sex and the City. She's a disticnt type of female character. She's the sexual wild-child of the bunch and part of her whole deal is that she orgasms so easily. She's the envy of the all sexual women in that she loves sex. She is confident and creative in her sexuality, and she can easily come from doing any and/or all the hot things one may have seen in movies or porn or read about in books. She IS the epitome of female sexual vivacity. Unfortunately, that basically means that she is pretend. She is largely a fantasy of dudes and ladiers. She is what a woman would need to be to happily, easily, and orgasmically fit into a sexual world set up largely for the penis's pleasure (AKA - our current world). In other words she comes from nothing more than an object stimulating the inside of her vagina - something you may not think of as pretend, <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2012/10/yeah-you-heard-me-vaginal-stimulation.html" target="_blank">but probably is according to all of our physical data on the topic</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway, this Samantha-like archetype is what Tully is in this show, and as always, that archetype is giving viewers a super unrealistic and twisted view of how orgasm actually works for the ladies. It reinforced the idea that ladies can come from the mere act of intercourse and that the most lucky, sexually confident ladies always do. It's a big crock of shit we keep eating by the spoonful. Anyway, I talk more <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2011/01/kim-cattrall-samantha-split-in-all-of.html" target="_blank">HERE</a> about the Samantha Effect and about how the actress who plays Samantha has had to grapple with the unrealistic sexual nature of the characters she plays. She's actually pretty thoughtful on the topic of sexuality. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Scenes</span></b></div><div>Back to Tully - in true Samantha-sex-confident-lady mold, she is always having wild orgasms from sex that in real life should never be assumed to cause a woman to actually, physically orgasm. Here are the scenes in questions.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>S1 Episode 1</b></div><div>We're only seeing the very end as they are winding down, ya know - the thrusts are slowing down and they start taking deep breaths and laughing a little, so we don't actually see Tully orgasm or the dude she is with for that matter. What we see is her up against a wall facing him with one leg around his waist, both of them fully dressed as if he just unzipped and she just pulled her panties to the side under her skirt. It feels as though they had a super quick, passionate fuck that ended in both simultaneously orgasming right before we cut to them. There's no sense that she is in a position to grind her clit/vulva area against his pelvis while fucking, and there's certainly no hands anywhere near her pelvis. It's just a scene reinforcing the unrealistic idea that if it's passionate enough a lady can just come from a dick moving in and out of her. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>S1 Episode 6</b></div><div>The episode opens with Tully, cowgirl on a dude bouncing up and down. All 4 hands are above the waste, and she's perpendicular to him in a way that is unlikely to give her clit/vulva area stimulation against his body. She's screaming and moaning as if in a perma-orgasm. It's the kind of vocalizations you regularly hear in porn. Kate is in another room trying not to hear it. Both her and the dude come in this position in a crescendo of her vocalizations. She rolls off and they have the following conversation.</div><div><b></b></div><blockquote><div><b>Dude:</b> That was...</div><div><b>Tully: </b>I know.</div><div><b>Dude: </b>You are...</div><div><b>Tully: </b>I know.</div><div><b>Dude: </b>So good.</div><div><b>Tully: </b>I know. I <i>am</i> so good.</div><div><b>Dude: </b>I was pretty good too.</div><div><b>Tully: </b>(questioningly) yeah. (playfully) But not as good as me. You don't think Kate heard, do you?</div><div><b>Dude: </b>Oh definitely. Don't pretend you don't love it. You are an exhibitionist.</div><div><b>Tully: </b>I am not!</div><div><b>Dude: </b>Pfhhh! If Tully heart has an orgasm and 5 strangers aren't around to hear, did it really happen?</div></blockquote><div></div><div>I kinda feel like this conversation is revealing about this sex-lady archetype character that Tully embodies - about the many of us women who might play at that type of character in bed. Like if you look at it in the way I do as if all this happened as we see it, but she was a real-ass person and not a character, it feels very real and the orgasm very fake to me. </div><div><br /></div><div>It feels like her making a big thing of how sexy and sexual she is. It's her playing at a type of sexuality that she is not actually experiencing - whether she consciously understands that or not. It's not that it isn't fun or exciting or arousing or pleasing to her, but she didn't orgasm like the dude did. He did orgasm with all the physical and chemical things that come with it, and she made him do it. She played the part of a person that not only can make a dude come but also make him feel great about it because she came too, and she did it by allowing him to do nothing more than enjoying an action (getting his dick bounced on) that is super orgasmic for a person with a penis. It's a win-win win if we pretend her experience was the same as his - which is what we are doing. And, I'm not saying that she is consciously making a choice to 'fake'. I'm saying she is existing and acting inside of this sexual situation in whatever way she figured out how to be while growing up and living inside a fucked-up, misleading, lady-gasm-ignorant sexual culture. </div><div><br /></div><div>I think that it's a real thing in real life for women to do what we believe <i>should</i> be orgasmic, and although we don't actually orgasm, we go through the motions and vocalizations of it, and the climactic<i> feel</i> of it, plus the power of giving that pleasure to a partner is enough for the moment - and maybe even enough to make ourselves <i>believe</i> we came. I think this is real because I've done it myself, and I don't think I'm that strange of a person. This play-acting can be fun and satisfying until it's not anymore. Anyway, I think this scene, although fiction, sort of holds that reality inside it. </div><div><br /></div><div>It's a complicated sexual world for the ladies, people. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>S1 Episode 8</b></div><div>This episode starts out with almost the exact position and situation of the last Episode 6 scene. It's just a bit shorter scene. She's screaming less, and they don't have that conversations after. All that to say it's exactly as physically unrealistic that she would orgasm simultaneously with that dude when there is absolutely nothing happening to her clit/vulva area and EVERYTHING happening to his penis. </div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>S1 Episode 9</b></div><div>Cloud is Tully's hippie mother, and she is talking about Tully's birth to Kate and Tully when they were teenagers.</div><div><b></b></div><blockquote><div><b>Cloud:</b> Katelyn, it was magical! The moon was full, my cervix was ripening, and then this Sagitarian creature just slithered out of me like some aquatic beast. I actually orgasmed. It was the most exquisite pain. I became a woman that night, so it was my birth too.</div><div><b>Kate: </b>Oh. That's really cool.</div><div><b>Tully:</b> Yay. Birth-gasm! (with two thumbs up) Totally appropriate story to share with your daughter.</div></blockquote><div></div><div>Listen, I'm no fan of throwing around the idea that women can orgasm in pretty much any situation. I'm very against it, actually, on a scientific reality-based terms. I mean, even progressive, educated sexperts say the craziest, baseless shit sometimes about how women can orgasm by doing just about anything from getting their necks kissed to sucking dick. That's some bullshit I will rail against. </div><div><br /></div><div>Birth-gasm, though. Not sure what to say exactly. It's definitely something I've heard said before. I can also say there's no physical record of it in scientific literature, but also how could there be? No one has physically investigated it. I would also say that an orgasm is a sudden, rhythmic release of the blood pooling and muscle tension that has been built up through arousal, and there's a lot of intense stuff going on in the pelvic region during birth. That type of release very probably isn't a common part of birth, and you really don't hear this as any kind of even slightly common sensation among the many births that have happened, but there is certainly all kinds of muscle action and blood action going on down there, so if any of that happened to feel like an orgasm to you when giving birth, FAB. I say go with it. As long as we don't start hearing people saying it's common or that ladies should expect a birth-gasm, or that a birth-gasm is a goal (since who knows what that even physically means) or an indication of a 'better' birthing experience, or that you should feel any type of way about not having a birth-gasm, then hey, whatever. Not every woman will even ever be in the situation to have a birth-gasm, and if they are it's probably only a couple times, and it's a BIG, tough physical experience, so I won't say shit about anyone's unique experience as long as we all understand it's just a personal unique experience. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Vulva Rating</span></b></div></div><div>So, overall, because of all the reasons stated above, this season of this show is not getting a good SSL Review. All Tully's orgasm scenes reinforce the incredibly unrealistic, but insanely overly-depicted idea that ladies, at least the most sexual and cool ones, should be able to orgasm merely from a penis moving in and out of the vagina. It's just dumping that idea on top of the already plentiful pile of like depictions taking up real estate in people's heads of all ages and genders. It's just extending the misunderstanding of how lady-gasms realistically might happen and fucking up sex for everyone.</div><div><br /></div><div>For this, Season 1 of Firefly Lane gets a 1 Vulva Rating. </div><div><b>(!)</b></div>Trishahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08846980215552421591noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2427849323464039196.post-47257605694560673842022-09-05T13:50:00.000-04:002022-09-05T13:50:20.061-04:00Good Luck To You, Leo Grande: The SSL Review<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php" name="fb_share" type="button_count">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript">
</script> </div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" href="http://twitter.com/share">Tweet</a><script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div><div><span><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></span></div><div><span><b><span style="font-size: large;">Good Luck To You, Leo Grande</span></b></span><div>To begin, I do recommend this movie, and it will get a good SSL Review - just FYI. This movie is about Nancy Stokes (Emma Thompson), a late middle aged woman, who hires Leo Grande (Daryl McCormack), a male prostitute, 2 years after her husband dies. She reveals (early in the move - I'm not spoiling anything) that she had never been with anyone sexually but her husband, never had anything but basic missionary intercourse, and never orgasmed. She wants to do some of these things she's never done. Clearly, this is a movie of interest for an SSL Review.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtnlIPOgsoTgWV4lJRRA9JwsnoPugcOthB10eS2Yvk2zml2DUQtJJxcKF4mHT8CCgVeYL_Jzy0K-aCyNp_y-f7eXQv4PNfWKs2SFVcL2x2oYTKiyca9c-zjCJ84XFTeuJABD3Dtpn2zQXJwoZSV1UCyXDkx3AcNCBNWeBDkvrNv2F1-1aCnZRH4fZhxw/s1180/good-luck-to-you-leo-grande-button-1655422332643.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1180" data-original-width="1180" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtnlIPOgsoTgWV4lJRRA9JwsnoPugcOthB10eS2Yvk2zml2DUQtJJxcKF4mHT8CCgVeYL_Jzy0K-aCyNp_y-f7eXQv4PNfWKs2SFVcL2x2oYTKiyca9c-zjCJ84XFTeuJABD3Dtpn2zQXJwoZSV1UCyXDkx3AcNCBNWeBDkvrNv2F1-1aCnZRH4fZhxw/s320/good-luck-to-you-leo-grande-button-1655422332643.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">An SSL Review (for those that don't know about them)</span></b></div>Only depiction or discussion of female orgasm and/or female masturbation/cunnilingus and/or the clit are eligible for SSL Review. Nothing else counts, including plain 'ol sex if it doesn't include anything listed above. I specifically 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 also speak on what the depiction/discussion reflects from and adds to the larger cultural discussion around lady-gasms and female sexuality.<br /><br />You can see all the SSL movie Reviews <a href="http://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2015/09/master-list-of-movies-rated-on.html">HERE</a> (and as always you can find all the SSL TV Reviews <a href="http://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2016/04/tv-ssl-reviews-master-list-of-tv-shows.html">HERE</a>).</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Orgasm Scene</span></b></div><div>So, I don't think telling you about her journey towards orgasm will spoil this movie, but if you like to know nothing about a movie before you watch, I suggest you check it out and <i>then </i>read this review...because I <i>do </i>recommend you watch this movie. I will overall try not to reveal too much, though.</div><div><br /></div><div>Long story short, she does orgasm. She does it by herself with her own hand. She is lying on her back after a variety of sensual and arousing but not orgasmic (for her) sexual acts with Leo. He gets up to get a drink and a sex toy that "usually works" to help aid her in trying to come. We know it's a vibrator because he calls it the little buzzer, and we see the little thing later when he turns around after finding it. It's buzzing in his hand. </div><div><br /></div><div>But back to her situations. When he goes to get the buzzer she tells him no need. She thinks she's done. She's laying there all flushed and exhausted-looking from the sex they were having, but then she starts watching his naked body and moves her hand sensually down her chest to rub her vulva area. There's not a lot of detail here - and we can't specifically see what her hand is doing, in fact we don't even get much indications through shoulder movement. It is obvious that she is not doing a penetration, in and out type movement though. It's an on-the-vulva, not an in-the-vagina situation. It's about 11 seconds from when she gets to her vulva to when she comes, and when she comes, I think it’s clear that she does so. However, we don't see the wild vocalization and movement that is so common of orgasm depiction in women (but not men). Instead, it's a head back, intake of air and quick breath out, and then a stillness. There's a quiet intensity and focus that feels very real to me. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Good Stuff</span></b></div><div>If you know this blog, you know I'm incredibly happy with this depiction. Here are the 4 major reasons why - in true overly explainy SSL fashion.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">1</span></b> <b>No one 'gave' her a first orgasm.</b> I love this because I think it’s incredibly important we see more depictions of women figuring out their own orgasm. We need to normalize this because it's really a must if a woman is to become an active, experienced and knowledgeable party to an orgasm with a partner. Ladies need to be their own first partners, just as men need to be their own first partners (and they tend to be - way more often than women). </div><div><br /></div><div>Now, a first <i>faked</i> orgasm or a first I'm-assuming-this-is-when-I'm-supposed-to-orgasm-so-I'm-gonna-go-with-it orgasmy sounding vocalization...well, those I assume are almost always with a partner. However, a first physical orgasm (<a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2012/10/yeah-you-heard-me-vaginal-stimulation.html" target="_blank">the rhythmic release of pelvic muscle tension that both males and females and all in between have during orgasm</a>) – those do tend to be home grown just as Nancy's was in this movie. I mean, it's not unheard of for a woman's first physical orgasm to be because someone else was stimulating her, but it's certainly not common (Check out all the women's stories in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shere_Hite" target="_blank">The Hite Report</a>), and it’s BS that we so often see it that way in all kinds of media from porn to romance novels to TV.</div><div><br /></div><div>Constantly seeing ladies be ‘given’ that first orgasm is an unrealistic and ultimately harmful way to depict a lady’s first orgasm. It sends the message that women are not in control of their bodies or desire or arousal; that they are a vessel waiting for male sexuality to awaken them; that their orgasm is given instead of taken. </div><div><br /></div><div>And as selfish as it sounds, having orgasms <i>is</i> an active process from the orgasmer. A collaborative interaction with a partner could move that experience more <i>towards</i> a sort of 'given' orgasm, but it would, I think, be rare for the receiver to be a completely passive recipient. Plus, if a person does not know what their body needs before working on their orgasm through collaboration with a partner, it would be real unlikely they just happened into the movement and stimulation needed to get themselves there. More likely, they helped get themselves there with some experience and knowledge of how their body needs to move and what needs to be touched in what ways. We expect this active participation in orgasm from men, and we should expect it from women as well. </div><div><br /></div><div>Depicting first-orgasm scenarios for ladies thorugh masturbation instead of through the actions of a partner is a solid step in the right directions. Well done, this movie. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">2</span></b> <b>The physical actions happening during the orgasm could sensibly and realistically be assumed to cause orgasm in an actual lady.</b> Basically, there’s a hand on the vulva. We didn’t see the detailed movements, but that’s the basic way the majority of women masturbate to orgasm (again check out <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shere_Hite" target="_blank">The Hite Report</a> among almost every other study on how women orgasm). It’s important to see ladies orgasming through stimulation of the outer vulva/clitoral area because that is basically THE way physically recorded female orgasms have happened to date in all of scientific literature. Although there are so many depictions of women orgasming from penetration by a partner, it’s just not something that has ever actually been observed to cause orgasm. <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2012/10/yeah-you-heard-me-vaginal-stimulation.html" target="_blank">For real</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>I will say I'm not surprised they did the physical masturbation realistically. In general movie and TV depictions of female masturbation does tend to be realistic - with outer clitoral/vulva stimulation, so the realism in Nancy's masturbation technique isn’t particularly surprising or revolutionary, but it’s still nice. Honestly, it’s orgasm <i>with a partner</i> where media depictions fuck up. Besides a sprinkling of cunnilingus scenes, which I'm all for and are <i>usually</i> not bonkers ridiculous, partner lady-gasm depictions generally fall back into showing penetration making ladies come - just your basic not-clit-touching in and out. It is a rare situation where you see active stimulation of the clit during penetration, which is a damn shame because it's a quite sensible way for a lady to come with a partner. I always point that out because, man, I’d love to see more of that clit stim during a banging in my media. </div><div><br /></div><div>Also, I don't think this is an unrealistic depiction in this situation, but I should speak to how fast it is from the time she starts stimulating herself to the orgasm - we're talking around 11 seconds. I realize in TV and movies, time-to-orgasm is always a bit quick just because they aren't usually trying to waste a bunch of time showing the process. 11 seconds is quick though - but only if you are going from zero to orgasm in that time - from absolutely unaroused to popping off. This is because the building blocks of orgasm are in creating that physical arousal in the body, the pelvic muscle tension and blood congestion that the orgasm physically releases. One needs a little time for that, but only a few minutes, really. Averages in studies usually come out somewhere between 3 and 10 minutes. In Human Sexual Response, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_and_Johnson" target="_blank">Masters and Johnson</a> found that men and women masturbate to orgasm in around the same time - women averaged a bit longer but only a minute or two. Subsequent studies found similar results including <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2013/06/oxytocin-orgasm-muscle-contractions-and.html" target="_blank">this study</a> that didn't find any significant difference in duration of self-stimulation between men and woman.</div><div><br /></div><div>So, I'm saying she realistically only needed a few minutes to get from zero to orgasm. However, she was not at zero. She had just had a lot of sexual things, including cunnilingus, happen to her. She could very likely be almost to the edge of arousal, ready to drop off into orgasm. She was also flushed on her neck and chest when she moved that hand down. I'm assuming that was an intentional make-up choice on the set because for more light skinned people, a visible-to-the-naked-eye 'sex-flush' often occurs on the neck and chest. It would indicate heavy arousal. Point is, with all that was happening in this scenario, 11 seconds of direct clitoral stimulation doesn't seem too short a time for her to get to orgasm from where she was starting. </div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway, all that to say that someone watching this move and trying to figure out how they themselves might make themselves actually come, would not be led in a incorrect direction (as they would with a penetration orgasm depiction), and I appreciate that.</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>3</b></span><b> She didn't scream and shout and moan and move around all wild and sexy like. She just came.</b> Watch dudes in porn. They are almost always actually coming. They, mostly, don't scream and shout and moan and move around a bunch when it happens. They tend to concentrate and get quiet, focused, intense, and deeper into the movement that was getting them there. That's what this woman did. It's realistic, and as a culture, we need to normalize that this is a way a woman's orgasm can look. We see so much wild faking from women, it skews women and their partner's expectations.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">4</span> It shone a positive light on a vibrator helping a lady come. </b>Leo got up to get her a vibrator to help her come, when she figured it out herself. That's a sexually experienced man not only being fine with a woman using a sex toy, but also encouraging it. It's a man saying, 'hey, if you wanna come, a sex toy is a good option'. Vibrators are, in fact, great options alone and in partner sex for lady-gasms. Yet, there is still a sense out there that it means the man has failed or it's a distraction from the couple sex. That's a bunch of bullshit, and the more vibrator use is normalized, as it is in this movie, the better.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Vulva Rating</span></b></div></div><div>This was not only a realistic and much needed depiction of how an actual woman might realistically physically experience her first orgasm, it was also a thoughtful depiction of the emotional, cultural, and experiential roadblock that women face as they explore an orgasm and an authentic sexuality. </div><div><br /></div><div>If I had any critique of this movie's discussion/depiction of lady-gasm, it would be that it maybe didn't speak to the expansive cultural issues with lady-gasm that are not unique to Nancy's situation. Specifically, I would have been overjoyed if there was a nod to how very (and unfortunately) common it is that a woman might not have come ever from partner sex, and how the lack of clitoral/vulva simulation in common sex acts (for instance most penetrative sex on its own) is a huge reason for that - given that the clitoral/vulva stimulation is no less important to the female orgasm than penile stimulation is to the male orgasm. It's not really a criticism, though. Good Luck To You , Leo Grande tells a story about lady-gasm that is rare in media and important, and one can't expect everything from everything. It did what it meant to do well. I'm just saying that if the experienced male prostitute had mentioned that her situation is not actually that uncommon in his experience, and that it might have a bit to do with the fact that her clit was never part of the sex equation...well, that would be nice too. </div><div><br /></div><div>Altogether, for all the reasons I spoke about above. This gets a full 5 vulva rating.</div><div><b>(!)(!)(!)(!)(!)</b></div>Trishahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08846980215552421591noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2427849323464039196.post-65814394509257385432022-08-13T13:44:00.000-04:002022-08-13T13:44:01.183-04:00Rejuvenation of the Orgasm Equality Spirit, My People<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php" name="fb_share" type="button_count">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript">
