Good Luck To You, Leo Grande: The SSL Review

Good Luck To You, Leo Grande
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.

An SSL Review (for those that don't know about them)
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.

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

The Orgasm Scene
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 then read this review...because I do recommend you watch this movie. I will overall try not to reveal too much, though.

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. 

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. 

The Good Stuff
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.

1 No one 'gave' her a first orgasm. 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). 

Now, a first faked 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 (the rhythmic release of pelvic muscle tension that both males and females and all in between have during orgasm) – 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 The Hite Report), and it’s BS that we so often see it that way in all kinds of media from porn to romance novels to TV.

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. 

And as selfish as it sounds, having orgasms is an active process from the orgasmer. A collaborative interaction with a partner could move that experience more towards 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. 

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. 

2 The physical actions happening during the orgasm could sensibly and realistically be assumed to cause orgasm in an actual lady. 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 The Hite Report 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. For real

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 with a partner where media depictions fuck up. Besides a sprinkling of cunnilingus scenes, which I'm all for and are usually 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. 

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, Masters and Johnson 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 this study that didn't find any significant difference in duration of self-stimulation between men and woman.

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.  

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.

3 She didn't scream and shout and moan and move around all wild and sexy like. She just came. 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.

4 It shone a positive light on a vibrator helping a lady come. 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.

The Vulva Rating
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. 

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. 

Altogether, for all the reasons I spoke about above. This gets a full 5 vulva rating.


Rejuvenation of the Orgasm Equality Spirit, My People

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. 

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 HERE, though, if you are jonesing for one. 

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 TV and Movies if you need some of that in your life right now. Spoiler alert: Slums of Beverly Hills and Diary of a Teenage Girl are in the top tier of 5 vulva rated movies (!)(!)(!)(!)(!), but The 40 Year Old Virgin and The Overnight are some that have a big fat zero vulva rating. :( ...And if you want to know what's currently sandwiching the list, 20th Century Women got the only coveted 5 1/2 vulva rating, while strangely enough, Hysteria, 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. 

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. 

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. 

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.

That's what I wanted to say. Be well all my friends out there!

For your extra enjoyment, here are some stills from the OG movie to this blog, Science, Sex and the Ladies.


5 Movies #DirectedByWomen Related To The Mother-Daughter Relationship

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. 

A Little History of These Lists
I started doing this categorized List of 5 movies thing where I showcase movies that were directed by women and that I have actually seen. It all started during the Directed By Women Worldwide Viewing Party in September 2015, and it was pretty fun, so I've continued doing it from time to time.

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

You can find all my 5-movie lists HERE.

So, here friends, are 5 great lady-directed movies that touch on motherhood.

The Movies

1 Viktoria - This was directed by Maya Viktova. 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.

2 Labor Pains - This movie is directed by Lara Shapiro. 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.

3 Barrage - This was directed by Laura Schroeder. 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).

4 Zero Fucks Given - This was directed by Julie Lecoustre 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.

5 The Lost Daughter - This was directed by Maggie Gyllenhaal. I believe I saw this on Netflix close to when it came out in 2021. It's a lovely movie, and I highly recommend. 


So, It's Been a While, But I'll Be Back - Promise

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. 

For your enjoyment right now, though, here's a picture of my cat Tina.


5 Top Notch Docs #DirectedByWomen

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.

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).

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?

A Little History of These Lists
I started doing this categorized List of 5 movies thing where I showcase movies that were directed by women and that I have actually seen. It all started during the Directed By Women Worldwide Viewing Party in September 2015, and it was pretty fun, so I've continued doing it from time to time.

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

You can find all my 5-movie lists HERE.

So, here friends, are 5 great lady-directed docs (3 of which I saw on Mubi). 

The Movies

Taming the Garden This was directed by Salome Jashi. 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.

2 My Octopus Teacher - This was directed by Pippa Ehlrich and James Reed. I think I saw this on Netflix? Maybe? Anyway, it was also a beautiful movie under the sea. I do recommend.

3 The Queen of Versailles - This was directed by Lauren Greenfield. 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. 


4 Truth or Consequences - This was directed by Hannah Jayanti. 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. 

5 Crip Camp - This was directed by James Lebrecht and Nicole Newnham. 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.



Being Cliterate by Laurie Mintz - 2 Thumbs on the Clit from Me!

"Becoming Cliterate: Why Orgasm Equality Matters- And How To Get It
Laurie Mintz, Harper One. 2017.