</script> </div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" href="http://twitter.com/share">Tweet</a><script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Hello out there. As you are aware, and as I point out in pretty much all of my recent posts, my activity on this blog has slowed the last year or so. This is not a lack of interest. It's more a prioritization to accommodate my life in its current form. <div><br /></div><div>So, I am not here with some sweet (they are sweet to me at least) scientific journal article summaries, even though I would love to be working on one at the moment. There are plenty to read <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-big-ol-list-of-summarized-journal.html" target="_blank">HERE</a>, though, if you are jonesing for one. </div><div><br /></div><div>This is also not not an SSL Review - otherwise known as in depth review of a depiction or discussion of the female orgasm, the clit, lady-bation, or cunnilingus. Although, to be sure, there's a shit ton of past reviews for both <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2016/04/tv-ssl-reviews-master-list-of-tv-shows.html" target="_blank">TV</a> and <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2015/09/master-list-of-movies-rated-on.html" target="_blank">Movies</a> if you need some of that in your life right now. Spoiler alert: <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2011/02/ssl-review-slums-of-beverly-hills.html" target="_blank">Slums of Beverly Hills</a> and <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-diary-of-teenage-girl-ssl-review.html" target="_blank">Diary of a Teenage Girl</a> are in the top tier of 5 vulva rated movies (!)(!)(!)(!)(!), but <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-40-year-old-virgin-ssl-review.html" target="_blank">The 40 Year Old Virgin</a> and <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-overnight-ssl-review.html" target="_blank">The Overnight</a> are some that have a big fat zero vulva rating. :( ...And if you want to know what's currently sandwiching the list, <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2017/06/20th-century-women-ssl-review.html" target="_blank">20th Century Women</a> got the only coveted 5 1/2 vulva rating, while strangely enough, <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2012/06/hysteria-ssl-review.html" target="_blank">Hysteria</a>, a movie about the invention of the vibrator is trailing the pack with the "-1 vulva rating" - something I made up special due to my utter disappointment in what it could have been vs. what it was. <br /></div><div><br /></div><div>This post is not those things. What it is, is me waking up just feeling particularly excited about this work and wanting to post about it. I'm always kind of excited about his. It's truly something I want to leave in this world when I'm gone, but you know, within that there are frustrating times and disappointing times as well as exciting times and vibrant times. I just happened to have a little touch of excitement last night at a sweet sculptural art opening. I talked with a fab artist and cool lady (who has introduced me into a group of fab women and I am incredibly grateful to her for that) along with some other super cool people there, and I was able to engage about this work. </div><div><br /></div><div>I'll be honest, talking about my work has been a journey and a struggle full of learning and eye-opening responses. I think I've honed how I speak of it better over the years, but it's still a thing that makes me a little anxious for a variety of reasons - especially to new people. I'm truly a natural bull-shitter. I feel pretty comfortable talking with most people about life and feelings and dumb shit. However, speaking about things I have a real stake in, things that I really want to verbalize correctly is a whole different matter and something I do not naturally do well. All that to say, I really felt good talking to these people, and I really loved their engagement and their thoughts, and it was just an overall good experience that, I guess, upped my overall blogging motivation. </div><div><br /></div><div>You know, I think moving to a different city 4 years ago changed my culture around this work and although I hadn't thought of it this way before, maybe was really demotivating. I still had the bad-ass women on line that are in this fight too. They have continued to be great, and I even met a super amazing new one while I've been here too. However, I suddenly didn't have a lot of interactions with people other than workmates, and new co-workers are not the people you want to just start talking about lady-gasms to. Overall it was a struggle to find new friends, and then the pandemic happened, and I just recently started feeling like I'm finding a culture and a social life here, and so last night was nice and rejuvenating, and I'm grateful to those people I was with.</div><div><br /></div><div>That's what I wanted to say. Be well all my friends out there!</div><div><br /></div><div>For your extra enjoyment, here are some stills from the OG movie to this blog, <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2017/08/watch-ssl-contact-me-know-me.html" target="_blank">Science, Sex and the Ladies.</a></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCli72b_Tl4az491G5popU2bX4o17C77uZAmrZAVJJQqUZ5Rfqbk5lwbnXiWDPiGBN1-Av1W6ag7qTKUGGyqc3lT02lJMjU0ChafuwQosA0xtu3WC0eKsTYPurP-iqX2dGqCdtetQJ-w0FKHK08FmTBi0dl72l9RO70VGEviBgxyt7RHBDwsLU-nshPA/s600/SSL1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="337" data-original-width="600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCli72b_Tl4az491G5popU2bX4o17C77uZAmrZAVJJQqUZ5Rfqbk5lwbnXiWDPiGBN1-Av1W6ag7qTKUGGyqc3lT02lJMjU0ChafuwQosA0xtu3WC0eKsTYPurP-iqX2dGqCdtetQJ-w0FKHK08FmTBi0dl72l9RO70VGEviBgxyt7RHBDwsLU-nshPA/s320/SSL1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwRy806rhpJwryNd8qHwcGvkl2ocYOigkX5l_mEVxylhSfeCvfu4X3y2F1XDG5qMSFChvfrx6H9g9Q5ZtdvVvAUAHIQNEuIlROIebPUEfyTPFRc3x93N257BvbrPlHKC5Ppv5OFjE4sD_fYFUsx4uVzK4JMSxf2nS7pksfnHtF-KgIySxaBUTpBPdu6g/s1200/SSL2.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="675" data-original-width="1200" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwRy806rhpJwryNd8qHwcGvkl2ocYOigkX5l_mEVxylhSfeCvfu4X3y2F1XDG5qMSFChvfrx6H9g9Q5ZtdvVvAUAHIQNEuIlROIebPUEfyTPFRc3x93N257BvbrPlHKC5Ppv5OFjE4sD_fYFUsx4uVzK4JMSxf2nS7pksfnHtF-KgIySxaBUTpBPdu6g/s320/SSL2.webp" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibg2qPyFZCv74lgpBoSxlRMGEeRr0dkkT76ygOunjd4qBiZUFCK3o-LAHnAfM-ecANpM1VWO3dTrkKJA-Thj34vtHYeF6QW9ZlCb1G1TIUNjQ9VTHeVxoGSGH9516CbACvRiGzapOHlB7qhzEMvUye7f9sM_a76GpyYK2oCRGfu3JfaQcgQIHmQiPkdQ/s1250/SSL4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="1250" height="154" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibg2qPyFZCv74lgpBoSxlRMGEeRr0dkkT76ygOunjd4qBiZUFCK3o-LAHnAfM-ecANpM1VWO3dTrkKJA-Thj34vtHYeF6QW9ZlCb1G1TIUNjQ9VTHeVxoGSGH9516CbACvRiGzapOHlB7qhzEMvUye7f9sM_a76GpyYK2oCRGfu3JfaQcgQIHmQiPkdQ/s320/SSL4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4Fh7tHN4K_3IVQuYcpYdparuix5wO_pOYszKywerQqTuzPYl2V0DW68UIH-qXC9WJgPNKgMx2uVx3Rs40ULJz2Lm2dtoQ4Z6MCmO3vaNKgo32JDSueUnOdH1TfhuPnrh1FcJvUj2c-HeI4wqaGVphMWWsgDJ8GSNb3rP92ffCjloLrkUIzJeAMncVMw/s1200/SSL6.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="628" data-original-width="1200" height="167" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4Fh7tHN4K_3IVQuYcpYdparuix5wO_pOYszKywerQqTuzPYl2V0DW68UIH-qXC9WJgPNKgMx2uVx3Rs40ULJz2Lm2dtoQ4Z6MCmO3vaNKgo32JDSueUnOdH1TfhuPnrh1FcJvUj2c-HeI4wqaGVphMWWsgDJ8GSNb3rP92ffCjloLrkUIzJeAMncVMw/s320/SSL6.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Trishahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08846980215552421591noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2427849323464039196.post-50193490650305052862022-07-23T21:30:00.001-04:002022-07-23T21:30:24.097-04:005 Movies #DirectedByWomen Related To The Mother-Daughter Relationship <div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php" name="fb_share" type="button_count">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript">
</script> </div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" href="http://twitter.com/share">Tweet</a><script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Hello all. things are still a bit overwhelming on my end - at least in a way that I haven't been able to prioritize this blog recently, but it's still a goal. In the meantime, I thought I'd throw up a new batch of 5 lady directed movies. This time, I picked a group that have something to do with motherhood. <div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>A Little History of These Lists</b></div><div><div><div>I started doing this categorized List of 5 movies thing where I showcase movies that were directed by women and <i>that I have actually seen</i>. It all started during the <a href="http://directedbywomen.com/">Directed By Women Worldwide Viewing Party</a> in September 2015, and it was pretty fun, so I've continued doing it from time to time.</div><div><br />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<br />1. this blog is also about indie movie-making, and<br />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.<br /><br />You can find all my 5-movie lists <a href="http://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2017/09/tons-of-movies-directed-by-women-you.html">HERE</a>.<br /><br /><b>So, here friends, are 5 great lady-directed movies that touch on motherhood.</b></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Movies</span></b></div></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></div></div><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;">1 </span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3400872/" target="_blank">Viktoria</a> - </span><span>This was directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0900035/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Maya Viktova</a>. I caught this 2014 movie streaming very recently, and I thought it was beautiful. It's a Bulgarian movie that takes place in Communist Bulgaria from the 70's on. The mother daughter relationship is central. I recommend if you are into slow, strange, Eastern Eurpoean movies.</span><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span><br /></span></div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WIx45jEFsso" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">2 </span><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1231287/" target="_blank">Labor Pains </a>- </b>This movie is directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0788555/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Lara Shapiro.</a> This is a 2009 Lindsey Lohan romcom that involves a faked pregnancy. It's all you might imagine, so if that's what you're looking for, then check this out.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XcWgeikhrOA" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">3 </span><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5797756/" target="_blank">Barrage</a> </b>- This was directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1883724/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Laura Schroeder</a>. This is an angsty, slow indie movie about mother-daughter stuff from Luxembourg. I saw it recently streaming - I think on Mubi (my new fave).</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/brGvg1ShGhc" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: x-large;">4 </span><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13482806/" target="_blank">Zero Fucks Given</a></b> - This was directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm10517331/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Julie Lecoustre</a> and Emmanuel Marre. I saw this one on Mubi as well. It's quite angsty too, but also fun and there's soem interesting working-in-air-travel stuff. The mother daughter relationship is kind of a hidden element of this. Anyway, I do recommend this one.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/a2dfJhaNdCA" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">5</span></b> <b><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9100054/" target="_blank">The Lost Daughter</a></b> - This was directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0350454/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Maggie Gyllenhaal</a>. I believe I saw this on Netflix close to when it came out in 2021. It's a lovely movie, and I highly recommend. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xNq9YOfL0Zs" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>Trishahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08846980215552421591noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2427849323464039196.post-69343601894747256782022-07-08T23:49:00.005-04:002022-07-08T23:49:32.460-04:00So, It's Been a While, But I'll Be Back - Promise<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php" name="fb_share" type="button_count">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript">
</script> </div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" href="http://twitter.com/share">Tweet</a><script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>This is just a post to say I'm still all in on the Orgasm Equality Fight. I've just put this blog writing low on the priority list lately. This is probably the longest I've gone between posts in maybe 8 or so years, so I don't love that, but tis what it tis. I do love doing this blog though, and I will get back on the wagon. <div><br /></div><div>For your enjoyment right now, though, here's a picture of my cat Tina.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjx5c7W9k6uIdj1wMDkYzE_zh5afea_RYCELtSyjsBZJyUqKTBQ1RUQtV3_BJdvYdH8q-yp6YGWPoDfs5bvMrBydNy2XUlF1l1UILtdNdZtir5ZcsRQqM5MmsGbSs2VItDzI7HMBzGB4of-bkkM_BySCKtinAqcHS9thANu5eZXi8F-jyGDeYjQdx_jYA/s4032/Tina%20bell.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4032" data-original-width="3024" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjx5c7W9k6uIdj1wMDkYzE_zh5afea_RYCELtSyjsBZJyUqKTBQ1RUQtV3_BJdvYdH8q-yp6YGWPoDfs5bvMrBydNy2XUlF1l1UILtdNdZtir5ZcsRQqM5MmsGbSs2VItDzI7HMBzGB4of-bkkM_BySCKtinAqcHS9thANu5eZXi8F-jyGDeYjQdx_jYA/s320/Tina%20bell.jpg" width="240" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div>Trishahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08846980215552421591noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2427849323464039196.post-91667424632441336682022-05-22T23:21:00.000-04:002022-05-22T23:21:02.836-04:005 Top Notch Docs #DirectedByWomen<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php" name="fb_share" type="button_count">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript">
</script> </div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" href="http://twitter.com/share">Tweet</a><script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Hello all. In my neck of the woods it's getting nice out, and you'd think I'd be spending more time outside, but I'm not. I'm watching movies on my new favorite streaming app Mubi. I'm not getting paid by them at all. I just love to watch random, yet curated, movies. I love the idea of just turning something on without knowing shit about it and seeing where it goes. I mean I could do that on any streaming service, but Mubi hand picks this shit, and I've been very pleased so far. It's pretty much the only streaming we've been watching. I might even get rid of some of my other ones. I mean we really do subscribe to too many.</div><div><br /></div><div>All that to say, I've seen some good lady-directed movies on there - particularly some docs. So I'm going to give you 5 great lady-directed docs (3 are on Mubi).</div><div><br /></div><div>Also, my college-age niece is coming to visit tomorrow for the week, and I'm super excited. It's really my only real dream in life (besides deep cultural change regarding knowledge of the female orgasm) to have my nieces and nephews come visit me as they grow older. So, I wanted to get up a quick post, whichi s this post...ya know?</div><div><br /></div><div><b>A Little History of These Lists</b></div><div><div><div>I started doing this categorized List of 5 movies thing where I showcase movies that were directed by women and <i>that I have actually seen</i>. It all started during the <a href="http://directedbywomen.com/">Directed By Women Worldwide Viewing Party</a> in September 2015, and it was pretty fun, so I've continued doing it from time to time.</div><div><br />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<br />1. this blog is also about indie movie-making, and<br />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.<br /><br />You can find all my 5-movie lists <a href="http://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2017/09/tons-of-movies-directed-by-women-you.html">HERE</a>.<br /><br /><b>So, here friends, are 5 great lady-directed docs (3 of which I saw on Mubi). </b></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Movies</span></b></div></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></div></div><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;">1 </span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13621424/" target="_blank">Taming the Garden</a></span><b><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13621424/" target="_blank"> </a>- </b>This was directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4480391/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Salome Jashi</a>. This I saw on Mubi just last week, and I was into this shit. It's not, what you might call a fast paced or particularly exciting doc. To be fair, it's probably not for everyone or for anyone if they are sleepy, but it's gorgeous and interesting. It's about the transportation of these giant trees out of the countryside and into the garden of Georgia's (the country not the state) forme Prime Minister.<div><br /></div><div><br /><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dU0uz-JTSP4" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></div><div><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">2</span></b> <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12888462/" style="font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">My Octopus Teacher</a><b> - </b>This was directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm11813828/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Pippa Ehlrich </a>and James Reed. I think I saw this on Netflix? Maybe? Anyway, it was also a beautiful movie under the sea. I do recommend.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3s0LTDhqe5A" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">3</span> <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2125666/" target="_blank">The Queen of Versailles</a></b> - This was directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1132362/?ref_=tt_cl_dr_1" target="_blank">Lauren Greenfield</a>. This had been on my list to watch for a few years. It came out in 2012, but I only finally did it about a month ago. It's a classic, long-follow doc, and it does it well. </div><div><br /></div><div><div> </div></div><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CYOnT3Gqe9U" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">4 </span></b><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11405324/" target="_blank"><b>Truth or Consequences</b></a> - This was directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4885032/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Hannah Jayanti</a>. This was for sure a Mubi find as well. It's about this interesting town and its people, and it's just a kind of lovely slow look. I liked it a lot. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-aDHERVwM7k" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">5</span></b> <b><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8923484/" target="_blank">Crip Camp</a></b> - This was directed by James Lebrecht and <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1011820/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Nicole Newnham</a>. This is just a great, informative, doc about the camp that ended up cultivating some of the most important people in the disability rights movement. Very worth a watch.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div> </div> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XRrIs22plz0" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>Trishahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08846980215552421591noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2427849323464039196.post-88127372443420282922022-05-04T02:50:00.005-04:002022-05-04T02:50:46.642-04:00Being Cliterate by Laurie Mintz - 2 Thumbs on the Clit from Me!<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php" name="fb_share" type="button_count">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript">
</script> </div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" href="http://twitter.com/share">Tweet</a><script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><b>"<a href="https://www.drlauriemintz.com/becoming-cliterate" target="_blank">Becoming Cliterate: Why Orgasm Equality Matters- And How To Get It</a>" </b><div><b>Laurie Mintz, Harper One. 2017.</b><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">A little background on where this book fits into feminist, lady-gasm writing, and on why I love it </span></b></div><div>So, you'll have to forgive me for just now getting to this book. To be blunt, it's fucking on point about ladygasms - probably the most on point book I've seen since the 1998 sleeper hit of sex advice books (with a title that feels way too click-baity), "<a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11917989-five-minutes-to-orgasm-every-time-you-make-love--female-orgasm-made-simp" target="_blank">5 Minutes to Orgasm Everytime You Make Love</a>" by D. Claire Hutchins (who I've been looing for but have never found) - which basically just says, ya know, 'rub one out while you're getting fucked and you'll have an orgasm, people. It ain't that hard, and if dudes don't like it, fuck 'em.' I love the vibe of that book.<div><br /></div><div><b>The 70's and the heyday of the clitoral glans and female orgasm</b></div><div>I'd also compare it to all the great feminist writing on female orgasm during the sweet-spot of ladygasm culture; post 1966 Masters and Johnson's "<a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Human-Sexual-Response">Human Sexual Response</a>" research that gave us the detailed physiological info on female orgasm that debunked the the vaginal orgasm....but pre 1982 Whipple, Ladas, and Perry's "<a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/338435.The_G_Spot" target="_blank">The G-spot and Other Recent Discoveries about Human Sexuality</a>" that brought back (<a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2012/10/yeah-you-heard-me-vaginal-stimulation.html" target="_blank">the completely unsubstantiated</a>) idea of vaginal orgasm through the 'newly discovered G-spot' (the culture surely picked up on a BS idea of vag-gasms from this book, but completely ignored the useful info about female ejaculation's). </div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway, in between those years you have lots of great writing including, but certainly not limited to <a href="https://wgs10016.commons.gc.cuny.edu/the-myth-of-the-vaginal-orgasm-by-anne-koedt-1970/" target="_blank">The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm</a> by Anne Koedt, <a href="https://is.muni.cz/el/fss/jaro2010/SAN777/um/3__Shulman_Organs_and_Orgasms.pdf" target="_blank">Organs and Orgasms</a> by <a href="https://www.alixkshulman.com/works.htm" target="_blank">Alix Kates Shulman</a>; and of course, Shere Hite's <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44462.The_Hite_Report" target="_blank">"The Hite Report on Female Sexuality</a>" - which all say basically the same thing as 'Being Cliterate' and the 5-Minutes to Orgasm book (because it's, like, the truth - even though our culture as a while refuses to see that), but all with their own fab way (but seriously read the Hite Report). </div><div><br /></div><div><b>The 80s thru today(ish) and the rise of g-spot as vag-gasm maker</b></div><div>After the G-Spot craze hit in the early 80's, the anatomically and experimentally substantiated idea that the external clit area was what caused lady-gasms that was gaining popularity in the70's quickly took a backseat to the deeply held, but completely unsubstantiated (<a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2012/10/yeah-you-heard-me-vaginal-stimulation.html" target="_blank">seriously</a>), belief/desperate-hope that a woman could come from a good banging. The G-spot book allowed people to believe the 'newly discovered' G-spot was the reason vag-gasm could happen. Previous to the G-spot, and pre Masters and Johnson research, the misguided assumption was slightly different. They had been focused on the vaginal canal itself as the thing that could cause an orgasm, So the G-spot replaced the refuted idea of the vaginal canal as the cause of 'vaginal orgasms,' and even though there wasn't actual evidence for 'vaginal orgasms,' the g-spot became the vaginal orgasm scapegoat for decades until actually quite recently. </div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div></div><div><b>Current - the 'inner clit', 'clitoral bulbs', 'c-spot', what have you as the new exciting vag-maker</b></div><div>Only a few years ago, after the G-spot just couldn't hold onto it's myth anymore, the idea that the 'inner clitoris' or the clitoral bulbs or clitoral legs were 'discovered' and was the cause of 'vaginal orgasms' gained traction. It is no more valid a vag-gasm cause than the G-spot or the vaginal canals, but it none the less is the current, hot, progressive vag-gasm scapegoat. Like the G-spot and the vaginal canal before them, the inner clit is just another sad grasp at anything that might seem believable as something in the vag that might trigger an orgasm while a woman is getting a penis jammed in and out of her. It's sad because there is no physical evidence in all of scientific research, even with decades of trying, of an orgasm caused by stimulation inside the vagina: Ejaculation? sure. High arousal? of course. Orgasm? No. Yet as a culture we hold on so tight to the idea of intercourse causing orgasms for females as readily as they do for a male.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Sexperts are weak on the clitoral glans and shit hasn't changed</b></div><div>All that to say, outside of the heyday of the clit in the 70's. The discussion of female orgasm over the last 4 decades has been tainted by a strong making-of-room-for the idea women can orgasm from getting banged. This is true even of progressive, sex-positive, feminist sexual advisors and educators. Yes, of course, the best of them say that <i>most</i> women need clitoral stimulation, but they also take pains to point out all the ways women can come from intercourse too. </div><div><br /></div><div>Outside of the fact that there is literally no physical scientific evidence that women can orgasm from vag-stimulation - which sexperts truly don't seem to understand- reasserting the idea that <i>some</i> women come from just fucking is harmful in another way. It acts to reinforce incorrect cultural assumptions. Cracking the door for vaginal orgasms leaves room for the avalanche of media depicting women coming from intercourse to crash through and drown out whatever small clit focus there was. I'm not saying there is not some value in sayin <i>most</i> women come clitorally. It's better than saying most women orgasm vaginally, I guess, but it leaves women believing there is valid evidence that some women <i>do</i> come vaginally- and there simply isn't - and with the overwhelming clout vaginal orgasm has in our world, it basically keeps sexual culture stagnant and the orgasm gap wide. </div><div><br /></div><div>Like - it really does. Read the women talking about orgasm and masturbation in The Hite Report from the early 70's and then read Deborah Tolman's <a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674018563" target="_blank">Dilemmas of Desire</a> from 2005 where she interviews teenage girls about similar things. Guess what? Women and girls are just as confused, just as weirded out about masturbation, and orgasming just as little. Look at the questions women are asking sex advisors - it hasn't changed. 60 years later, we are still desperate to know how to come. It's not that hard, we just aren't setting up our culture to make it easy for us ladies, and a huge part of that is the unwillingness of even the most progressive, sex positive, feminist sexperts to take a stand and tell everyone that IT'S THE EXTERNAL CLIT - it's just as important as the penis - no ifs and or buts about it. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Book</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Dr. Mintz - bringin' back the external clit focus and popping out top notch lady-gasm surveys</b></div><div>That's a long intro to say that Laurie Mintz, with her book "<a href="https://www.drlauriemintz.com/becoming-cliterate" target="_blank">Becoming Cliterate: Why Orgasm Equality Matters- And How To Get It</a>" takes this stand better than just about anyone I've seen in the last 40 years. It's got that just-work-the-clit-for-god's-sake vibe which I love and desperately want more of, because that's the only way the next generation of people will get used to the clit being as central to sex as the penis. </div><div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqQETZPXtMExPFzsmRZ0jJmY60f8m7K4EZoVR8UuEszIINW1OvYXw5I37WjR0NyeEah1DeJoQr-tN8qqzLA176GCPnjlu0SL1wSTlx0-oEy_85RoUiUtGzRWkMPBuMoL9W-_Yt57GZpUuiJkR5wsuv91juYpHeHLkYzYYuG5gwLDPFoA7iZeL5s0e4tQ/s400/Being%20Cliterate%20Laurie%20Mintz.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="267" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqQETZPXtMExPFzsmRZ0jJmY60f8m7K4EZoVR8UuEszIINW1OvYXw5I37WjR0NyeEah1DeJoQr-tN8qqzLA176GCPnjlu0SL1wSTlx0-oEy_85RoUiUtGzRWkMPBuMoL9W-_Yt57GZpUuiJkR5wsuv91juYpHeHLkYzYYuG5gwLDPFoA7iZeL5s0e4tQ/w134-h200/Being%20Cliterate%20Laurie%20Mintz.jpg" width="134" /></a></div></div><div><br /></div><div>Also, she does her own surveys in her University about how women are orgasming in partnered sex. She asks the questions in a more open way (and the way these questions about orgasm in surveys are asked matters so much - which she absolutely gets and I love), and she finds only 4% who claim to orgasm from penetration alone. There's a study about wording in her survey vs. others' that I will review later, but point is, she didn't get those sometimes large numbers people get and I venture to say hers are more realistic (I have a <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2020/07/30-is-stat-about-female-orgasm-but-its.html" target="_blank">long-ass post</a> about how people get these numbers and the problems with it). Point is, she gets to avoid all the "most" women need clitoral stimulation BS and just pretty much says that women need clitoral stimulations. That is a revelation, my people.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Dr. Mintz - not letting the vag-gasm loud minority derail the discussion (much)</b></div><div>We don't need hemming and hawing and back-stepping, just to avoid offending someone who feels they or their partner can orgasm from intercourse. The truth is if some person does orgasm from nothing more than stimulation in the vagina, they are rare, and we don't yet have any research that shows physical evidence of someone else orgasming that way. It doesn't mean they are wrong or that they are not enjoying sex right. It's just that we don't have evidence of them. Let them go enjoy their sex as they have been, acknowledge we may get physical evidence of their experience in the future, but their assertion of a clearly rare experience (and it is just an assertion) shouldn't derail accurate portrayals of how orgasms are known to happen for females - yet it does for almost every other female sexualit or lady-gasm book I've read. </div><div><br /></div><div>Mintz doesn't hem, haw, or backstep, though. She indeed keeps the focus on the vulva - and off the vagina when it <i>comes</i> to orgasm. I will admit, though, there are a couple tiny moments when I see Mintz give a <i>slight</i> nod to the possibility of coming vaginally (G-spot, inner bulb/legs) but it's slight, downplayed, and also more of a description of how others think of things and not her own advise/thoughts. It's in her Section "Are there Different Kinds of Orgasm?" where she explains how different camps of people view that question and then finishes with an insinuation that it doesn't really matter and might <i>"contribute to women doubting their own most reliable route to reaching orgasm."</i> I think she does skirt around this issue a bit and does tip her hat slightly in a vag direction there for a hot second. I mean, I would love to have seen her go hard with a physical description of orgasm (as there is really just one physically observed/recorded orgasm reaction out there for both males and female). I'd also have liked to see a reminder that stimulation of the vagina alone has not been physically observed to cause those physical qualities of orgasm - so if there is some other orgasm out there, we don't know of it. </div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway, that's truly my only real very slightest of slight criticisms. Largely this book is fab, and I'd recommend it to anyone. I think Laurie Mintz is hardcore doing badass Orgasm Equality work. I mean, she wrote this book, but she's also, I believe, teaching the contents of this book to college students in Florida every year. That's amazing, and also gives me a lot of hope. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Dr. Mintz - rockin' orgasm equality</b></div><div>Dr. Mintz - you are the highest order of <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2015/09/orgasm-equality-allies-in-new-sexual.html" target="_blank">Orgasm Equality Hero</a> (highest order because, unlike you, not everyone on <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2015/09/orgasm-equality-allies-in-new-sexual.html" target="_blank">that list</a> is full-on, pure cliterate, but they all are moving in the right direction and that's still important, I'll take all the Orgasm Equality Allies we can get).</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div></div>Trishahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08846980215552421591noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2427849323464039196.post-13549395061999945382022-04-09T21:05:00.002-04:002022-04-09T21:05:12.436-04:00What I Might Change About 'Science, Sex, and the Ladies' (the movie) Now All These Years Later<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php" name="fb_share" type="button_count">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript">
</script> </div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" href="http://twitter.com/share">Tweet</a><script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Hello my lady-gasm activist friends. As is the theme for my blogging the last few years, I'm more behind than I would like to be. There are tons of articles on everything from the Female Sexual Dysfunction questionnaire that is most commonly used in studies as well as therapy to assess a woman's, ya know sexual dysfunction to female ejaculation related stuff to post gender confirmation surgery functioning to old strange studies to just about everything - anyway, there are tons of those studies I want to summarize (and dish on if need be) in the ol' A Journal Article I Read series (<a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-big-ol-list-of-summarized-journal.html" target="_blank">which are all HERE</a>). There's also tons of TV and movie depictions of lady-gasms or lady-gasm talk, or clits or cunnilingus that I need to review (all the <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2016/04/tv-ssl-reviews-master-list-of-tv-shows.html" target="_blank">TV ones are HERE</a> and the <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2015/09/master-list-of-movies-rated-on.html" target="_blank">movie ones are HERE</a>), but to be honest, these are a little lower on my priority list, I'm more vibing with the journal articles right now, but I get the urge to review some shit orgasm depictions from time to time too. All that to say I don't have anything super big, but I wanted to post something, and it just happened that something sparked my need to write here a little.<div><br /></div><div>Last night me and Charlie r<a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2017/08/watch-ssl-contact-me-know-me.html" target="_blank">e-watched Science Sex and the Ladies </a>with a good friend last night, and it was fun, but I was thinking about some things. First, I still like it. I think it's weird and what-the-fuck-enough to continue getting laughs into the future. Second, this was shot 13 years ago and released 8 years ago (it was a lot of post production work and mostly just Charlie doing it....it takes time), and there are is content I would do a little different. I still stand behind it 100%, but I've been continuing the activist work from that movie through this blog since 2009. I have more and deeper insight now. I mean shit's still pretty much the same and the problems are still pretty misunderstood in the same way, but there's been some progression, and the way I talk about some things has changes with more knowledge. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2mmOuK8IXhOczsXVW2upVDRj0tSApfT5nK_axldLinEG5p60WSs-AHUFMc4kgVp7mywLCEGVzN176UJ5w5yYBCQe4JDbPiXhKFP5GzrYGAv_KrTmTx63CDj3-mGVZiXDXRehCPs-4K8_Z69tle2f1RT3u-UMRENRticefsnv1kVrr8BpzKoo9_6yyzQ/s1521/Science_sex_and_the_ladies_trisha_borowicz.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1521" data-original-width="1000" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2mmOuK8IXhOczsXVW2upVDRj0tSApfT5nK_axldLinEG5p60WSs-AHUFMc4kgVp7mywLCEGVzN176UJ5w5yYBCQe4JDbPiXhKFP5GzrYGAv_KrTmTx63CDj3-mGVZiXDXRehCPs-4K8_Z69tle2f1RT3u-UMRENRticefsnv1kVrr8BpzKoo9_6yyzQ/s320/Science_sex_and_the_ladies_trisha_borowicz.jpg" width="210" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div>So, below, I just thought I'd quick mention the updates I'd make, I've written about this in different ways before, but it's fresh for me right now and it's nice to pop it up every now and then. </div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">1</span> <b>I'd talk about the idea that the 'inner clit' is responsible for orgasms-from-intercourse (or what people might call vaginal orgasm) and shit all over that fake news like I did the g-spot-as-a-vaginal-orgasm-giver fake news.</b> </div><div>The current progressive, sex positive, sexually educated (often very educated) crowd is big on the idea of the 'inner clit' or the 'clitoral bulbs' or 'clitoral legs'. It's the part of the clitoris that is deeper in the body - more than the clitoral glans that pokes out or the clitoral body you can feel under the skin just above the clit (before it bends down and separates into the larger 'inner' structure of the clit). They tout this 'inner clit' as a previously unknown or misunderstood part of female anatomy that is <i>actually</i> what causes orgasms. It is neither previously unknown/misunderstood, nor is it something that causes 'vaginal orgasms.' However, just like the now out-of-vogue-as-vaginal-orgasm-givers -the vaginal canal itself and the g-spot- the inner clit is a new, hip way experts try to explain why a woman might orgasm from nothing more than getting banged. Truth is there is not physical evidence in all of scientific literature of a an orgasm happening from nothing more than the stimulation of a penis/dildo in the vagina (for real - I explain more <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2012/10/yeah-you-heard-me-vaginal-stimulation.html" target="_blank">HERE</a>), but that doesn't stop the sex research/sexpert world from desperately clinging to some piece of anatomy that might, maybe cause this type of orgasm, that actually doesn't seem to exist except for in faked bedroom activities and answers on surveys. </div><div><br /></div><div>This was true when the movie came out and is still just as true. It's just that the scapegoat in pop sexperting has moved from the g-spot to the inner clitoris since then, and so it's not really addressed properly in the movie. I would like to have it in there because I worry contemporary watchers might disregard the whole thing because they think we missed the inner legs info. </div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway, more specific info about why the inner clit is not some new discovery and not the cause of 'vaginal orgasms' is <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2021/01/was-clitoris-really-discovered-in-1998.html" target="_blank">HERE</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">2</span> I'd have added some info about male multiple orgasms. </b></div><div>Most of the details about male and female orgasm and physical arousal in the movie are pulled from Master and Johnson's groundbreaking late 60's research. It's still super relevant on the physical detail level, but there are later papers that confirmed and also expanded on Master and Johnson's work. I would add more of that to modernize some of the terminology, etc. Mainly, that would mean there would be some info about physical evidence of males that can orgasm multiple times, similar to some women, until they ejaculate with their final orgasm. I'd tighten up that physiology of orgasm/arousal section with papers and info I've reviewed and read while writing this blog. Oh - <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2013/06/oxytocin-orgasm-muscle-contractions-and.html" target="_blank">here's an article </a>with the male multiple orgasms. </div><div><br /></div><div>Alright - that's the big ones. There's of course some scenes we would tighten up too- I mean sometimes things happen by necessity, and we'd have preferred something a little differnt, but overall, I like that crazy movie. </div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Trishahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08846980215552421591noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2427849323464039196.post-42708674853712033312022-03-24T22:28:00.000-04:002022-03-24T22:28:04.141-04:00Orgasm and EEG in 1976 - A Journal Article I Read<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php" name="fb_share" type="button_count">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript">
</script> </div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" href="http://twitter.com/share">Tweet</a><script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div>Welcome<span> back to An Article I Read, where I summarize a scientific article relating to female orgasm (check all the past ones out <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-big-ol-list-of-summarized-journal.html" target="_blank">HERE</a>). As always, I have a bunch of to-be-summarized articles in a folder that I would so love to get through, but the main ones I'm into are too dense to get out quickly, so I picked a quick(ish) one that was published in 1976. *side note - I lied. This wasn't quick, but I did kind of enjoy working thorugh it - but definitely not quick*</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Honestly, by necessity, I can't pontificate on this particular article too much simply because I don't know shit about EEGs. Not that I, like, know everything about the technology in the other articles I review. In fact, as you might assume, I usually know very little about any of them. However, in other articles, there's usually a bunch of assumptions and experimental design choices that I do understand and that I have a lot to say about regardless of the technology. This article isn't really full of that kind of thing for me. It's much more focused on the discussion of the EEG results, and frankly, I'm just gonna relay most of that info to you and you can do as you will; find the full article and read it yourself, ask someone who knows about EEGs, read it and move on with your life, look at it and know there is an article like this out there for future reference. Ya know - whatever you need from this.</span> </div><div><br /></div><div><span><span style="color: #0000ee;"><b><u><a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/952604/" target="_blank">Electroencephalographic laterality changes during human sexual orgasm</a></u></b></span><b>. H D Cohen, R C Rosen, L Goldstein. <i>Arch Sex Behav. </i>Vol. 5 No. 3 (May 1976), pp. 189-99.</b></span></div><div><span><div><br /></div><b><span style="font-size: large;">MY QUICK SUMMARY</span></b></span></div><div>These authors took 4 males and 3 females, and checked their brainwaves while resting, then mentally (sexually) arousing themselves, then physically stimulating themselves to orgasm, and then resting after the orgasm. They were interested in brain activity and particularly a switch in laterality (the dominant side of the brain) at orgasm - because that's something that happens on psychedelic drugs and on the switch from REM sleep, etc., so they thought it might happen for orgasm too. As a means to take away variables like which hand you use or if a fake orgasm can be discerned, one participant switched hands for a 2nd try, and one participant faked an orgasm first before she then reported an actual orgasm. </div><div><br /></div><div>The authors believe this study shows the significance an EEG reading has to indicate orgasm since previous research had mostly focused on involuntary muscle contractions and blood vessel changes (vasomotor changes). They seem to be trying to assert that there is some type of 'central event' of orgasm that lies within the brain, and are sort of poo-pooing the idea that physical things are central enough to orgasm - including the rhythmic involuntary muscle contractions that were then and still are the only real agreed upon physical method for identifying an orgasm. They reported data for this, but it was a small messy set of data and couldn't support that belief.</div><div><br /></div><div>The authors also monitored the blood congestion changes in the genitals as a means to control for actual orgasms. Although they said that this measurement was used to verify arousal and orgasm in the subjects, they only cited references that identified that type of blood congestion data as confirmation of arousal - not orgasm. In fact, I know of no studies that show blood congestion can discern between high arousal and orgasm - so that's fishy to me. In fact they did not even report the data they got from the blood congestion measurements at all - which is even more sketchy to me. Honestly, I feel like these authors were somehow trying to throw shade at Master's and Johnson's contribution to the understanding of orgasm - maybe in an attempt to stand out from the crowd and get published - that seems like a thing, although that's completely speculative on my part. But, they did intentionally ignore M&J's contribution to orgasm in a, what I might call, science-catty way that is super subtle, but would be pretty obvious and blatant to other researchers in the field. All that to say, their claims of verifying orgasms are not to be believed, and I think they knew that which is why they didn't report that data. I mean, would have been cool if they did - just to see what or if there were any correlations to what was happening in the EEG and what was happening in the blood congestions before, during, and after orgasm - even if it revealed the blood congestions measurements were not great at specifically detecting orgasm - still would have been good knowledge to have. <span style="color: red;"> </span></div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway, I don't know much about EEGs and whether they are seeing what they purport to, so I'll take their word. What I do know is that it seems like there was some sort of peak at the timing <i>some </i>of the participants claimed an orgasm, but it wasn't significant for 2 males and 1 female...and there were only a total of 7 participants, soooo....this is, ya know, kinda interesting, but can't be seen as much more than a dipping of a toe in the EEG and orgasm situation. Nothing conclusive at all comes from this, and it also doesn't offer up any info about how the brainwaves relate to the physical blood and musculature related indicators of orgasm. Do they happen at the same time? One in front of the other? Does one happen sometimes when an orgasm is claimed, but the other not? When and why might that be the case? Those are crucial questions that would need to be answered before EEG reads could be understood as a marker of orgasm. Clearly this paper doesn't bring us anywhere near that conclusion. </div><div><br /></div><div>Overall, it's a cool start that needs MAJOR follow-up.</div><div><br /></div><div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>THE ARTICLE SUMMARY</b></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span><div>In these summaries, you can assume that anything I write is a genuine attempt to reflect what is said in the paper - even if it's shortened or summarized. My opinions, if I have any to add will either be inside brackets likes these <b>[ME:]</b>, or in a section headed in a way that clearly lets you know these are my opinions. All quotes are from this article unless specifically noted.</div><div><br /></div>You can check out the list of all the past 'A Journal Article I Read' Summaries <a href="http://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-big-ol-list-of-summarized-journal.html" target="_blank">HERE</a>.</span></div></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Introduction</b></span></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Previous studies to measure physical changes associated with orgasm have focused largely on our non-consciously controlled bodily functions as well blood flow changes and muscular contractions as crucial elements of orgasm. <i>"There is no doubt that some peripheral measures reliably correlate with the early stages of sexual arousal (Zuckerman 1971), but such changes may have little bearing on the role of central events during orgasm."<b> </b></i></li><ul><li><b>[ME:</b> I'm honestly not sure what the authors mean by 'central events' here. After a few reads of this intro, I'm kinda thinking they are generally discussing orgasm as if the involuntary muscle contractions and release of blood congestion is maybe sort of a possible side effect of the "central" thing - which they are seeming to say is what happens in the brain. I also am confused because they site a Zuckerman review paper about arousal (not orgasm) to site that blood flow and muscular changes are a part of early arousal - which is undoubtedly true and uncontroversial even in 1976, but they also seem to be using it to say that it may not have much to do with the "central events during orgasm" - something that paper can't really speak on since it's about arousal not orgasm. It seems these authors are saying boldly that the previous work about the central role of involuntary muscle contractions and blood flow during orgasm that Masters and Johnson described less than a decade earlier is just not worth much - but don't say why - except for that the measuring of those things may be more qualitative than quantitative (as you'll see below), but to me that seems to be more about better measurements than throwing it out. Also, this paper at best is barely scratching the surface of <i>maybe</i> finding a correlation between EEG readings and orgasm - and is not showing us at all the relationship between the EEG readings and the physical blood and musculature related events that have been used to indicate orgasm in the past (and that these authors say may not have much to do with 'central events' of orgasm). Point is if something is going to tell us that brain waves are a better, more accurate marker of orgasm - this certainly ain't the paper that's gonna do it.<b>]</b></li></ul><li><i>"The research of Masters and Johnson (1966) represents a major advancement in the knowledge of the process of sexual arousal." </i><b>[ME:</b> see - I feel like they are throwing shade at M&J here. They only mention arousal, not orgasm, in their list of M&J's advancements. I indeed believe the general sense, especially at that time, is that M&J lent great advancements in the understanding of the physical aspects of orgasm as well, but clearly these researcher's ain't about it<b>].