A little background on where this book fits into feminist, lady-gasm writing, and on why I love it 
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), "5 Minutes to Orgasm Everytime You Make Love" 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.

The 70's and the heyday of the clitoral glans and female orgasm
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 "Human Sexual Response" 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 "The G-spot and Other Recent Discoveries about Human Sexuality" that brought back (the completely unsubstantiated) 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).  

Anyway, in between those years you have lots of great writing including, but certainly not limited to The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm by Anne Koedt, Organs and Orgasms by Alix Kates Shulman; and of course, Shere Hite's "The Hite Report on Female Sexuality" - 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). 

The 80s thru today(ish) and the rise of g-spot as vag-gasm maker
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 (seriously), 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. 

Current - the 'inner clit', 'clitoral bulbs', 'c-spot', what have you as the new exciting vag-maker
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.

Sexperts are weak on the clitoral glans and shit hasn't changed
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 most women need clitoral stimulation, but they also take pains to point out all the ways women can come from intercourse too. 

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 some 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 most 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 do 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. 

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 Dilemmas of Desire 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. 

The Book

Dr. Mintz - bringin' back the external clit focus and popping out top notch lady-gasm surveys
That's a long intro to say that Laurie Mintz, with her book "Becoming Cliterate: Why Orgasm Equality Matters- And How To Get It" 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. 

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 long-ass post 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.

Dr. Mintz - not letting the vag-gasm loud minority derail the discussion (much)
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. 

Mintz doesn't hem, haw, or backstep, though. She indeed keeps the focus on the vulva - and off the vagina when it comes to orgasm. I will admit, though, there are a couple tiny moments when I see Mintz give a slight 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 "contribute to women doubting their own most reliable route to reaching orgasm." 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.  

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. 

Dr. Mintz - rockin' orgasm equality
Dr. Mintz - you are the highest order of Orgasm Equality Hero (highest order because, unlike you, not everyone on that list 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).


What I Might Change About 'Science, Sex, and the Ladies' (the movie) Now All These Years Later

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 (which are all HERE). 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 TV ones are HERE and the movie ones are HERE), 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.

Last night me and Charlie re-watched Science Sex and the Ladies 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.  

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. 

1 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. 
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 actually 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 HERE), 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. 

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. 

Anyway, more specific info about why the inner clit is not some new discovery and not the cause of 'vaginal orgasms' is HERE.

2 I'd have added some info about male multiple orgasms. 
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 - here's an article with the male multiple orgasms. 

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. 


Orgasm and EEG in 1976 - A Journal Article I Read

Welcome back to An Article I Read, where I summarize a scientific article relating to female orgasm (check all the past ones out HERE).  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*

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. 

Electroencephalographic laterality changes during human sexual orgasm. H D Cohen, R C Rosen, L Goldstein. Arch Sex Behav. Vol. 5 No. 3 (May 1976), pp. 189-99.

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. 

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.

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.  

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 some 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. 

Overall, it's a cool start that needs MAJOR follow-up.


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 [ME:], 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.

You can check out the list of all the past 'A Journal Article I Read' Summaries HERE.

  • 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. "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." 
    • [ME: 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 maybe 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.]
  • "The research of Masters and Johnson (1966) represents a major advancement in the knowledge of the process of sexual arousal." [ME: 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]. 
  • M&J had a substantial sample size, but data was more descriptive than quantitative [ME: 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.] 
  • 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. [ME: 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.]
  • Bartlett's study (1955) focused on heart and breathing rate during orgasm during intercourse [ME: 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]. 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 [ME: probably because they are less likely to fake during masturbation - amiright?]) masturbation orgasms appeared equally, if not more, intense than during intercourse.
  • 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.
  • (Heath 1972) used deep and surface electrodes to measure a M/F couple having intercourse. "He reported finding consistent spike and slow-wave activity in the septal region during intercourse." 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.
  • There is also experiential reports that orgasms put a person into a unique state of consciousness.


  • 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)
  • One female left handed all others right handed; one male strongly homosexual (Kinsey scale 5)
  • Participants were paid and the experiment and the reasoning behind it were described to them

Choice of EEG Measure: The Significance of Interhemispheric Amplitude Relationships
  • Recent data seems to show that the different hemisphere's of the brain are "involved to different extents in cognitive abilities (Dimond 1972)" So, in right handed people the left hemisphere seems to deal with verbal activities while the right seems to deal with "visual, spatial, musical, and emotional inputs (Harnard 1973)." This shows up in EEGs as "amplitude asymmetries." 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. 
  • [ME: 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.]