</b> </li><li>M&J had a substantial sample size, but data was more descriptive than quantitative <b>[ME:</b> Fair criticism - It's a weakness. M&J could have used a lot more specific quantitative data. However, researchers have since done studies that grew on M&J's work in more quantitative ways that reinforced and improved upon, but largely did not contradict what M&J had shown. (and I would LOVE to see more studies re-trying their work with better measuring tools) Just pointing out it's a good criticism but in no way a nullification of their work. Those things are often confused - especially in the trashing of Masters and Johnson I see from time to time.<b>]</b> </li><li>M&J described the release of blood congestion and involuntary pelvic muscle contractions but did not give quantitative evaluations of these observations. Even for direct measurements like heart rate and blood pressure, M&J didn't provide things like ranges and standard deviation of response. <b>[ME: </b>They're not wrong. Most of the evidence M&J used for recording of the involuntary muscular contractions at orgasm was super slow-mo, close up, color film recordings where one could count the visual contractions. Some were done with a specially created dildo camera where you could see the contractions from inside the vagina.<b>]</b></li><li>Bartlett's study (1955) focused on heart and breathing rate during orgasm <i>during intercourse</i> <b>[ME: </b>and you know I'm already skeptical here because it's fucking bonkers to use a sex act that is great for male orgasm and shitty for female orgasm (but a common time women fake orgasm) to measure both male and female orgasm. It's ripe for getting bad data<b>]</b>. However, it's messy to measure heart and breathing during a sex act that is so active and might in and of itself cause changes that couldn't be discerned from orgasm. The authors prefer M&J's method of using masturbation for testing orgasm. It not only eliminates a lot of the moving, but also M&J found that (especially for women <b>[ME: </b>probably because they are less likely to fake during masturbation - amiright?<b>]</b>) masturbation orgasms appeared equally, if not more, intense than during intercourse.</li><li>A study 20 years prior (Mosovich and Tallaferro, 1954) attempted to record EEG on 6 humans during masturbation. The ability to analyze was not great back then, but through visual inspection of the EEG records, it showed a general slowing of electrical activity along with voltage increases during orgasm.</li><li>(Heath 1972) used deep and surface electrodes to measure a M/F couple having intercourse. <i>"He reported finding consistent spike and slow-wave activity in the septal region during intercourse."</i> However, the readings were super messy because of all the physical activity, the dude in it had bad epilepsy, and Heath also found the spiking activity in other non-sex related things, so it's to be taken lightly.</li><li>There is also experiential reports that orgasms put a person into a unique state of consciousness.</li></ul></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Method</span></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>Subjects</b></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>4 male and 3 female subjects; range in age 21 to 33; all good physical condition; all sexually active (5-10 orgasms a week; at least 2 masturbations per week)</li><li>One female left handed all others right handed; one male strongly homosexual (Kinsey scale 5)</li><li>Participants were paid and the experiment and the reasoning behind it were described to them</li></ul></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Choice of EEG Measure: The Significance of Interhemispheric Amplitude Relationships</b></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Recent data seems to show that the different hemisphere's of the brain are <i>"involved to different extents in cognitive abilities (Dimond 1972)"</i> So, in right handed people the left hemisphere seems to deal with verbal activities while the right seems to deal with <i>"visual, spatial, musical, and emotional inputs (Harnard 1973)." </i>This shows up in EEGs as <i>"amplitude asymmetries."</i> Reversals of this asymmetry has been found in average people when doing things like switching from verbal to visual tasks, going from REM to non-REM sleep, and while on hallucinagenic drugs. So, orgasm may also be associated with an extreme change in cerebral activity like those other activities, and the researchers thought it would be worth checking for a quantifiable reversal of this amplitude asymmetry during the orgasm. </li><li><b>[ME: </b>So, best I can understand, I believe this means that the EEG from one side of the brain is stronger than the other and then when the activity change occurs (REM to non-REM sleep, not orgasm to orgasm, etc.) the opposite side becomes stronger during that time. I truly don't know enough about EEGs or brain activity, and couldn't find much easily accessible info on the web, to know if this situation is more complicated.<b>]</b></li></ul></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Recording Methods</b></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>There's a description of the EEG and recording equiptment. There were separate measurements taken from the left and right side. </li><li>The values attained from right and left side were each plotted against time</li><li>Ratios of the Right/Left readings were calculated for each epoch <b>[ME: </b>in EEGs, and epoch is a time interval at which the readings are taken from the continuous signal. Table 1 in this paper later says the epoch intervals were 1 sec<b>]</b> </li><li>Then for each phase of the experiment (there are 4 - see below) an average of those epoch ratios was created.</li><li><i>"Statistical significance of the changes was ascertained on the basis of the two-tailed </i>t <i>test" </i><b>[ME: </b>I'll be honest, I'm a bit confused about what exactly they are checking. Which are the 'changes' they are referring to? My best guess is that they are talking about the change from one phase of the experiment to the other of the average Right/Left reading that was calculated, but I'm not completely sure. I looked up some different sites about <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-_and_two-tailed_tests" target="_blank">two tail t tests</a> (because I ain't no expert in statistics - that's for sure) and I'm still not completely sure, so take that for what you will]</li><li>Males placed a gauge at the base of the penis to measure penile tumescence (blood congestion - or basically level of erection).Females placed a <i>"relative blood flow transducer mounted on a diaphragm ring"</i> inside their vagina for the same purpose. This was used to continuously monitor during the experiment the blood flow changes that are known to accompany sexual arousal.</li><li><i>"For both sexes, these data provided verification of the subjective report of arousal and orgasm. The effects of manual stimulation, for example, were clearly apparent on the polygraph tracing which recorded penile tumescence."</i> <b> [ME:</b> Alright, this statement is heavily overreaching. Clearly the blood congestion info would give indicators about physical arousal - not controversial in the slightest. Any person of medicine would know that straight up - of course the results of penile masturbation would show up - unless he's jerking on a limp dick that really isn't into it and stays completely and utterly limp. BUT, they also go further and say it provided verification for orgasm as well. How? What results of blood congestion monitoring will uniquely indicate an orgasm and not just high levels of arousal? Or a loss of arousal (without orgasm) after arousal? Where is the studies that indicate what this blood congestions related marker of orgasm might be? These authors certainly don't cite anything like that. They are only citing arousal - not orgasm- related studies. They have to know better, so it's a little suspect that they are just trying to slide that little orgasm line in. That's sketchy, bro. It makes me think they are really stretching to make the orgasm connections in this study that they were hoping to.<b>]</b> </li></ul></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Experimental Procedure</b></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>For anonymity each subject was assigned a code and that code and the subsequent data were analyzed blindly.</li><li>Subjects were taken into a lab where the recording equiptment was connected. They were told to lie on their backs with head resting comfortable on a pillow.</li><li>The were told their eyes should be either constantly open or constantly closed throughout the experiment. Only one subject said they could not maintain that. </li><li>The experimenter left after the subjects were settled and did not return until after the experiment, so the subjects could have privacy.</li><li>The EEG and genital blood congestion changes were monitored during 4 stages</li><ul><li><i>1 - "An initial adaption period, during which the subject had been instructed to refrain from movement and to breath regularly"</i></li><li>2 - A period of approximately 15 minutes signaled to begin when a selection of rhythmic music began. The subjects were to fantasize sexual imagery without any physical simulation. <i>"Two subjects were shown erotic films and pictures in order to enhance sexual fantasy"</i></li><li><i>3 - "Each subject manually masturbated until one or more orgasms were attained. In order to signal orgasm, the subject was instructed to depress a switch at the onset of the climax and to release the switch as soon as the orgasm was completed."</i></li><li>4 - 15 minutes of rest post- climax </li></ul><li>Each phase was approximately 15 minutes, so the total sessions were about 1 hour. After the recording equiptment was removed each subject was <i>"required to fill out a questionnaire, reviewing their subjective response to the experience."</i></li></ul></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><b>Stimulation Methods</b></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><i>"All subjects used manual stimulation to attain orgasm. A specially DC-operated electric vibrator (Panabrator) was also used by three female subjects and one male subject." </i><b>[ME:</b> so ALL the female subjects and 1/4 of the male subjects<b>]</b>.</li><li>Masters and Johnson demonstrated masturbation is the most reliable and consistent methods for orgasm in lab and also the large motor functions during sex make EEG reading difficult. <i>"Self-stimulation, particularly when vibrator assisted, can be managed with minimum overt bodily movement, making possible analysis of relatively artifact free EEG records."</i></li></ul></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><b>RESULTS AND DISCUSSION</b></div><div><b>[ME: </b>I'm going to report this in a bit of a different structure than how it's written simply because it feels more understandable to me. I'll report all the specifics about each subject under their code number. You can see them in the table below - some will have more than 1 instance of experimentation. Then I'll add other comments, etc. from the results conclusion in bullet points<b>]</b></div><div>0813</div><div>0817</div><div>0816</div><div>0814</div><div>0812</div><div>0811</div><div>0504</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Table 1:</b></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Each experimental instance (7 total subjects, 12 total instances) is listed. </li><li>The average ratio of Right/Left readings for the successive 1-second epochs for 3 periods - preclimax, climax and post climax - are listed alongside the Standard Deviation (SD) for that average.</li><li>N - indicates the number of epochs (or 1 sec intervals of Right/Left ratios that were used during that time period to create the average for each of the 3 phases). Not all epochs in each phase were used, however.</li><ul><li><i>"Only those portions of record during which the EEG appeared from visual inspection of the tracings to be most stable and artifact free"</i> were used</li><li><i>"The postclimax measurements were taken soon after orgasm. However, in several records, especially for male subjects, orgasm was followed by a short period of unrest, manifested on the recording as muscle movement." </i>So only after EEG became stable were the postclimax readings used. </li></ul><li><i>"Determination of the beginning and end of the period of orgasm was based on the subject's signal (press on a switch) and genital measurements." </i><b>[ME:</b> it mentions genital measurements here, but it never releases the data from those, and doesn't even tell <i>how</i> the genital measurements were used to determine the climax period....or why it was used. What difference did the genital measurements make on which epoch were used? It's weird to me that they just drop that in and don't follow up on it at all.<b>]</b></li><li>Those experimental instances marked with a superscript 'a' after the SD in the Climax portion are those in which the researchers found significant difference between the Right/Left ratios versus the ratios pre-climax. In other words, these are ones in which there seemed to be an indicator of orgasm related to the change in right versus left EEG readings. Specifically except for (0811), who was left handed, the change consisted of a large amplitude increase in the right and much smaller in the left. This occurred regardless of the pre climax ratio (those both above and below 1).</li><li>Some comments from the post experiments questionnaire are included in the last column</li></ul></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUunUQu3Jxo77bhfgRlKoYQfwdjwtp9pVkhMVJLDbTSZP-kCzgs-wyUG2gw1POCbddymPFDxGObUkwX618nJ3MO6wBnYX8_Bhzgp7KZDKOxGx4l1LH8h8gVlm_1Jimum4OvLXRm7s4wwvQRwmMO5RFfRbDsEblBSEsv-FUEs9tFbb_GNihYlsxQN57Hg/s1460/Cohen%20Rosen%20GoldStein%20table%201976.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="906" data-original-width="1460" height="398" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUunUQu3Jxo77bhfgRlKoYQfwdjwtp9pVkhMVJLDbTSZP-kCzgs-wyUG2gw1POCbddymPFDxGObUkwX618nJ3MO6wBnYX8_Bhzgp7KZDKOxGx4l1LH8h8gVlm_1Jimum4OvLXRm7s4wwvQRwmMO5RFfRbDsEblBSEsv-FUEs9tFbb_GNihYlsxQN57Hg/w640-h398/Cohen%20Rosen%20GoldStein%20table%201976.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><b><br /></b><div><b>More Results:</b></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>All subjects reported successfully achieving 1 or more orgasms</li><li>Except for (0811) and (0813) who reported orgasm felt somewhat "less intense" all subjects said orgasms felt typical</li><li>Because the baseline EEG ratios were so variable between subjects, it was not possible to combine data from different subjects. The analysis was done on a subject by subject basis<b> [ME:</b> in other words, you could not just use the total info from this <i>group</i> of people to predict how any one person's EEG might read at orgasm - you would need to get their individual baseline and <i>then</i> it <i>might</i> indicate what orgasm EEG could look like for them and them only...but also, this study is not even enough to predict that on an individual basis, it's just kind of a possible start to looking more into that possibility.<b>]</b></li><li>There is necessarily a smaller time duration in climax compared to pre-climax. This difference in amount of epoch ratios (N) used for pre-climax and climax could seem problematic for testing significance of the ratio change between the two, but the authors feel the robustness of the resulting statistical significance calculations indicated that this is not a problem.</li><li>To ensure that the motor movement of the hand being used for masturbation wasn't the reason for seeing the Right/Left amplitude ratio switch at orgasm, one male subject (0817) did this experiment once with his right hand and then another with his left. In both cases the ratio change from preclimax to climax was deemed statistically significant and both instances showed <i>similar </i><b>[Me: </b>their emphasis not mine<b>]<i> </i></b>shifts at orgasm.</li><li>To test whether a faked orgasm would look similar, a female subject (0811) produced a fake orgasm prior to her real one in the same experimental session. <i>"The 'faked' orgasm involved the same pattern of overt movement and muscular contractions, but without the subjective experience of sexual climax."</i> <b>[ME: </b>umm - I think what they meant to say was that the subject reported mimicking the same muscular qualities of orgasm. We don't know if she did because that wasn't actually recorded. The particular way the pelvic muscles involuntarily contract during orgasm has been indicated in more than a couple studies as dissimilar from voluntary muscle contractions, and is seemingly the best way yet we have to mark an orgasm and discern it from high arousal or faked orgasms....So saying that the muscular contractions were the same is 1. not verified by the researchers themselves and 2. not a trivial thing to assert in a study about orgasm.<b>] </b></li><li>There were not significant amplitude ratio changes during the faked orgasm. <i>"It should also be pointed out that there was no increase in vaginal blood flow during the pseudo orgasm, contrasting with the marked increase which took place during the real orgasm." </i><b>[ME: </b>I'm interested in this because they didn't check pelvic muscular activity, which is clearly in the literature as a marker of orgasm and the only real unique marker I've seen in literature. They were checking the blood congestion. I don't know how their equiptment reads - is it about how quickly blood flow changes or is it about the level of blood congestion? Anyway, was it just indicating increased blood congestion which is related to increased arousal? or was it showing a specific and unique change that they are saying indicates orgasm? If they did, I'm pretty sure that's a novel discovery. I have never seen studies that show measurements related to blood giving a unique reading that aligns to orgasm - only readings aligning to arousal. My guess is it's not a unique reading that indicates orgasm - it's just showing arousal and like so many researchers, they seem to just willy nilly throw around words and ideas related to orgasm that are really related to arousal and don't give a shit. That's probably related to why we aren't seeing the data for the genital checks they did. They aren't good at indicating orgasm, so they aren't convenient results to share. I mean, that's my take at least.<b>]</b></li><li>2 male participants didn't have discernable changes in EEG. The researchers hypothesize that this is because participant 0813 masturbated an hour before showing up for this masturbation experiment <b>[ME: </b>bad form, my dude.<b>] </b>and that participant 0816 <i>"reported being devoid of 'mental activity' during the recording period and also judged the orgasm as low intensity. Furthermore this subject reported keeping his eyes open during the entire period of masturbation, and it may be that laterality changes are less clearly </i><i>apparent under conditions if alpha-blocking"</i></li></ul></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Figure 1 :</b></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>shows <i>"the clearest segments of preclimax, climax, and postclimax records obtained from subject 0817." </i>There is a visual clear difference in Right vs. Left amplitude ratio - which was also calculated and confirmed quantitatively</li><li>There was also a visually noticeable frequency change - which for this study was only noted through visual inspection. These apparent frequency changes were noted in 5 of the 8 experimental instances in which right/left amplitude ratios were found to change during orgasm.</li></ul></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8F-yxA7C_8VrDRVbR9EY6wV0C7FiGshPO3MwJZ08__d-CeAbLfw_rpYoBREdLCBJB0ihlnQZGOe_hFjxTqvCyQw2Uz5zUYWUMKLIOuVWwWIs7QBQJl36kSdyIrzh8vTBydg23ioXLXyQC_3iN8wU-0DqP1zFPDNxY3sPGrKwi3NbjIPjIUu8FliKQSA/s832/Cohen%20Rosen%20GoldStein1976_figure1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="832" data-original-width="614" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8F-yxA7C_8VrDRVbR9EY6wV0C7FiGshPO3MwJZ08__d-CeAbLfw_rpYoBREdLCBJB0ihlnQZGOe_hFjxTqvCyQw2Uz5zUYWUMKLIOuVWwWIs7QBQJl36kSdyIrzh8vTBydg23ioXLXyQC_3iN8wU-0DqP1zFPDNxY3sPGrKwi3NbjIPjIUu8FliKQSA/w472-h640/Cohen%20Rosen%20GoldStein1976_figure1.jpg" width="472" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div><b>Conclusion</b></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The researchers thought the quality of the EEG changes at orgasm might be different from the other types of "amplitude asymmetries they were seeing in the literature. <i>"Thus it is a qualitatively different kind of interhemispheric change unrelated to other changes described so far in the scientific literature. This appears to be better interpreted as indicating a dissociation between the right and left EEG, with a change in the right of such a nature and magnitude that it clearly suggests a predominant change in the hemisphere."</i></li><li>Their final words: <i>"This study has demonstrated that the computation of hemispheric amplitude relationships provide a viable methodology for quantitative assessment of orgasmic response. In fact, the amplitude ratio changes observed were even greater than those recorded under states of sensory deprivation or hallucinogenic drugs (Goldstein et all., 1973)" </i><b>[ME: </b>I don't think this provides a viable methodology for quantitative assessment of orgasmic response. I think it provides <i>some</i> tools for <i>possibly</i> looking further into the <i>future creation </i>of a viable brainwave-related marker for orgasmic response, ya know?]</li></ul></div><div><br /></div></div>Trishahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08846980215552421591noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2427849323464039196.post-41703782908124505072022-02-26T14:00:00.005-05:002022-02-26T14:00:25.252-05:005 Comedies My Dad Would Be Into #DirectedByWomen<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php" name="fb_share" type="button_count">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript">
</script> </div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" href="http://twitter.com/share">Tweet</a><script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>I'm saying this a lot lately, but I apologize for the almost month delay in the posts. I was already a bit behind, and then my dad got sick, so I traveled back to Indy and have been living at my sister's house. I've certainly gone through the whole hospital/doctor/grave diagnosis thing before but this is the first time anything has happened to my dad since my mom passed. It's just me and my sister now, and it's just a lot of things to do and places to be. People in the hospital system need an advocate with them - at least that's my take after many a time being with a patient going through it. There are great people in healthcare but a lot of the time there are just systematic breaks in communication and a lot to think about and remember, and frankly a sick person isn't the best person to be there for themselves. Plus, we both want to be with my dad and make sure he's not feeling alone thorugh as much of this process as we can be. All that to say, that's my priority at the moment. Well that and ya know, work, but also, I want to keep up on this blog and let it be known I'm still at it. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, as I often do I'm going for a quick post, and as you might have noticed, the 5 Movies series is a fairly easy one for me to get up, so here we are. That said, I also really like this series because I LOVE movies and I truly believe in getting a variety of lady voices behind our media.</div><div><div><br /></div><div>Okay, so to the movies. I wanted to do a list dedicated to my dad, and frankly my first choice at this point in his life would be Westerns - because I don't know, he's a 70 year old man that doesn't have cable and watches mostly the Grit station. However, not a lot of old Westerns in my list for various reasons including that I don't watch them, and there weren't a ton of women directing them back in the day. My second choice, for dad, would be comedies - because my dad sure do be loving a comedy. So that's where I landed. These are 5 Comedic movies directed by women that I have actually seen and that I believe or know my dad would like.</div><div><div><div><br /></div><div><b>A Little History of These Lists</b><br /><div><div>I started doing this categorized List of 5 movies thing where I showcase movies that were directed by women and <i>that I have actually seen</i>. It all started during the <a href="http://directedbywomen.com/">Directed By Women Worldwide Viewing Party</a> in September 2015, and it was pretty fun, so I've continued doing it from time to time.</div><div><br />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<br />1. this blog is also about indie movie-making, and<br />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.<br /><br />You can find all my 5-movie lists <a href="http://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2017/09/tons-of-movies-directed-by-women-you.html">HERE</a>.<br /><br /><b>So, here friends, are 5 Comedies directed by women that my dad would like (and that I've actually seen). I had to go back and pull some that I've already posted about because my current list of options I haven't yet written about is a little light on this type of movie. </b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>So, like ol' dad might have done back in the day - order an Aunt Polly's pizza, get a generic cola from Marsh, make some jiffy pop, and laugh your ass off to these movies.</b></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Movies</span></b></div></div></div></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></div></div></div><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;">1 </span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083929/" target="_blank">Fast Times at Ridgemont High</a></span><b> - </b>This was directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002132/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Amy Heckerling</a>. <b> </b>I saw this on TV at some point in my youth with my sister. I kinda think we were babysitting together somewhere and the kids were asleep, although we didn't babysit together much. Anyway, it seemed cool and funny and super edgy, which I liked, and I watched it later as an adult, and knew the actors better, so that was fun - and I did an <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2010/10/fast-times-at-ridgemont-high-ssl-review.html" target="_blank">SSL Review in 2010 about the dugout sex</a>. Also, I can't be certain my dad would like this, it was after his time, but he likes generally this kind of stuff, so I'm going with it.<div><br /><div><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vzva_I8WPAg" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe><br /></div><div><br /><div><b><br /></b></div><div><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;">2 </span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0126029/" target="_blank">Shrek</a></span><b>- </b>This was directed by Andrew Adamson and <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0421776/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Vicki Jenson</a> - I saw this in the theater with some of my nieces and/or nephews. I honestly can't remember which ones, but it was 2011, so it had to have been the older ones. Anyway, I liked it and thought it was a solid kids movie. Top notch really. My dad does indeed like this one. I know that for certain. It's his level of dumb comedy.</div><div><br /></div><div> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CwXOrWvPBPk" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></div><div><br /></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;">3 </span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0811080/" target="_blank">Speed Racer </a>- </span><span>This was directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0905154/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Lana</a> and <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0905152/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Lilly Wachowski</a>. I also saw this at the theater with Charlie, and I think Barnaby. I thought it was done really well, and thinking about it it makes me want to watch it again. Anyway, my dad liked the Speed Racer cartoon, and I believe he liked this revamp of it.</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8V8sLlqJB2w" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></span></div><div><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size: large;">4 </span><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105793/" target="_blank"><span>Wayne's World</span><b> </b></a> -</span><span>This was directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0790715/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Penelope Spheeris</a>. I think I first saw this on VHS with my BFF Leslie. </span>We were already fans of the Wayne's World SNL skit, so, obviously we loved it, and I also believe I had the Soundtrack tape for it. My dad liked it too I believe - mostly because it's dumb. </div><div><br /><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OIuhsHpcNAU" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-weight: bold;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;">5 </span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089670/" target="_blank">National Lampoon's European Vacation</a></span><b style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089670/" target="_blank"> </a>- </b>This was also directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002132/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Amy Heckerling</a>. I definitely first say this in my childhood living room on VHS. I believe that there was another family there with us when we were watching it, but honestly that seems weird because we had a tiny living room, and I don't remember having other families over to do things like watch movies, but I also kinda feel like it was our across the street neighbors who had the exact same size living room, so maybe it was fine and we were all used to being packed in tight. The thing I most remember about this movie, though was when the German gal exposes her boobs to the son in this. It was reeeaaal dirty, and I was into it. My dad would clearly love this because it's the people and comedy of his era and all that. It's his vibe for sure.</span></div></div></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vbF_7TiG5bg" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>Trishahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08846980215552421591noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2427849323464039196.post-25630217329261416942022-01-29T23:03:00.000-05:002022-01-29T23:03:05.226-05:00A 1954 Theory of Female Orgasm - A Journal Article I Read<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php" name="fb_share" type="button_count">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript">
</script> </div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" href="http://twitter.com/share">Tweet</a><script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div> Welcome<span> back to An Article I Read, where I summarize a scientific article relating to female orgasm (check all the past ones out <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-big-ol-list-of-summarized-journal.html" target="_blank">HERE</a>). I have a bunch of to-be-summarized articles in a folder, and I was feeling a bit motivated to write some article reviews, so I picked the first one and decided to go for it. It's first in the list because they have the publish year at the front of the file title, and this one was published in 1954. </span><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>So, it's old. You'd think an article this old wouldn't be that relevant, but I think it actually provides a great look into the world of lady-gasm science - a window into why this not particularly complicated science continues to seem deeply tangled and confusing. Specifically, it contains all the same hang-ups and logic circumventing that still exist today surrounding the desperate need to justify and explain the existence of a vaginal orgasm whilst faced with strong evidence against it (and mere hearsay for it). </span></div><div><br /></div><div><span><b><a href="https://journals.lww.com/psychosomaticmedicine/Abstract/1954/05000/Some_Considerations_Concerning_Orgasm_in_the.6.aspx" target="_blank">Some Considerations Concerning Orgasm in the Female</a>. Marmor, J. <i>Psychosomatic Medicine. </i>Vol. 16 No. 3 (May 1954), pp. 240-245.</b></span></div><div><span><div><br /></div><b><span style="font-size: large;">MY QUICK SUMMARY</span></b></span></div><div><span>This is an article written by an MD in the height of the Freudian -vaginal orgasms are mature and clitoral orgasms are immature- era. Overall, this doctor agrees with Freud's assessment that the female orgasm does mature over time, but not about the because of, ya know, anatomy and reality, he also agrees that it couldn't possibly make sense that there are 2 different pathways for the female orgasm or that there is some kind of actual movement of a female's orgasmic sensitivity that begins in the clitoral glans and then relocates into the vagina (as is suggested by Freud and Freudian thinkers). He is a medical professional and knows that 1. the vagina just really does not seem to have the sensitivity or receptors to elicit the orgasmic response; 2. that the clit is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology)" target="_blank">homologous</a> to the penis and that sensibly the clitoral glans would react quite similarly to the glans penis when it comes to orgasm; and 3. that the glans clitoris does indeed have the same nerve set up as the glans penis (only packed into a smaller glans). </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>So, he asserts that the female does not in fact make an anatomical transition from the clit to the vagina (aka clitoral orgasm to vaginal orgasm) as she matures. Instead he suggests that since that physical transition is impossible, it must be more of a psychological transition. Basically, he grabs onto the idea that during intercourse, the clitoral glans must certainly get a little stimulation too (that's a big ol' MAYBE, but Lordy people cling to the idea of indirect stimulation of the clit while getting banged). This indirect stimulation, he asserts, mixed with the emotional/psychological openness and intensity that a mature woman receives from a loving partner during intercourse is what give this more whole-bodied, deeper, better orgasm we call the "Vaginal Orgasm." </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Without that emotional/psychological o</span>penness and intensity that can be achieved during the penis-vagina interlocking, he asserts that a female would need way more direct physical stimulation on the clit. In other words the clitoral glans is always needed for a female orgasm no matter what, but if she gets fucked and is mentally and emotionally on-point, then the indirect stimulation is enough to give her an orgasm. In fact that getting-banged orgasm is even better because the mental/emotional element is so amazing that the orgasm will be more amazing than she could get from directly stimulating the clit. That direct stimulated orgasm doesn't have the closeness of the penis-in-vagina situation, and it's just the boring ol' localized orgasm we know as the "Clitoral Orgasm."</div><div><br /></div><div><span>I like this try. So, basically, this man knows (because it's pretty obvious and there's been clear evidence to support for a long time) that female orgasm is based on clitoral glans area stimulations as much as the male's orgasm is based on penile glans stimulation. He's not any stupider about this stuff than anyone in the 60's, 70's 80's or Today. I mean - this was even before Master's and Johnson's research really solidified that knowledge in the scientific community. It's basic and hard to ignore. Yet, he's REALLY trying to logic his way around this to still find his way to there being a vaginal orgasm. He's trying to tell us that it's clear ladies need clitoral glans area stimulation in order to orgasm, but ya know, the thing that's even better than that - is to not stimulate it very much at all, like just VERY indirectly. In fact don't even worry about that too much. Just get over all your sexual psychological hang-ups, be with a loving partner, and then just let his penis fuck your vagina. Everything else will fall into place and actually, you know what? It's actually THE BEST orgasm because of some the undefined psychological/emotional of the excitation. Aaaand...if you can't do it that way, and have to have direct clitoral stimulation, it's cool. You're just too hung-up and inhibited to get it THE BEST way. </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>It's beautiful to me because it's the same shit different day. I do believe he has good intentions. I really actually do. He's just of his time. He quite rightly mentions how the culture gives women sexual hang-ups that could block their sexuality in ways it doesn't men (see, we've always known it). And at the end he basically says there's a lot of women worried about not having vaginal orgasms. They may even urge their partners away from their clit for that reason, but they shouldn't. Foreplay is good and important and the clit is needed for the mature "vaginal orgasm" they are wanting during intercourse. So, he's at least giving proper props to the clit. But, in the end, he can't stray from the idea that having a penis move in and out of the vagina is a way that women can orgasm too. Because, let's be honest - it would be soooo convenient if intercourse - the very thing that gave men direct continued stimulation to their glans penis, something that is a bedrock of hetero sex, something that dudes seem to really like - if that thing just magically gave females the same orgasmic possibilities it gave men too? Wouldn't it be easy-peasy for dudes? Wouldn't ladies love it too - to not have the hassle of trying to get their partner to acknowledge and appropriately react to their orgasm needs too? Wouldn't life be easy?</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>That my friends is the issue. We are stuck on that hope. REALLY stuck.</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Same shit different day. This 1954 MD knew how women orgasm, and he knew there's no evidence it was from the vagina getting a good bang, but he clung to the possibility that -'weeeelll, actually it probably does happen, though.' He went with clinging to an undefined level of emotional connection and psychological openness as the thing we're missing. But, many more have tried. Before this guy (and honestly, well after him too), it was oft said that the walls of the vagina itself were what could be stimulated to orgasm. This was known as nonsense early, but also clung to. This guy's angle was the whole psychological Freudian thing. When those two things went out of vogue, and one couldn't shove that nonsense down women's throats anymore, feminists and their insistence on the myth of the vaginal orgasm had a short, beautiful heyday in the 70's. It was short lived, though. They were quickly minimized. Even today otherwise sex positive progressives will call these women radicals for their over-emphasis on the clitoral orgasm over the vaginal one. Luckily, for the ladies-orgasm-from-a-fuck advocates, the G-Spot hit the scene in the early 80's and that was the new thing everyone clung to. It was a magic button we hadn't previously known about in the vagina that caused 'Vaginal Orgasms' (or whatever popular term was being used for an orgasm from a penis). Strangely the interesting info learned about the ejaculation and the G-spot at that time (and still today) was largely ignored or minimized in service of the idea that it could cause an orgasm. The G-spot as a orgasm button never had any sensible evidence and in the past 40 years has been refuted so many times it finally just recently went out of vogue too, but not before there was a solid replacement. Today, again with no actual evidence, the 'vaginal orgasm' is explained by the 'inner clitoris.' You might hear it as the clitoral complex or clitoral legs or the clitourethrovaginal CUV complex, but it's just the new hope for a newly discovered magical thing in the vagina to convince people women can orgasm from the ol' in and out. Same shit different day.</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Anyway, that's what I found most interesting about this article. It shows the through-line of desperate logic circumvention that researchers and 'sexperts' have fed us over the years to justify the idea that banging a woman can make her come. Secondly, though, I found another aspect interesting. It proves to some extent something I see people disregard often - that professionals understood the important basics of female orgasm, the role, extent, and impressive glans nervature of the clit, long before feminists were saying it and way before the contemporary discussion of it. That knowledge, though, </span>(both then and now) gets minimized, ignored, skewed, and smoothed over in an effort to never fully negate the hopes and screw-brained illogical justifications of vag-gasms and their champions.</div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>THE ARTICLE SUMMARY</b></span></div><div><span><a href="https://journals.lww.com/psychosomaticmedicine/Abstract/1954/05000/Some_Considerations_Concerning_Orgasm_in_the.6.aspx" target="_blank">Some Considerations Concerning Orgasm in the Female</a>. Marmor, J. <i>Psychosomatic Medicine. </i>Vol. 16 No. 3 (May 1954), pp. 240-245.</span></div><div><br /></div><div><span><div>In these summaries, you can assume that anything I write is a genuine attempt to reflect what is said in the paper - even if it's shortened or summarized. My opinions, if I have any to add will either be inside brackets likes these <b>[me:]</b>, or in a section headed in a way that clearly lets you know these are my opinions. All quotes are from this article unless specifically noted.</div><div><br /></div>You can check out the list of all the past 'A Journal Article I Read' Summaries <a href="http://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-big-ol-list-of-summarized-journal.html" target="_blank">HERE</a>.</span></div></div><div><span><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Intro</b></span></div><div>A lot is known about male orgasm but less about female, some likely reasons are that you can see the ejaculation which is related to a male orgasm but it's harder for females themselves or an observer to identify the female orgasm. There's also all the quite harsh taboos women feel about their sexuality. Of women, it says, <i>"One might speculate as to whether their very sensory perceptions of the process, having developed in the crucible of these conventions, have not been affected in such a way as to interfere with the accurate evaluation of their own sexual reactions."</i></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Freud's Concept of Genital Erogenicity</span></b></div><div><ul><li><i>"...most psychoanalytical concepts about the physiology of the female orgasm date back to Freud's classic formulation in his 'Three Contributions to the Theory of Sex.'" </i>Basically Freud asserted that the erotic genital center for females is at first in the clitoris (an immature phase) but should transfer to the vagina, and so orgasm in the healthy mature woman should be due to vaginal rather than clitoral stimulation. If this sensitivity transfer does not take place, it leads to 'frigidity' or 'anesthesia'. Freud believes this is due to <i>"profuse sexual activities in infantile life."</i></li><li>Some researchers named Horney <b>[ME:</b> hilarious, am I right?<b>] </b>and Lorand propose it's possible vaginal sensation may be present in childhood, <i>"but the conclusion that clitoral sensitivity must ultimately give way to vaginal sensitivity in the normal female seems never to have been seriously questioned in the psychoanalytical literature."</i></li><li>This Freud hypothesis was based on common clinical observations. Masturbation in the young female is generally centered on the clit. "Frigid" women who can't come from vaginal stimulation often do seem to orgasm fine from clitoral stimulation. Also. <i>"women who seem to have achieved the greatest degree of sexual freedom and responsiveness are able to have orgasms freely through vaginal intercourse."</i> <i>"most observers"</i> report clitoral orgasm is a localized response and vaginal orgasms <i>"seem to be a more violent, intense, and generalized reaction."</i><b> [</b><b>ME<i>:</i></b> i.e. clit-gasms are immature and weak and lame and only genital. Vag-gasms are amazing, mind-blowingly intense and whole-bodied. I just want to point out that the Freud immature vs. mature theory is relatively outdated, but the idea of vaginal orgasm being better and more whole-bodied is still quite strongly with us. Look around at how modern information often describes it. Also those "common clinical observations" don't have references attached. Miiiiight be a bunch of trash and hearsay.<b>]</b> </li><li><i>"Although these clinical observations seem well authenticated </i><b>[ME:</b> Do they?<b>]</b><i>, recent studies have thrown doubt on their theoretical interpretations, and specifically upon the hypothesis of the transfer of erogenicity from the clitoris to the vagina. Evidence has accumulated in recent years to indicate that in the normal adult woman clitoral excitation by the penis in the process of intercourse is an important factor in the stimulation leading to orgasm." </i><b>[ME:</b> When they say clitoris in this article, they mean the clitoral glans and surrounding externals tissues. I have to make this clear since people are now way into thinking that the "inner legs" of the clitoris are what actually causes orgasms. Spoiler: We've been lied to. <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2021/01/was-clitoris-really-discovered-in-1998.html" target="_blank">There's no Evidence for that</a><b>]. </b>One study indicated that a shorter distance from the clit to the vagina (so the penis might have a better chance of touching it while thrusting) is correlated to higher possibility of having intercourse orgasms. Another researcher, Robert Latou Dickenson, disagrees with this assessment, but does believe stimulation of the clit is essential to female orgasm. <i>"In his opinion, the most reliable index to clitoral function is not its location so much as its susceptibility to displacement during intercourse."</i> <b>[ME:</b> you might say he's suggesting that it's more about if that clit can position itself to consistently grind against something during the banging - and I can get behind that idea<b>]</b></li><li>More evidence, though indirect, of the importance of the clit in sex comes from looking at common sex positions. Some researchers found face-to-face sex, which affords possible clit stimulation is most popular throughout the world. The Kinsey studies found woman on top face to face to be what people considered best for lady-gasms. Another researchers found doggy style <b>[ME: </b>They used the term coitus-atergo, which I had to look up and kinda sounds awesome<b>]</b>, is not preferred in any more than 35 societies they studied, and suggested it may be because clit stim is minimal.</li><li><i>"Most significant of all, however, are histological studies in females of the sensory cells known as the <a href="https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/genital+corpuscles" target="_blank">genital corpuscles</a>, which 'are highly specialized end-organs for the perception of this particular sensation (i.e. orgasm) just as the retinal is adapted for the sense of sight and the neuro-epithelium of the nose is adapted for the sense of smell.'<span style="font-size: xx-small;">10</span> These histological studies indicate that the genital corpuscles do not occur in the vaginal mucosa and are confined predominantly to the glans clitoridis.<span style="font-size: xx-small;">10</span> Some are also found in the areas directly adjacent to the clitoris, notably the labia minor."</i></li></ul></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Importance of the Clitoris</span></b></div><div><ul><li>This all means the main organ for erotic sensation in females is the clitoral glans just as in males it is localized in the homologous <b>[ME:</b> they arise from the same tissue in the embryo<b>]</b> organ, the glans penis. The penis shaft and the vagina are lacking in these genital corpuscles. There are other secondary erogenous zones of course, like lips, butt, etc. and their importance is well known.</li><li><i>"There are </i><a href="https://dictionary.apa.org/kinesthetic-receptor" style="font-style: italic;" target="_blank">kinesthetic receptors</a><i> within the vagina, the stimulation of which by the erect penis contributes to volumptuous sensations to the normal woman. </i><b>[ME:</b> I have no idea what voluptuous sensations are<b>]</b> <i>There are similar receptors in the bulbocavernous muscles around the lower end of the vagina which contribute a sense of ejaculation during orgasm by the spasmodic pulsations. The contractions of these muscles in the male cause actual ejaculation of semen from the penis during orgasm.</i> <b>[ME: </b>This statement is interesting because it acknowledges a few things 1. that the bulbocavernous muscles - now called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulbospongiosus_muscle" target="_blank">bulbospongiosus muscle</a>- in both males and females spasm -one might say contract rhythmically- during orgasm. This was over 10 years before Masters and Johnson released their groundbreaking research on this topic which tells me that basic understanding of orgasm was pretty clear well in the past. It is interesting that they describe that as giving a 'sense of ejaculation' in females but I guess that's just because it's a spasm like the kind that shoot the semen out in spurts. 2. that it recognizes that the bulbocavernous muscles which cover the vestibular bulbs in females. This is of note because the vestibular bulbs are what O'Connell, in her 1998 paper, asserted should be included in our definition of the clitoris - even though it is a different organ and other anatomists would disagree. That paper is what people often assert 'discovered the full structure of the clit in 1998.' It did not. I have a whole thing on that idea and that paper <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2021/01/was-clitoris-really-discovered-in-1998.html" target="_blank">HERE</a>. Anyway, there is a sense that people didn't know about the inner parts of the clitoris or the vestibular bulbs before 1998, but they absolutely did and this is just 1 of many evidence of that.<b>]</b></li><li>This knowledge of the clit's importance in adult women calls into question the idea of the clit to vagina sensation shift that's supposed to take place, but before discussing that further the knowledge of the male anatomy should be examined</li><li><i>"It is accepted fact that in the male there is an orgastic spinal center in the sacral segment of the spinal cord. As can be demonstrated from the evidence of neurophysiology, discharges of tension in this orgastic center can be achieved either at a reflex spinal level or by cortical stimulation."</i> In the instance of the 'reflex' stimulation, orgasm is simply achieved by stimulation of the genital corpuscles in the glans penis. In the instance of the 'cortical' stimulation, orgasm is achieved through psychological stimuli - for instance; stimulation of secondary erogenous areas, witnessing exciting events, erotic literature, fantasy, daydreaming - even with no physical stimulation of the penis. In some neurotic men, extreme anxiety or tension has been observed to cause orgasm. <b>[ME:</b> this does not have any references, so take as you will<b>] </b></li><li>However, in the normal <i>"from a psychodynamic standpoint" </i>male, both 'reflex' and 'cortical' stimulus are needed. The cortical stimulus (psychological, secondary erogenous zones, etc.) is sufficient for erection but not orgasm. A certain amount of penile glans stimulation, <i>"through the process of intercourse, is necessary. </i><b>[ME:</b> umm...you can get penile glans stimulation other ways, ya know... but for real - they are obsessed with intercourse. am I right?