Recording Methods
  • There's a description of the EEG and recording equiptment. There were separate measurements taken from the left and right side.  
  • The values attained from right and left side were each plotted against time
  • Ratios of the Right/Left readings were calculated for each epoch [ME: 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] 
  • Then for each phase of the experiment (there are 4 - see below) an average of those epoch ratios was created.
  • "Statistical significance of the changes was ascertained on the basis of the two-tailed test" [ME: 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 two tail t tests (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]
  • Males placed a gauge at the base of the penis to measure penile tumescence (blood congestion - or basically level of erection).Females placed a "relative blood flow transducer mounted on a diaphragm ring" 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.
  • "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."   [ME: 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.] 

Experimental Procedure
  • For anonymity each subject was assigned a code and that code and the subsequent data were analyzed blindly.
  • 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.
  • 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. 
  • The experimenter left after the subjects were settled and did not return until after the experiment, so the subjects could have privacy.
  • The EEG and genital blood congestion changes were monitored during 4 stages
    • 1 - "An initial adaption period, during which the subject had been instructed to refrain from movement and to breath regularly"
    • 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. "Two subjects were shown erotic films and pictures in order to enhance sexual fantasy"
    • 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."
    • 4 - 15 minutes of rest post- climax 
  • Each phase was approximately 15 minutes, so the total sessions were about 1 hour. After the recording equiptment was removed each subject was "required to fill out a questionnaire, reviewing their subjective response to the experience."

Stimulation Methods
  • "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." [ME: so ALL the female subjects and 1/4 of the male subjects].
  • 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. "Self-stimulation, particularly when vibrator assisted, can be managed with minimum overt bodily movement, making possible analysis of relatively artifact free EEG records."

[ME: 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]

Table 1:
  • Each experimental instance (7 total subjects, 12 total instances) is listed. 
  • 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.
  • 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.
    • "Only those portions of record during which the EEG appeared from visual inspection of the tracings to be most stable and artifact free" were used
    • "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." So only after EEG became stable were the postclimax readings used. 
  • "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." [ME: it mentions genital measurements here, but it never releases the data from those, and doesn't even tell how 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.]
  • 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).
  • Some comments from the post experiments questionnaire are included in the last column

More Results:
  • All subjects reported successfully achieving 1 or more orgasms
  • Except for (0811) and (0813) who reported orgasm felt somewhat "less intense" all subjects said orgasms felt typical
  • 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 [ME: in other words, you could not just use the total info from this group of people to predict how any one person's EEG might read at orgasm - you would need to get their individual baseline and then it might 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.]
  • 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.
  • 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 similar [Me: their emphasis not mine] shifts at orgasm.
  • 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. "The 'faked' orgasm involved the same pattern of overt movement and muscular contractions, but without the subjective experience of sexual climax." [ME: 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.
  • There were not significant amplitude ratio changes during the faked orgasm. "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." [ME: 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.]
  • 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 [ME: bad form, my dude.and that participant 0816 "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 apparent under conditions if alpha-blocking"

Figure 1 :
  • shows "the clearest segments of preclimax, climax, and postclimax records obtained from subject 0817." There is a visual clear difference in Right vs. Left amplitude ratio - which was also calculated and confirmed quantitatively
  • 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.

  • 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. "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."
  • Their final words: "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)" [ME: I don't think this provides a viable methodology for quantitative assessment of orgasmic response. I think it provides some tools for possibly looking further into the future creation of a viable brainwave-related marker for orgasmic response, ya know?]


5 Comedies My Dad Would Be Into #DirectedByWomen

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. 

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.

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.

A Little History of These Lists
I started doing this categorized List of 5 movies thing where I showcase movies that were directed by women and that I have actually seen. It all started during the Directed By Women Worldwide Viewing Party in September 2015, and it was pretty fun, so I've continued doing it from time to time.

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

You can find all my 5-movie lists HERE.

So, 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. 

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.

The Movies

1 Fast Times at Ridgemont High - This was directed by Amy Heckerling 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 SSL Review in 2010 about the dugout sex. 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.

Shrek- This was directed by Andrew Adamson and Vicki Jenson - 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.


Speed Racer - This was directed by Lana and Lilly Wachowski. 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.

Wayne's World  -This was directed by Penelope Spheeris. I think I first saw this on VHS with my BFF Leslie. 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. 

National Lampoon's European Vacation - This was also directed by Amy Heckerling. 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.