<b>]</b><i> This physical excitation is further enhanced in the process of intercourse by the psychological stimulus from the mounting excitement of the partner </i><b>[ME:</b> aka - this lady's so hot about you climbing on top and jamming it in that it makes you even hotter, baby!<b>]</b><b style="font-style: italic;">. </b><i>Under ideal circumstances this crescendo of excitement occurs in both partners simultaneously, and the combination of physical and psychological stimulation finally results in orgasm." </i><b>[ME:</b> remember this fine assessment of how hot intercourse makes people. This is crucial to their later hypothesis that the psychological hotness of getting banged overcomes the very indirect (you might say barely feel-able) clit stimulation that (maybe) happens during basic in-out sex. the will assert it not only gets a lady to orgasm, but makes her come like a motha-fucka - an amazing, whole bodied, stars falling into your gasping mouth, vaginal orgasm - simultaneously with him, of course<b>].</b></li><li><i>"In considering the parallel mechanism of orgasm in the female, there is no reason to expect from our knowledge of anatomy and the physiology that the female has two spinal orgastic centers rather than one. On the contrary, it is fair to assume that the female undoubtedly has an orgastic center located in the sacral segment of the spinal cord, exactly as the male has. From neurohistological evidence, it can be shown that the sensory receptors for this spinal orgastic center are the genital corpuscles, located predominantly in the glans clitoris, just as the homologous sensory receptors in the male are confined to the glans penis."</i><b> [ME:</b> I want to take a quick moment to point out that it is the glans of the clit and to a lesser degree area directly around it - not the clitoral legs and vestibular bulbs that are surrounding the vagina- that contain all this nervature. People are always seeming to forget that when they act like the inner parts of the clit are somehow supposed to cause orgasm as they are jostled indirectly through the vagina and surrounding tissue<b>]</b>. </li><li>In case people wonder how the tiny clit could play such a sensory role, they quote from Dickinson's 1933 <u>Human Sex Anatomy</u>. He describes how the amount and size of the nerves in the little clit compare strikingly with those in the penile glans. In fact it's <i>"demonstrably richer in nerves than the male glans, for the two stems of the doralis clitoridis are relatively three to four times as large as the equivalent nerves of the penis." </i><b>[ME:</b> Again, I just want to point out that the quite large nature of the clitoral nerves were known. Granted there are more detailed anatomy studies today, but I've seen people assert that the striking size of the clitoral nerves was not understood until recently and that is disingenuous.<b>]</b></li><li>It's suggested this extremely rich nervature of the clit may explain why women have a greater capacity for multiple orgasms. <b>[ME:</b> There are studies <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2013/06/oxytocin-orgasm-muscle-contractions-and.html" target="_blank">with physical evidence that some males have multiple orgasms</a> as well. It <i>seems</i> like it is when they are able to have orgasms without ejaculation. The multiple orgasm session seems to end when ejaculation finally happens...in case you wondered if males could have multiple orgasms]</li></ul></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Orgiastic Impotence</b></span></div><div><ul><li>Even with evidence that females should be as orgasmic as males, they just aren't. One study of 1000 married women showed only 2 of 5 women experience regular orgasms during intercourse, and they say these figures are corroborated by others but don't describe where.</li><li>It seems almost inescapable to conclude that there could not possibly be 2 different pathways for female orgasm (vaginal and clitoral) as many have suspected, so one must assume the problem women tend to have with orgasming vaginally must not be physiological - but rather psychological. <b>[ME: </b>or, and hear me out, maybe it's that expecting a woman to orgasm from ramming a dick in her vagina is like expecting a male to come from rubbing his balls. It's dumb, makes no anatomical sense, and you should stop expecting it. So...ya know, maybe it's not psychological or a physiological issues, but a simple user error.<b>]</b></li><li>It's noted that the menstrual cycle may play a part in the female libido, but they don't believe it is related to frigidity.</li><li>The psychological factors for females that might affect frigidity are huge - including; "<i>the greater degree of sexual repression and inhibition which our culture imposes upon them, and the envy and hostility to men which stems in part at least from the position of women in an androcentric culture </i><b>[ME:</b> aka the motha fuckin' patriarchy<b>], </b><i>are only a few of the factors that interfere with the capacity of women to enter with uninhibited pleasure into a sexual relationship. Fears of being injured by the penis, fears of pregnancy and childbirth, and lack of adequate skill, tenderness, or potency on the part of the male partners..." </i></li><li>This paper is less concerned, however, with the psychology of frigidity (inability to have 'vaginal' orgasms through intercourse), and more concerned with how the element of psychology can help explain what a vaginal orgasm really is - since we know it couldn't be some different physiological pathway from the clitoral orgasm pathway. Specifically, it seems that if there are psychological inhibitions holding a female back from the full capacity to enjoy sexual intercourse, she will still usually be capable of orgasming through direct clitoral stimulation (the 'reflex' stimulus). <i>"On the other hand, if the woman has been able to free herself from the blanket of psychological inhibition, she will be capable of responding through the medium of enhanced cortical excitement (that is, through cortical facilitation)</i> <i>to vaginal intercourse.</i>" </li><li>The authors tells us ,<i>"as has been pointed out, </i><b>[ME:</b> from somewhere. no reference.<b>] </b><i>some stimulation of the clitoris almost invariably occurs in normal vaginal intercourse and is an important factor in the excitation leading to orgasm. The difference between the so-called clitoral and vaginal orgasms, therefore is explicable not in terms of the different origin or location of the orgastic response, but in the different intensity of it and in the degree to which cortical factors are contributory."</i></li><li>In other words, the assertion is that frigidity does not come from the body's inability to transfer sensation from the clit to the vagina, because that seems physiologically impossible, but from the mind's inability to overcome psychological inhibitions. These inhibitions <i>can</i> exist for a woman and still allow orgasm, but only by direct clitoral stimulation. However, these inhibitions must be overcome in order to achieve the enhanced 'cortical' (mental/emotional) excitement that makes the indirect stimulation of the clit during intercourse enough to have an so-called orgasm. </li><li>They assert that in both males and females the intensity of the orgasm relates to the degree of psychological excitation present. In the <i>'purely spinal reflex,'</i> due to the mechanical stimulation of either the penis or the clitoris, the orgasm is generally experienced as a localized and limited reaction. <i>"On the other hand, in both the male and female, the higher the degree of emotional and psychological participation, the greater the degree of cortical facilitation of the spinal discharge, and the more general and intense the orgastic response is."</i> <b>[ME:</b> So, they know stimulating the penis or clit directly can cause orgasm, right? They say it's a lame, lesser one, but one none the less. So, to get a <i>more</i> intense, whole-bodied one, we're told that males and females just need more psychological excitation (more arousal and intimacy), right? Through lack of inhibition and intercourse, right? So...to get this better orgasm, men still get to give their penile glans really good direct stimulations by engulfing it in a vagina, but females get way less clitoral glans stimulation, maybe barely any at all, but they're saying somehow females still should expect the same results as the males. How's that shit make any sense?<b>]</b></li><li>The authors think it would be useful to do <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography" target="_blank">electroencephalographic</a> studies of the cortical patterns during intense orgasm. </li></ul></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Extra Genital Orgasm</span></b></div><div><ul><li>There are other reactions in the female similar to those in the male. For instance, women too are capable of orgasming without any local genital stimulation. They quote from Dickenson and Beam's study of a thousand marriages. <i> "The records contain instances of orgasm obtained from nipple suction, from nursing a baby, from pressing down (fully dressed ) against another </i><b>[ME:</b> That's called 'cloths burning' or 'dry humping', and that actually does include genital stimulation, amiright?<b>]</b>, f<i>rom a shampoo at the hands of a male hairdresser, from a look, from a kiss, from touching the eye or ear, from a handclasp, and from a picture or flower which contains no figure and no likeness to a person or scene."</i> <b>[ME:</b> Daaaaaamn - coming from merely looking at picture of a driveway or something. That's a horny motha fucker. Respect if that's you, but I venture to guess one shouldn't count on that doing the trick. And did we ever consider these tales might just be lies women have told their old-timey husbands after they read their wife's diary saying she orgasmsed with Pierre - like 'oh - Pierre's the shampoo boy. I just inexplicably came while he was washing my hair. Strange, huh?'<b> ]</b></li><li>Those non-genital orgasms are ones based on the cortical excitation only, but normally males and females need both cortical (emotional/mental) and reflex simulation (physical stimulation to clit/penis). Also - <i>"In the normal woman, moreover, as in the normal man, the excitement of the partner, and particularly the setting off of his orgiastic reaction, constitutes an intense psychological stimulus for her and often acts as a trigger for her climactic response." </i><b>[ME: </b>I mean, just goes to show you that the ol' -him coming made me come- story has been around forever to give both males and females alike a way to justify the otherwise quite unrealistic situation of banging, a sexual act that gives the penis great stimulation and the clit little to none, causing simultaneous orgasms.<b>]</b></li><li><i>"Pursuing the logic of this hypothesis, therefore, we may say that strictly speaking there is no such thing as a 'vaginal' orgasms in the female, anymore than we might speak of 'scrotal,' 'anal,' or 'prostatic' orgasm in the male. It seems logical to assume that the actual spinal mechanism of orgasm is identical in all females."</i></li><li>The variations that take place, however, are due to the level at which inhabitations accompany the physical stimulation. If inhibitions are great enough, they may inhibit even direct clitoral stimulation, and create a total incapacity for orgasm. If it's less inhibition, prolonged direct clitoral stimulation may overcome the inhabition and an orgasm is possible. These are what are known as 'clitoral orgasms.' <i>"However, where cortical inhabitations do not exist, where there is freedom from psychological tension or anxiety in the sexual act, and instead there is a high degree of tender, affection, love, and psychological excitement, then cortical facilitation takes place. The result is an intense orgastic response in which the intromission of the phallus into the vagina is of major importance. This is both psychodynamically and physiologically the optimum type of response, and represents what is ordinarily characterized as a 'vaginal' orgasm." </i></li></ul></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Conclusion</b></span></div><div><span>The reason all this is important is to help people; women, their male partners, and the doctors and psychologists they go to for help. With this new understanding that the clitoris doesn't give sensitivity up to the vagina as women mature, and that the clitoral glans continues to be important to orgasmic response, will help. Anxious women need not worry if their clit is still sensitive past youth and should know that stimulating it is important in their mature, adult sexual experiences. They shouldn't feel that allowing it to be touched is bad or a sign of immaturity. Men should understand the importance of clitoral foreplay, and the doctors and psychologists can use all this information to better counsel women.<b> [ME:</b> see - I do believe this was created out of good intention - old-timey good intention, yes- but none the less I imagine this, for its time, was forward thinking, and I can appreciate that.<b>]</b><br /></span></div><div><span><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;">Summary </span>(in entirety)</span></div><div><span><i>"Some considerations have been presented which throw doubt on the popular assumption that genital erogenicity in the female becomes normally transferred from the clitoris to the vagina. There is evidence to indicate that clitoral sensitivity is a continuing factor in adult female sexuality, and the chief difference between so-called clitoral and vaginal orgasm is explicable not in terms of the different origin or location of the orgastic response, but in the different intensity of it and the degree to which cortical facilitation of the spinal reaction has taken place."</i></span></div>Trishahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08846980215552421591noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2427849323464039196.post-91600831885963737872022-01-15T21:02:00.015-05:002022-01-20T20:34:28.945-05:00The Best Scandanavian Female Orgasm Book You Never Knew About - I Accuse! by Mette Ejlersen<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php" name="fb_share" type="button_count">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript">
</script> </div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" href="http://twitter.com/share">Tweet</a><script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Mette Ejlersen. <i>I Accuse!</i> Tandem, 1970.</span></b></div></span></b><div><br /><div><b>Listen. This book, people. It's ON POINT. </b>So, that badass SSL friend that is always sending me amazing tips, sent me a link to a book called <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/I-Accuse-Mette-Ejlersen/dp/0426032446" target="_blank">"I Accuse!"</a></i> by Mette Ejlersen. It's Scandinavian, first published in 1969. I read the description and was instantly intrigued. I was actually starting a road trip vacation at that moment, but I NEEDED it, so I ordered it, and 2 weeks later found it waiting for me at home. I finished it in 2 days. <div><br /></div><div>I'm often reading descriptions of books, getting excited, and then realizing upon reading that it's really just like everything else out there with all the terrible misconceptions about lady-gasms that, well, do something between pissing me off and making me sad. This, my friends, was not the case here. It's soooo rare to find something that is bold and poignant and doesn't throw out unverified claims about how the <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2021/01/was-clitoris-really-discovered-in-1998.html" target="_blank">inner parts of the vagina cause orgasm too</a>, but when I do find one, it's usually from the 60's or 70's - so I have a special love for the oft-described radical feminists that write them. </div><div><br /></div><div>I have been looking into this lady-gasm shit since about 2002, and I've never heard of this book. It's crazy to me. In fact you can't really even find the book unless you Google both the title and the author, and even then it's not many entries and not a lot of copies available. The book says it's a Scandinavian Best Seller, and the one I have is the 1970 reprint. It also seems like <a href="https://www.abebooks.com/Sexual-Liberation-Accuse-Ejlersen-Mette-Award/198663283/bd" target="_blank">it was also called Sexual Liberation</a>, but that title is even harder to find. Anyway, much like <i>The</i> <i>Hite Report</i> which is also a banger that everyone should read (although created in the US 7 years after this one), this book seems to have kinda dropped into relative obscurity...which makes sense because as a culture, we've pretty much disregarded, minimized and/or glossed over all the truths and wisdom these radicals were slinging at us in these books, but I'll get into that later.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">A BOOK OVERVIEW</span></b></div><div>To give you a quick overview, <i>I Accuse! </i>starts from the 'widespread superstition' that women orgasm from simply getting fucked (that's a maybe more crude and simple way to say it, but that's about it), our badass author Ejlersen calls BULLSHIT on that. She speaks about how so many women don't get what they thought they would get from sex -aka intercourse- (an orgasm or even much pleasure) and don't know what to do it about it. Some just pretend that they are getting it. Some fret and seek professional help. Some understand that they aren't getting the (clitoral glans area) stimulation they need, but don't know how to speak about it to their partners or have tried to and it doesn't work. Some are lucky enough to work together with their partners and incorporate the clitoral stimulation they need into their partnered sex lives. And pretty much everyone feels like some kind of freak about it. Mothers don't talk to their daughters about it, and so each girl and woman has to navigate this striking difference between orgasm expectation and orgasm reality pretty much all on their own. </div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjEePS_gpDdO6GpgzqvapmOGtbBV3ApWB-he2G_LQTRNLqC24-KdAR1DoaLohoWWHciV93tAOrykQAphCyme9qVFHBAdKAGsKO2r6leuqGzaEshEAIblyD1J7gfEsTVfbNbTX8k5BQ1ZDV8zS9lvAS6dua-LOyr53ejKua5DCajRlbVzhczU5ZxaqfS6g=s4032" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3024" data-original-width="4032" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjEePS_gpDdO6GpgzqvapmOGtbBV3ApWB-he2G_LQTRNLqC24-KdAR1DoaLohoWWHciV93tAOrykQAphCyme9qVFHBAdKAGsKO2r6leuqGzaEshEAIblyD1J7gfEsTVfbNbTX8k5BQ1ZDV8zS9lvAS6dua-LOyr53ejKua5DCajRlbVzhczU5ZxaqfS6g=s320" width="320" /></a></div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>This book aims to let women know they are not alone or weird or different really at all from the other women around them. It also has the beautiful intention of speaking these truths out loud so that both men and women alike can finally understand that ladies <i>need</i> clitoral glans area stimulation to come (at least as much as dudes need penile stimulation) and intercourse is not a realistic road to female orgasm. It further hopes this knowledge can stimulate people to adjust partnered sexual activity accordingly so that everyone can get a chance at orgasm. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">MY BIG DOWNER RANT ABOUT HOW THIS BOOK IS AMAZING BUT IT WON'T BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY</span></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>The Naivety of Lady-gasm Activists</b></div><div>It's a nice hope. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shere_Hite" target="_blank">Shere Hite</a> also had that hope when she wrote <i>The Hite Report</i> in 1976 (and clearly was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/may/13/shere-hite-film-feminist-sex" target="_blank">disappointed in what change had happened by 2011</a>) I also had that hope when I made <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2017/08/watch-ssl-contact-me-know-me.html" target="_blank">Science, Sex, and the Ladies</a> in 2014. What I know now is that we were all naïve. The idea that if people simply knew the reality of this situation then the world and the people in it would adjust accordingly, simply hasn't come to fruition. The <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2012/10/yeah-you-heard-me-vaginal-stimulation.html" target="_blank">myth of the vaginal orgasm</a>, the idea that intercourse should be as orgasmic for the vagina-haver as it is for the penis-haver is unfortunately so deeply engrained that even when we know it's not true, we still don't really <i>believe </i>or <i>act as if </i> it's not true. As much as I wish we were and as much hope as I still have for the future, we're just not there yet.</div><div><br /></div><div>Also, I think in these 60's and 70's writings, there was an additional naivety because it was all new. There was new scientific evidence from Masters and Johnson that negated the vaginal orgasm and confirmed the clitoral glans as <i>the</i> organ of female sexual orgasm (in the way the penis is <i>the</i> organ of male orgasm). Women themselves were speaking up clearly and boldly about the lack of clitoral glans area stimulations (and thus orgasm) in their sex lives. I mean it was exciting, and why wouldn't both men and women use this opportunity of permission and knowledge to change their perspective about what a sexual interaction should be, to assure everyone having sex was also getting the physical stimulation they needed? Well, I don' know why we wouldn't adjust (I mean I definitely have a lot of theories), but by and large we didn't. You'd think in the 2000's when I was making this movie and starting this blog, I would have been less naïve, given that I saw how little had changed since these radical feminists and their wild idea hit the world 50 years ago. I mean making the argument that sex should not be equated with intercourse and that 'foreplay' should be considered the whole meal and not just an appetizer, is not necessarily uncommon to hear today, but it's a progressive stance, and it still needs to be said because by and large it's not the way of things. And, there doesn't seem to be less women and girls today desperately searching for advice about ways to orgasm during intercourse - and worried they're lesser if they can't...so yeah we're basically still treadmilling on the same big issues now that these radicals spoke on 50 years ago. Even with that, though, I was naïve - wide-eyed and hopeful. </div><div><br /></div><div>What none of us really considered was how much people desperately want to believe that banging a penis into a vagina not only is great for dude orgasms, but also will make the person attached to the vagina come too. Easy peasy. We also, I think, underestimated how much we women are a part of keeping the vaginal orgasm lies alive - and for a variety of fairly sensible and understandably human reasons. I mean, first, still to this day information about what a female orgasm <i>is</i> remains intensely (and unnecessarily) contradictory and confusing. In a sexual culture not set up for the ladies, to just happen upon an orgasm during partnered sex is very unlikely, and with all the wild misinformation around regarding what an orgasm is for women, identifying when you orgasm can be strangely difficult and can easily lead to believing orgasms are happening at times when they actually are not but are 'supposed' to be happening. There's also like 100 reasons to straight up fake it - from getting things over with to making the partner feel good to wanting to seem normal or desirable or sexy. </div><div><br /></div><div>There's just a lot more to unpack on this issue that's deep under the surface. What my older self realizes now is that just speaking sense and facts isn't going to change it. In fact, there's a lot of junk info that's piled up the last 50 years on top of the already problematic junk info that existed when this book was written. That all must be counteracted before sense and facts (and info like in <i>I Accuse!</i>) even get a fair chance to be taken seriously at all.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Sexpert books Then vs. Sexperts books Now</b></div><div>In this book Ejlerson talks to a variety of people; mothers, teens, prostitutes, a few married couples, Medical doctors and a variety of women to get their take on the topic of lady-gasm. It's actually a lot like many lady-gasm related books of today in that it's an author going around asking people and reporting on their opinions and experiences. All in all, I don't have a ton of love for that style, because asking regulars ol' people about shit neither they nor experts really have a handle on and taking a person's interpretation of their personal experience as truth just leads to more misinformation. However, it works better in the 70's than now - just because of the newness of the topic. </div><div><br /></div><div>Back in the late 60's and 70's there was scientific data showing for really the first time that the clitoral glans area is as important to female orgasm as the penis is to male orgasm. It also showed there is really no evidence that the vaginal canal can be stimulated to orgasm. To counteract that, there was already also a lot of pretty sexist and looney opinions about female orgasm and specifically 'vaginal orgasm' that are silly and outdated to the contemporary eye (Freud and the immature clitoral orgasm is but one). So although these reporter authors of the 60's and 70's got some ridiculous answers from the experts and a few women that answered, those answers probably feel to the modern reader <i>as</i> ridiculous as they actually are. That's not quite the same in contemporary discussions.</div><div><br /></div><div>The current scientific evidence still indicates the same thing about clits and vaginal orgasms that it did in the 70's - basically. There has since been some important research about female ejaculation, but that is not orgasm. In both males and females ejaculation and orgasm are different physiological events that can sometimes happen at the same time. However, one couldn't be blamed for assuming we've learned all sorts of stuff about lady-gasms. Since about 1980 there's been "scientific evidence" that either the G-spot (now actually kind of out of vogue among sexperts as an orgasm button but not as it relates to ejaculation) or the 'inner clit' or the cervix are able to give women orgasms through the stimulation of the vaginal canal during intercourse. I put "scientific evidence" in quotes, because there is NOT scientific evidence, there are only studies that are related but do not in fact make those conclusions. None the less these are used in both "science" reporting and in popular media as if they do, and these ideas are so pervasive, they have become canon of contemporary, educated, progressive sexual educators and advisors. It is deeply ingrained in the culture of sex. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, today when these reporter authors talk to experts and some women, there is certainly an acknowledgement that the clit is important (That's progress. Thank you for that, feminists of the 2nd wave!), but it is almost always counteracted by making sure we know there is oh so much more to the female orgasm and often reference or allude to the "many different types of orgasms" women can have as if there's decided science behind it that can give you actual information about what these different orgasms are, how they can be stimulated, and how they physiologically occur. There is absolutely none of that information, but it <i>seems</i> like there is because at this point in history, their non-scientific assertions that they pass off as scientific don't <i>feel</i> as ridiculous as they did in the 70's. </div><div><br /></div><div>For instance in <i>I Accuse! </i>a medical doctor tells us there are 3 orgasms: clitoral, vaginal and Uterine. They go up in intensity and difficulty. Of the Uterine orgasm he says, <i>"Consciously or subconsciously the woman is seldom herself for many minutes afterward. A man can never reach the same height in a climax as this type of woman, because the woman's wish for a child is always far deeper than a man's. A man never achieves an orgasm too overwhelming to prevent him smoking a cigarette immediately after intercourse. This, these women cannot do. They are miles away - lost for a long time." </i>That feels like a crazy town thing to say. </div><div><br /></div><div>However, today, 'experts' regularly say things that are as, if not more, bonkers, but somehow get away with it and are still touted as progressive feminists sexperts. I think maybe this ability to pass goes back to a few things. Unlike the 70's experts, contemporary experts saying bonkers things are often women. They are also usually credentialed in some type of science or sexology (which doesn't make them correct, just aligned with the sadly erroneous norms of contemporary 'knowledge' on ladygasm), and maybe most importantly they tend to be liberal and progressive. They don't <i>seem</i> like the sexist arrogant white male up there talking about women blacking out from 'uterine' orgasms because they are baby-crazy. These contemporary 'experts' are well intentioned in every other way, just really incorrect about the science that exists on the physical realities of lady-gasms without realizing they are incorrect. Look at this quote from Emily Nagoski's very popular and progressive tending 2015 book, <i>Come As You Are (</i>I write about this book <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2019/09/come-as-you-are-book-you-should-read.html" target="_blank">HERE</a>. Although I have strong criticism regarding her assertions about orgasm, the book does have a lot of worthy, important elements): </div><div><blockquote><i>Here's a small sample of the highly pleasurable orgasms women have described to me: orgasm from clitoral stimulation, orgasm from vaginal stimulation, orgasm just from breast stimulation, orgasm from having her toes sucked, orgasm when her partner penetrated her well lubricated anus with a finger while pinning her to the bed with her hair (the most erotic sensation, she specified, was his warm palm resting gently on her butt cheeks), orgasm when her partner slowly and gently stroked fingertips on her outer labia again and again and again (she said what started out as an appetizer turned into the main course), orgasm without any genital stimulation while she was giving her partner oral sex (she was so closely attuned to his arousal that when he came, she did too).</i></blockquote><p>She came from stimulating his dick with her mouth??? His orgasm made her come? Are we not going to have any skepticism about that?? Doesn't seem off or problematic or fucked-up or anything?? We're just gonna let that sit with no comment?? Really??? Granted, this is a woman 'expert' relaying a woman's experience as a source of knowledge about female orgasm rather than a man talking about the female experience, so it feels less gross, I guess...but does that make it any less bonkers or any more true and worthy of being in print? The blowjob-gasm is looney, yes, but to go a little deeper, the vaginal stimulation one is too. There is still no physical evidence in all of scientific literature (I'm taking that stand, prove me wrong. please.) that stimulation inside the vagina with no additional outer vulva stimulation has caused an orgasm (again ejaculation is another thing entirely and if the author was referring to ejaculation, not orgasm, she should be clear about that because they are different physiological events). <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2012/10/yeah-you-heard-me-vaginal-stimulation.html" target="_blank">For real. </a> Yet, in that book it seems like there are women that can just come from getting their vaginal canal stimulated (a good bang, perhaps?). There is no sense anywhere in that book that this would be an incredibly rare situation if it is possible at all. It just stands as a possible way women could orgasm. That matches the larger public perception around vaginal stimulation, but it doesn't match the science that exists. Granted, <i>I Accuse!</i> is no pillar of scientific integrity. It's more journalism than science, but its assertions about lady-gasm match the science that exists today WAY more than books like <i>Come As You Are</i> that are also more journalism than science, but tout how scientifically minded they are. </p><p>Another point about the bonkers quotes from experts (an interviewed medical doctor in <i>I Accuse</i> and the PhD wielding author in <i>Come as You Are</i>) in these 2 different books is that in <i>I Accuse!</i> the doctor's bonkers quote was there along with a variety of other doctors' take on the matter as a way, I believe, to show where the medical establishment was on the topic. I don't know if it sounded as bonkers then as it does to us now, but the book in general does not condone it, and actively works against that kind of mystical, incorrect thinking. <i>Come As You Are</i> (and so many other books like it - it's truly not unique in that sentiment by any means), however, is not only condoning that insanity, but actively pushing it as the accurate, scientifically backed, progressive reality of lady-gasms. </p><p>And this is why I really love reading these books from the late 60's and 70's. They were the first (and really only) to <i>strongly</i> call bullshit on the vag-gasm agenda. There's a purity and excitement to it. A real sense of revolution on the horizon. More contemporary works, in a way, can't exist like that. Too much has happened; too much pushback against these radical feminist ideas; too much desperate research to prove women can orgasm from a good banging has been published. They're shit science that proves nothing of the sort, but damn if they didn't have great PR and a receptive audience. Sexperts today have to exist in a world where this shit science is taken seriously and fed to them in whatever sexpert training they may have gotten. It's mainstream. It's as if today, the message that vaginal orgasm doesn't or probably doesn't exist, is merely some old and incorrect radical feminist-agenda from the 60's and 70's and cannot be returned to seriously because it was proven wrong - even though <i>it has not in fact been proven wrong at all</i>, and in fact the 40 plus years since have actually just reinforced how correct this 'radical feminist agenda' was because nothing in those subsequent years has given any recorded scientific information that a vaginally stimulated orgasm has ever occurred. But to know that, one would need to dig deeper in the <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-big-ol-list-of-summarized-journal.html" target="_blank">primary scientific literature</a>. It's all there, but the way it's summarized and perceived and taught is clearly skewed in a significant way. Sexperts often speak as if they are informed about lady-gasm research, but if I may be so bold, they clearly are not because too often and too seriously, studies that do <i>not</i> prove or indicate vaginal (or a variety of other kinds of) orgasms are incorrectly touted as concluding that they do. </p><p>All that to say, we've had 40 years of progressive, liberal, well-intentions, often educated and credentialed sexperts, many of whom are women, reinforcing the idea that science has shown us that -very basically and crudely - *whatever you do to a lady, eh, could probably make her orgasm, you know - if she's into it* So as a whole are we women and our partners really any more informed, grounded, or supported in our sexual endeavors than we were in the Freud vag-gasm times...oooorrrr do we just have a new set of confusing shit, different day?</p><p><b>I recommend this book...if you take it as it is and don't act like it's left behind by new science</b></p><p>All that ranting to say that I really, really want to scream from the rooftops that everyone should read this book, but I also know that it won't be understood as it should be. It will be seen as a relic of another time when we didn't know as much as we know today. People will read it and say something like, "it was a really empowering book back in the 60's when women were just learning about the female orgasm. The radical feminists of the time were (rightly so) pushing the pendulum away from Freud and his obsession with vaginal orgasms and towards the Clitoris. Of course we now can see that this push towards the clitoris and away from intercourse was a bit too far, as science has now shown us that there are so many more aspects to the female orgasm than that tiny button - including the inner clitoral legs that we now know are likely responsible for what used to be called 'vaginal orgasms.'" </p><p>I mean on first read that seems like a sensible assessment. It's been 50 years. We should certainly know more about lady-gasms shouldn't we? </p><p>Well, sorry to break it to you, but we don't really. <b>They had it largely correct back then. </b>What about the Gspot? the inner clitoris? Those are all new discoveries in ladygasm science, right? Wrong. There, of course, has been new info since the 60's that refined, adjusted, and expanded knowledge about both male and female orgasm (female ejaculation, male orgasm sans ejaculation, male multiple orgasm for instance), but largely subsequent scientific inquiry work has strengthened the basic physical knowledge of orgasms that the studies of that time revealed. And since that time, contrary to what we all tend to hear, there have been no studies that significantly indicate lady-gasms and how to get them are any different than this old-ass book describes. Not inner clit (I have a whole post about that shit <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2021/01/was-clitoris-really-discovered-in-1998.html" target="_blank">HERE</a>) not the G-spot, not nothing. </p><p>This 1969 book, if you look at the scientific research from then until this very day, is still basically as accurate as it was then. In fact please don't read about female orgasm from most contemporary 'experts' because they will reinforce incorrect ideas from incorrectly interpreted and/or wrongly summarized scientific studies that give people the sense that women can orgasm in ways that are unrealistic and rare at best. They will, unknowingly and with the best of intentions, carry on the oldest of traditions in which sexperts gloss over (if not outright ignore) the very simple and obvious but inconvenient truth of how women orgasm and give crazy advice that continues the confusion, misunderstandings, pretenses and shame that dominate our cultural and personal understanding of female orgasm. You are at risk of getting Freuded like our ladies of old, but with a sweet bow on top like it's something new and useful.</p><p>So, although I'd love to recommend this book as a revolutionary mind-opener for the world, I know it won't be helpful because it won't be taken seriously and won't erase all the current bullshit being said about lady-gasms because that current bullshit <i>feels</i> like it's not bullshit but instead 'new knowledge,' and that's sad to me. It's also maybe poignantly descriptive of the biggest hurdle of orgasm equality activism, but I digress.</p><p><br /></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">HIGHLIGHTS FROM <i>I ACCUSE!</i></span></b></p><p>As if this post isn't long enough, I still want to give a few highlights from the book, so here they are below. And just to be clear, even after that whole rant, I do still recommend this book. It's a great read and it says important shit. Just know you should take it seriously. </p><p><b>The ABZ of Love -Vonnegut's fave</b></p><p>There was a marriage/sex advice book heavily touched on in <i>I Accuse!</i>. It was called <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2479358.An_ABZ_of_Love" target="_blank"><i>The ABZ of Love</i>,</a> a 1961 book authored by Danish couple Inge and Stan Hegeler. The author brings this book up early because one reason she decided to write <i>I Accuse! </i>was that a friend confided in her that she did not know how to talk to her own teenage daughter about the sex situation - meaning that the mother wanted to tell her daughter that intercourse wouldn't do much for her and that she needed to include her clitoris in the act and all that. It was simply too personal a thing to discuss even though other elements like birth control were easier and more widely discussed in the public. The author decided to write what would become <i>I Accuse!</i> and began looking through the current resources. The only book she found that gave the kind of sensible (not intercourse orgasm obsessed) advice she was looking for was <i>The ABZ of Love</i>. </p><p>Interestingly, around 2012 a new book of letters from Kurt Vonnegut was released and in it, <a href="https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/12/05/an-abz-of-love/" target="_blank">he tells his wife about this book</a>. He calls it 'really lovely' and tells her she can find it on his bookshelf if she is as interested in sex as she says she is. So although it's not an easy book to find, it comes up on the internet quite a bit as Kurt Vonnegut's favorite sex book. Anyway, this author couple writes a lovely approving letter at the back of <i> Accuse! </i>Although in it they do add in some of their own spins and advise, including a questionable bit saying one should not tell a man straight up about having lied about orgasms for years. Instead, given men's vanity in the bed, the Hegeler's say, </p><p></p><blockquote><i>The only way out of this particular pretense is to pretend that it has become more difficult to be satisfied: to hint that trying something different - something new, unusual and more imaginative surely isn't to be sneered at - and then just hope that the bungler will understand the hints. </i>p137</blockquote><p>That's probably just a recipe for a dude to lament his lady's loss of the easy vag-gasms and push all kinds of cure's and professional help on her to 'get it back,' but you know times were different, I guess. Otherwise, the Hegeler's letter is pretty forward and thoughtful. At the beginning of <i>I Accuse!</i>, the author, quite excited that she has found allies in this couple and a book that might be given to her friend's teenage daughters, quotes the Hegeler's from <i>The ABZ of Love </i>in an incredibly forward statement (this book seems to have been published in 1963 - 3 years before Master and Johnson's Human Sexual Response was published. Although papers by M&J's research <i>had</i> been published).</p><p></p><blockquote><p><i>"Every woman's orgasm is a clitoral orgasm, usually direct and less frequently indirect. It is very important to realise this, if one is to understand the true nature of an orgasm. An orgasm is felt over practically the whole body; in the muscles of the vagina, which contracts during orgasm. An orgasm does not originate inside the vagina, nor thumps against the mouth of the womb, as many believe. It is the lustful excitation of the clitoris, either directly or indirectly, that culminates in an orgasm.</i></p><p><i>It has long been superstition, a misunderstanding , that a vaginal orgasm is finer and nobler than a clitoral orgasm. But the vaginal orgasm does not exist. What is believed to be a vaginal orgasm is in effect an indirect stimulation of the muscle fibers and nerve-endings at the entrance to the vagina. This and other forms of indirect clitoral orgasms are quite rare, whereas direct excitation of the clitoris is comparatively common"</i></p></blockquote><p></p><p><b>A Top Notch Dis Session</b></p><p>Another book they delve into is a book called <i>The Marriage Art</i> by John E. Eichenlaub M.D. published first in 1961. I googled it and found it on a delightful blog called <a href="https://hersteria.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Hersteria</a> - where Miss K. LaMoine finds and briefly discusses somewhat insane sexual, marriage, femininity training type books from the 1880's to the 1960's. She <a href="https://hersteria.wordpress.com/the-library/the-library-2marriage-art/" target="_blank">says of this book,</a> <i>"Even though it’s one of the more recently published books in my collection, Dr. Eichenlaub’s advice is often more archaic and misogynist towards women than my books from the 1920s and ’30s." </i></p><p>Ejlersen and a 29 year old woman read <i>The Art of Marriage</i>, and take a chapter to dis on it in <i>I Accuse!</i>, which I love and it's frankly well deserved. Their fuck you to this guy is definitely worth a read.</p><p><b>An Actual Equitable Sexual Relationship</b></p><p>There's a great transcript of a woman and her husband that met with the author to be recorded talking about their journey with her orgasm. Basically, she had kinda accidently gotten a hand on her clit from a former lover, realized, 'oh shit - that's what this is all about.' Then when this current couple had their first few sex sessions and it, well, sucked for her, she finally decided to tell him what's up - thinking he'd probably break up with her. Well, he was into it, and now they are both real clear that intercourse ain't the way for it, and they work together to, ya know, do something wildly radical like stimulate the clit as much as the penis so all have equal opportunity to orgasm. </p><p>That woman's experience was not a common one. </p><p><b>Interviews: Drunk Girl-Talk and Straight Prostitutes'-Talk</b></p><p>There's also a lot of intimate, introspective quotes from women answering questions about their sex life as it has to do with orgasm. There is also another great transcript from a woman who sent in a recording she made of her and her drunk middle-aged gal-friends at a celebration. They all realized sex kinda sucked as far as orgasm goes for everyone else too. </p><p>The author also talks about the absurdity of famous books like <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Fanny-Hill-Pleasure-Wordsworth-Classics/dp/1840224177" target="_blank">Fanny Hill</a> and how unfortunate it is that people will read the ridiculous reactions Fanny Hill has to the sex acts and believe that is the way things should/could be. She also interviews a few real-life prostitutes. A snippet from one of the interviews: <i>"'Men!' she says, with a little smile. 'Men are naïve and stupid. The bigger the performance you put on, the more they're convinced it's not acting.'"</i></p><p><b>Faking To Get Her Married Man: A Story</b></p><p>There's also this story from one of the women she interviewed. I like it because, well, I think it's poignant - about the pressures women have regarding their orgasm, about the reality of navigating relationships and sex, about one of many possible reasons a woman might proclaim she orgasms vaginally and why a man might say he's seen it happen, and about the messiness of all this. This is about 50 years old and might seem old-fashioned, but if you ask me this is as relevant now as it ever has been - even though we'd like to think otherwise. p96-96</p><p></p><blockquote><p>Twenty-eight year old civil servant, formerly married to a businessman, now divorced</p><p> <i> I met a married man and we fell in love with each other - wildly in love - with the inevitable result. Not that I didn't fight against it for a long time. I had a terribly guilty conscience because of his wife. So when it eventually happened, he was so eager and in such a state that he had a climax straight away. Afterwards he was in despair and asked me if I'd got something out of it too. He would always blame himself if he hadn't satisfied me especially as it was the first time we'd been together. </i></p><p><i> His happiness was my happiness - his despair my despair. So, I reassured him. I told him that all was well, 'Of course I had been satisfied.' But of course this wasn't true, and I doubt whether any woman could have reached her climax during that half-minute's furious intercourse. But I thought to myself, 'My God, how I love him! It doesn't matter at all. Little by little I'll teach him what it's all about.' </i></p><p><i> Then he said something that made me abandon this idea immediately. He said, almost with gratitude, that he thought it was a miracle that I felt that way. He had known a woman who could only be satisfied if he touched a certain spot. I knew immediately what the spot was, and I also knew that he was talking about his wife, though he didn't say so both for her sake and mine. He went on to say that he sometimes had cramp in his hand because she insisted on having it that way - and that it was wonderful that I was 'normal!'</i></p><p><i> I know my reaction will look utterly unscrupulous in black and white, but I think it was what most women would have done if it was a question of holding onto a man they couldn't live without. So, I expressed great surprise that any women should want to have it that way, even though I fully sympathized with her and, only a few moments earlier, had been thinking of teaching him to do the very same thing. I actually sympathised with him: it must have been terribly strenuous, I said. How had he been able to stand it? And a lot more of the same sort of thing.</i></p><p><i> It was disgraceful, I agree. But I felt it had been worthwhile when he said that he couldn't stand her, because I knew then that he would be able to stand her less and less the better I performed my little act. How many women would throw away their strongest weapon in the battle for the man they really want? Not many, I think. But eventually, they will smart as I am now smarting. Because I got him, and now I am trapped in this sexual quagmire I created for myself. So, I cannot emphasize strongly enough that we women have got to look at this business in a wider perspective; only when all men know, and all women frankly admit the truth about their sex lives are we on equal terms, both woman to woman and sex to sex, and only then will we reach the stage where the right to have climax will be the right of both parties.</i></p></blockquote></div></div></div>Trishahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08846980215552421591noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2427849323464039196.post-58587741462398186982021-12-23T14:53:00.000-05:002021-12-23T14:53:14.334-05:00Lady-gasm Knowledge Gifts for the Young Folk<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php" name="fb_share" type="button_count">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript">
</script> </div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" href="http://twitter.com/share">Tweet</a><script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Hey all. I'm living that Christmas life right now. I actually just got back from a trip with my sister and my nephew. We have a tradition of doing something big for the 17th bday - just me, her and the kid. This is the 3rd of 4. The first 2 were weekend trips to Chicago plus a show (1 was Hamilton and 1 was a K Pop concert - I learned a lot about k pop). However, this one got skipped because it was during Covid. He's older than 17 now. Anyway, we decided on no show and instead spend that on getting to a warmer place. So that's what we did. It wasn't as warm as we wanted and Indianapolis was warmer than expected when we left, so instead of living the Midwest vacation dream of leaving your sad ass friends in the winter to suffer in the cold while you live it up in warmth -wearing only t-shirts outside and other non-winter things, we ended up wearing lots of hoodies and getting really, really cold on top of a double decker bus. However, despite that, it was super fun. We saw David Spade (and others) at a Comedy club, and he was, well, pretty drunk or high, or something. He's a professional so he got through it fine, but dude was in his cups, as my mom would say.<div><br /></div><div>So, now I'm back in the Midwest, working from my sister's. We're taking a group of niblings out for some Christmas at the Zoo tonight, and then Charlie's brother and his family are coming into town. Him and his wife are both military and stationed in Europe, so we don't get to see them that often. We'll be staying with them and I'll be working from an airbnb till close to the end of the year. Then, it's back to the cats and regular living. </div><div><br /></div><div>I'm sure you were super interested in my itinerary. You're welcome. I really just wanted to make sure I touched base here on this ol' blog. Let you know I'm still here. I also thought it might be nice to give you a list of things we should all probably get the young folks in our lives. Might be creepy, sure, but it's worth it. One, you get to see the horror on their faces and two, these are important life things that <i>could</i> save them from a lot of confusion, shame, and bad situations and relationships in the future. It'll at least give them a chance. These are focused on female orgasm, but could be useful helpful for all genders.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">1 </span>The Hite Report on Female Sexuality </b>- Shere Hite wrote this in the 70's but the experiences and the information in there are as relevant and sensible now as it was then. Worth it, and it's like 1 cent online usually. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">2</span></b> <b><a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2021/01/was-clitoris-really-discovered-in-1998.html" target="_blank">My post</a> about the inner clit not being a thing that creates lady-gasms like everyone is trying to say it is these days</b> - I mean, just print it out and give it away to anyone who will read. I haven't found anything else that is speaking on that succinctly or at all really. I am either mostly right and<i> </i>people in the sexpert spotlight just aren't seeing it/talking about it (my assumption) or I'm an insane, persistent, idiot and people aren't talking about it because I'm so far off base it's just not a thing to talk about (I mean I can't rule it out, but I feel confident leaving it for you to decide upon after reading. I hope that's not the case, because, ya know, this is kinda my life's work, but whatevs). </div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway, all the hip, even otherwise quite thoughtful and knowledgeable, sexperts right now are saying that the inner part of the clit is now known to be the cause of 'vaginal' orgasms or other 'inner' orgasms. None of that is true on a variety of levels. If you give someone a Shere Hite book, they might be all like, "Cool, that's great and interesting but there is new information about the inner clit and orgasm that I've heard about." <i>There really, for real, is not new information</i>, and thinking there is just reinforces all the incorrect info and bad assumptions that Shere and people like her were fighting against back. I mean strangely it also reinforces the bad outcomes and problems at the heart of what contemporary sexperts are fighting against now - their assertions about the inner clit being a new orgasm spot are not only scientifically baseless, but also counterproductive...they just don't think of it that way. </div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway, point is that these days pointing to the great info that's out there already is not enough simply because there's too much accepted-as-truth bullshit out there that counteracts that good info and spins our wheels on this orgasm equality and good-info-about-ladygasms thing. So, print out <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2021/01/was-clitoris-really-discovered-in-1998.html" target="_blank">that post</a> as a very needed supplement</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">3 </span>A Vibrator </b>- make it one that doesn't look like a dildo, so they don't get confused and assume the point is to ram it in and out of the vagina like an intercourse bang-fest - because t<a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2012/10/yeah-you-heard-me-vaginal-stimulation.html" target="_blank">hat is not the point and not a sensible way to arrive at ladygasm</a>. It should clearly be something that is to be placed on the outside of the body, so they get the clue that it may go somewhere near the clitoral glans area. This is good for anyone that has a clit or may have intimate relations with a person having a clit. Penises can use it too, so don't make assumptions and just give a vibe to all the people in your life. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, I know it's too late for Hanukkah or Christmas gifts, but ya know, there's always birthdays.</div><div><br /></div><div>Happy Holidays everyone!</div>Trishahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08846980215552421591noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2427849323464039196.post-31700925811574564572021-12-07T19:44:00.008-05:002021-12-07T19:44:54.609-05:00Inherent Vice - The SSL Review<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php" name="fb_share" type="button_count">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript">
</script> </div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" href="http://twitter.com/share">Tweet</a><script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span><b><span style="font-size: large;">Inherent Vice</span></b></span><div>I'm a fan of this directors movie's, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Thomas_Anderson" target="_blank">PT Anderson</a>. I'll watch anything he turns out. Punch Drunk Love, There Will be Blood and The Master, are probably my faves, and this one is probably my least fave. I saw <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1791528/" target="_blank">Inherent Vice</a> in the theater when it came out in 2014ish, and I wasn't too excited about it (although, I do think Joaquin Phoenix kills it within this role). I actually kept getting it mixed up in my head with a similarly themed movie, <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3799694/" target="_blank">The Nice Guys</a> , which came out about a year later. Anyway, we revisited it again a couple nights ago, and it still feels generally the same except that I discovered something bothersome to me in a sex scene that is also, lucky us, SSL Reviewable, and thus here we are. There's actually 2 SSL Reviewable scenes. The first is super simple and the 2nd is the one in question. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhX0i5ggl0dpjsDConckMzoV3Kn6L2pmpxlSYN0rzwTtbfhbChVKH718YB14ITigfM6nQTe8TLKZhHIpr4JI9WPWciTVia7zSFTE0hmDkPlGKbKta7h48xsB5beHM0VL6B7EyrjD3D8JMJ5ZPNDNuyYSdK4wM7U7jCE0IKi2XUip78z06REJlItAZZ2MA=s2048" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1704" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhX0i5ggl0dpjsDConckMzoV3Kn6L2pmpxlSYN0rzwTtbfhbChVKH718YB14ITigfM6nQTe8TLKZhHIpr4JI9WPWciTVia7zSFTE0hmDkPlGKbKta7h48xsB5beHM0VL6B7EyrjD3D8JMJ5ZPNDNuyYSdK4wM7U7jCE0IKi2XUip78z06REJlItAZZ2MA=s320" width="266" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">An SSL Review (for those that don't know about them)</span></b></div>Only depiction or discussion of female orgasm and/or female masturbation/cunnilingus and/or the clit are eligible for SSL Review. Nothing else counts, including plain 'ol sex if it doesn't include anything listed above. I specifically 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 also speak on what the depiction/discussion reflects from and adds to the larger cultural discussion around lady-gasms and female sexuality.<br /><br />You can see all the SSL movie Reviews <a href="http://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2015/09/master-list-of-movies-rated-on.html">HERE</a> (and as always you can find all the SSL TV Reviews <a href="http://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2016/04/tv-ssl-reviews-master-list-of-tv-shows.html">HERE</a>).</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Pussy Eater's Special - $14.95 - the first SSL Reviewable moment</span></b></div><div>Joaquin's character Doc, a 70's P.I., steps inside a trailer, home of a clearly sex-friendly massage parlor, "Chick Planet." Jade, the lady behind the counter, offers him up the Pussy-Eater's special for $14.95. I'm not sure how to take the price. It seems low, right? But also it's maybe one of the more preferred menu items for a lady sex worker - to have her pussy ate out? On the other hand, dudes could be real gross and terrible at it, and it might end up some kind of terrible chafing on the pussy lips situation, and so maybe it's one of the worst menu items. It was also the 70's. I don't know. It just seems terribly inexpensive. </div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway, he doesn't partake because he's there for a reason - to ask if she's seen a certain man recently. She kinda avoids the question and calls her co-worker Bambi out, and they immediately drop to the ground behind the counter, seemingly with some pussy eating. It was a distraction, turns out, and Doc gets got. </div><div><br /></div><div>This is SSL Reviewable simply because of cunnilingus. There's no orgasm or anything, just mention and insinuated behind-the-desk pussy eating. I'm always a fan of any mention of it simply because it's a sensibly realistic way a woman could get to orgasm during a sex act. There's also far too much dick sucking (both discussed and physically insinuated) in mainstream media, so just for fairness and equity, any mention of eating out gets a thumbs up from me (<a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2016/07/giving-up-blowjobs-for-good-of-womankind.html" target="_blank">the oral sex gap and all</a>). Also, I just kinda liked that the sex menu item offered up in this was one that focuses on the lady's organ of sexual pleasure and not the dude's. For originality sake alone, it's nice to see that in a movie, but also it's good for business - that business being making people think about cunnilingus as an integral, stand-alone sex act as much as people think of dick-sucking as such.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Fuck me like I'm nothing, and other things women love! - the 2nd SSL Reviewable moment</span></b></div><div>It's funny how I'll watch something that I saw years ago, but see things with completely new eyes. You know, like r<a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2020/02/ghostbusters-most-sexual-predator.html" target="_blank">e-watching the original Ghostbusters and seeing how incredibly rapey it is</a>. I didn't notice that at all the times I'd seen it before. </div><div><br /></div><div>This has a scene that didn't strike me when I saw it a mere 8 years ago either. The fact that just before this re-watch I had just finished reading a long<a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/marilyn-manson-abuse-allegations-1256888/" target="_blank"> Rolling Stone article</a> about the many abuse accusations against Marilyn Manson, probably helped highlight the issue.</div><div><br /></div><div>My gripe goes a little something like this. <b>Can we stop depicting fictional women that truly get off on being treated like shit during sex? Women who love to be used up in aggressive and fucked up ways by powerful men? Can we stop depicting women that act as if the mere power a man gives off is enough to make her come? </b></div><div><br /></div><div>Outside of all the harmful, abusive tendencies this reinforces in an already abusive-leaning sexual culture of how masculinity manifests in sexual situations, I also call a loud bullshit on the pleasure part of this scenario. It's completely ridiculous to assume a person would physically orgasm from things that do not include the stimulation of their organ of sexual pleasure. However, we do that all the time with women in a way we don't for men. Even progressive contemporary sexperts will say crazy ass shit about women coming from things like bites on the neck, giving blow-jobs, a spank on the ass and other nonsensicalness. Here's the deal. Coming from a spanking on the ass or bite on the nipple is bullshit. And for the love of god, coming from the intensity of a man's powerful presence is bullshit. And contrary to popular belief, coming from intercourse alone (<a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2012/10/yeah-you-heard-me-vaginal-stimulation.html" target="_blank">the vagina is not the organ of sexual pleasure - the clit is - and ya ain't stimulating it by banging a penis in the hole</a>), is bullshit. The clitoral glans area people. The clitoral glans area.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now, if you're mad at me for 'yucking somone else's yum' as the sexperts like to say these days, sorry not sorry. We've had far too much of these getting-off on aggression depictions out there. It ain't like you can't find it if you want it. And if someone wants to depict a submissive sexual kink, then do it more responsibly. We don't need any more of these blanket, powerful-aggessive-men-that-take-what-they-want-get-women-off-best depictions. It irresponsibly reinforces an already problematic understanding of power in sexual situation. Not to mention it reinforces stupid, unverified, unrealistic ideas about women being able to get off from non-physical or non clitoral means.</div><div><br /></div><div>Here's the scene I pulled from <a href="http://pdl.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/awards2014/pdf/iv.pdf" target="_blank">the script</a>. </div><div style="text-align: center;"><b></b></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: center;"><b>SHASTA </b></div><div style="text-align: center;">Mickey... Mickey could have taught
all you swinging beach bums a
thing or two. He was just so
powerful. Sometimes he could
almost make you feel invisible.
Fast, brutal, not what you'd call
a considerate lover, an animal,
actually, but Sloane adored that
about him, and Luz -- you could
tell, we all did. It's so nice to be made to feel
invisible that
way sometimes... </div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>DOC </b></div><div style="text-align: center;">Yeah. And guys love to hear this
shit like this. </div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>SHASTA </b></div><div style="text-align: center;">He'd bring me to lunch in Beverly
Hills, one big hand all the way
around my bare arm, steering me
blind down out of those bright
streets into some space where it
was dark and cool and you couldn't
smell any food, only alcohol --
they'd all be drinking, tables
full of them, in a room that could
have been any size, and they all
knew Mickey, they wanted, some of
them, to be Mickey... He might as
well have been bringing me in on a
leash. He kept me in those micro
minidresses, never allowed me to
wear anything underneath... just
offering me to whoever wanted to
stare. Or grab. Or sometimes he'd
fix me up with his friends. And
I'd have to do whatever they
wanted... </div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>DOC </b></div><div style="text-align: center;">Why are you telling me all this? </div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>She drapes herself over him and plays with her pussy. </i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>SHASTA </b></div><div style="text-align: center;">Oh, I'm sorry, Doc. Do you want
me to stop? If my girlfriend had
run away to be the bought-and-sold
whore of some scumbag developer?
I'd just be so angry I don't know
what I'd do. Well, no, I'm even
lying about that, I know what I'd
do. If I had the faithless little
bitch over my lap like this </div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">--
And they're fucking. </div><div style="text-align: right;">CUT TO:</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: right;"></div><div style="text-align: left;">It moves onto another scene after this. I'll fill in a little that isn't obvious from the script. When she drapes herself over Doc, he is sitting in the middle of a couch, and she lays face down across the couch with her butt right on his lap. From the angle, it isn't obvious that she's touching her pussy. I'm not sure that actually happens in the final movie version. Also, in the movie, "--And they're fucking" actually plays out with Doc spanking Shasta's ass really hard. He then aggressively rolls on top of her, and immediately fucks her hard and fast from behind to a quick completion. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Now, does she orgasm during this? I say the insinuation is there. She doesn't do the moaning vocalizations - which are normally the bullshit-fakey, but nevertheless common way lady-gasms are depicted, but she is clearly finding pleasure in it. Her eyes kinda roll back and there's gentle panting, and I think it's enough to insinuate to your average viewer that she orgasmed simultaneously with him - or at least got what she wanted out of it. Either way, a woman depicted as being pleased at the end of sex might as well be a depiction of orgasm because lady-gasm and general pleasure or satisfaction are so conflated it's hard to even discern what's intended in depictions and discussions of the topic. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So all that to say, this scene was basically a woman describing, in more than a few ways, the kind of abuse that women in the Marilyn Manson case were alleging <i>as abuse</i>, but in this case, she was describing it as the height of pleasure. I also should add, that even though Doc gives a sarcastic, "<span style="text-align: center;"><i>Yeah. And guys love to hear this shit like this,</i>" as if he's above it, he, in the end proves that they do in fact love it. He basically can't stand the hotness of it anymore and simulates punish-raping her - which she loves. So...lesson learned - wanting to be aggressively sexually used is a great way to turn a guy on and aggressively using a bitch will get her off. Got it.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Taking exactly what you want sexually from a woman, using her for your own pleasure with no interest in hers, is not only powerful and sexy, but it's actually the best way to get a woman off. - That's the big takeaway here, and it's not just a one-off, essential character-building quirkiness in a work of fiction. It's bigger than that. It's the most basic of assumptions that looms over all of our sexual culture. So, it's not cute or edgy. It's basic and dark. If you start looking, you'll find it all over the place, and continuing to give that message a fun voice is irresponsible.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Vulva Rating</span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Although I do like the fun addition of pussy-eating as the main menu item at a massage parlor, I did not like the irresponsible sex scene; reinforcing some of the darkest and sadly basic assumptions about what women want and how men should act in a sexual encounter. Also, she 'came' from nothing more than 10 seconds of getting banged from behind, which is unrealistic bullshit because lady-gasms needs clit stimulation and <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2012/10/yeah-you-heard-me-vaginal-stimulation.html" target="_blank">that ain't realistically how to get it</a>. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I'm feeling nice because of the $14.95 Pussy eating, so this will get 1 vulva out of 5.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">(!)</span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;"><br /></div>Trishahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08846980215552421591noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2427849323464039196.post-20025572402113365632021-11-13T23:15:00.007-05:002022-01-20T20:48:34.766-05:005 Teen-based Movies #DirectedByWomen<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php" name="fb_share" type="button_count">Share</a><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript">
</script> </div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 2px;">
<a class="twitter-share-button" data-count="none" href="http://twitter.com/share">Tweet</a><script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
</div>
</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Forgive me for my continued lateness on these posts. I'm focusing a lot on my day job, but also, let's be honest, on watching Netflix/Hulu. I'm still slowly working on some things. For instance, the badass Scandinavian book called <a href="https://www.amazon.com/I-Accuse-Mette-Ejlersen/dp/0426032446/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8" target="_blank"><u>I Accuse</u> by Mette Ejersen</a>. It's on point like a motha fucka. I'm also still thinking about summarizing Masters and Johnson's research in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_and_Johnson" target="_blank">Human Sexual Response</a>. There's plenty of SSL Reviews of TV, movies and advice articles I have in the queue as well. There's also a discussion of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) - a self-reporting questionnaire commonly used to assess female sexual 'dysfunction' in both studies (including many related to female orgasm) and in actual ladies looking to get professional help. My partner in crime mentioned the FSFI as a good topic, and I agree. She also sent some more articles on the use and critiques of it.<div><br /></div><div>BUT...for now, I just need to put something up so everyone knows I'm still at it, and as you might have noticed, the 5 Movies series is a fairly easy one for me to get up, so here we are. That said, I also really like this series because I LOVE movies and I truly believe in getting a variety of lady voices behind our media.<br /><div><br /></div><div>Okay, so to the movies. These are all movies that involve teens and teen stuff. We all love teen stuff, right?</div><div><div><div><br /></div><div><b>A Little History of These Lists</b><br /><div><div>I started doing this categorized List of 5 movies thing where I showcase movies that were directed by women and <i>that I have actually seen</i>. It all started during the <a href="http://directedbywomen.com/">Directed By Women Worldwide Viewing Party</a> in September 2015, and it was pretty fun, so I've continued doing it from time to time.</div><div><br />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<br />1. this blog is also about indie movie-making, and<br />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.<br /><br />You can find all my 5-movie lists <a href="http://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2017/09/tons-of-movies-directed-by-women-you.html">HERE</a>.<br /><b><br />So, get ready for relationship drama, best friends, angst, sexual experimentation, risky behavior, and figuring out life. I recommend Oreos dunked in milk, Ding Dongs (which were better when they were wrapped in foil btw), chocolate chip cookie dough, Doritos, and Mozzi's cheese pizza - much like me and my BBF Leslie would have snacked on while movie watching in our younger days during one of our many, many, many sleepovers. </b></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Movies</span></b></div></div></div></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;">1 </span><b><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1489887/" target="_blank"><span>Booksmart</span> </a>- </b>This was directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1312575/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Olivia Wilde</a>. I went to the movies to see this, and guess what? Worth it. This is a good ass teen buddy comedy - funny, sweet, full of lady-friend stuff, and although I haven't done the <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2015/09/master-list-of-movies-rated-on.html" target="_blank">SSL Review</a> on it yet, it's got great lady-gasm content (high vulva rating folks!). It's not only a great watch, but it's great for orgasm equality, so check it.</div></div></div><div><br /></div><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VjGJm3wV5-I" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe><div><br /></div>
<div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">2</span></b> <b><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361467/" target="_blank">Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen</a> - </b>This was directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0837406/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Sara Sugarman.</a>. I like to watch random teen dramas I find on streaming sights, and this was one I saw recently. It's got a young Lindsay Lohan and is almost 20 years old at this point. If you are looking for PG early 2000's drama - this is the one.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AbBpMsuzUdQ" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">3 </span><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2328922/" target="_blank">It Felt Like Love </a></b>- This was directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2151374/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Eliza Hittman</a>, I'm not sure why I noticed and watched this movie, but I did, a couple years ago streaming, and I'm glad I did. It's a beautiful, poignant movie, and I also loved another of her movies I saw. I'll watch anything she directs. This is the most gritty, realistic, somber teen movie in this list, and although I do very much love me a wacky teen comedy for its own reasons, this one is not to be missed. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UrqcUMN4s8E" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">4 </span> <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7740284/" target="_blank">Slut in a Good Way</a> - </b>This was directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0520317/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Sophie Lorain</a>. It's a 2018 French Canadian romp about, largely, a teen girl, her friends and her sex and love relationships. I'll be honest, I haven't <a href="https://sciencesexandtheladies.blogspot.com/2015/09/master-list-of-movies-rated-on.html" target="_blank">SSL Reviewed</a> this one yet, but it wouldn't be great - there's some classic unrealistic banged to orgasm situations in it. Overall, though, it's a fun black and white indie vibe of a movie.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Da5oXnxIKU8" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">5</span></b> <b><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3458510/" target="_blank">Dude</a> - </b>This is directed by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6035700/?ref_=tt_ov_dr" target="_blank">Olivia Milch</a>. I saw this one as soon as I heard about it online. It's a sleeper, man. It's a funny ass teen stoner movie - easily up there with any of the best ones, and it doesn't seem like it gets the credit it deserves. Anyway - watch it.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eIBQaDlR0tA" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>Trishahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08846980215552421591noreply@blogger.com0