The Sexy Side of Mutual Masturbation

The ol’ mutual masturbation has long been used as the go-to sex alternative given to the young by progressives, but let’s be honest. Nobody does that shit….well…except me. I love it, and it’s hot as hell, people. From here on out, I would like to declare myself a mutual masturbation advocate, and I want to advocate the hot stuff – not so much the safe stuff.

We all know there’s no pregnancy or disease risks. Fine. No need to buy or use condoms. Cool. But, those things are boring. I mean they’re important, of course, but they’re also kinda lame, and people about to get it on don’t seem to give a shit about that. So listen up progressives, people are not going to do things like mutual masturbation, unless it becomes a culturally obvious way to have sex. Here’s my dream for the future...

1  First things first -I want sexy ass ways to say Mutual Masturbation. Currently there’s no hot slang available for this yet so MM for now, I guess . Mark my words though, I will be thinking of an awesome word for this, so watch the hell out for that sexiness comin’ your way.

2  When I say sex, I’d like people to simply assume I mean that my genitals were involved in pleasure with another person. Could mean we banged doggy style over the side of the bed. Maybe we leisurely licked each other curled in a 69. Maybe I sucked him off while I jerked myself. Possibly I meant we clothes burned/dry humped. Or maybe I was talking about MM. I want those all to come to mind when I say sex to someone.

3  When I pick up a douchey yet hot college dude for a one-night stand, I want to bust into his apartment, with him picking me up, legs wrapped around his waist, and then I want him to say, “you wanna MM, girl?” (If he wants to , he could lick his lips like LL Cool J just before he says it.)

4  I want to turn on some sexy, cheesy romantic book-to-movie flick and see Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams from the chest up lying close together on their backs but twisted so they are kissing and touching each other with romance novel intensity. They huskily whisper their undying love to one another as the audience sees the tell-tale jerk-off movement in their sculpted upper arms. Between squirming and gnawing at each other, they indulge in slow stuttering intakes of air to relax into their on-coming cum. Then the scene ends abruptly, and it's the next morning. They’re laughing and making fluffy pancakes with fresh blueberries in the kitchen.

I kinda made a special Orgasm Equality set of Boyfriend Ryan Gosling Pics

5  I want to see a tv drama about obscenely rich, sexy teenagers, and I want to see tears in the sweet, wanna-do-the-right-thing boy’s intoxicating brown eyes as he stares in disbelief after his bitchy raven-haired girlfriend finally admits she MM’d with his best friend.

I want this shit to be part of our sexual culture, people.


Eatin' A Lady Out: You're Doin' It Wrong

Playboy cover March 1995
Recently, I was hanging with some friends. We'd just finished dinner and some drinks, and walked back to one of their houses to hang on the porch...and check out the bags of Playboys from the 80's and 90's that had recently been found and saved from a dumpster. Super awesome time, my friends, super awesome time.

Here is a question and answer from The Playboy Advisor in the March 1995 issue (page 36):

I love performing oral sex to my girlfriends. The problem is, I have a short tongue. After years of practice, I have learned to compensate with technique and enthusiasm, but after fairly long sessions, my tongue hurts. I've heard that you can have the tiny piece of skin on the underside of your tongue cut to give more extension. Is this true? Is it safe?
R.T., Pasadena, California.
Excising the membrane that keeps your tongue from flopping around-a procedure known as frenectomy-has no practical advantage for adults beyond making it easier to get peanut butter off the roof of your mouth. You probably have a short frenulum, which might make you tire more easily during oral sex. But since most women prefer gentle teasing of the outer lips of the vagina, and indirect clitoral pressure, rather than penetration, your lovers aren't likely to be concerned with how far you extend your tongue.
 I think the Playboy Advisor did as good a job as one could expect, but I really think they should have been more clear and direct. I know there are far too many men out there who think that giving a woman oral sex means that they should push their tongues in and our of the vagina hole, and there are far too many women who fake orgasms while their sorely uneducated partners poke their tired tongues into highly un-sensitive vaginas. I personally know a couple men who did in fact think that for far too long...and did believe (at the time) that it made their partners come. I would bet my damn house that it absolutely never did.

So...if I were The Playboy Advisor, I would switch that answer up a bit - like so:

The fact that you asked that question let's me know that you obviously have the wrong idea about what goes into performing oral sex on a woman (at least the kind that induces orgasm). Stimulating the clitoral/vulva area is the way to bring a woman to orgasm - not stimulating the vagina. Check out Masters and Johnson. My advice is to stop focusing on pushing your tongue in and out of her hole and start focusing on light teasing of the outer lips of the vagina; rhythmic mouth and tongue movements from side to side or in circles around the clitoris, and possibly some very gentle sucking on the clitoral area. You'll have to experiment. Different women will have different tastes about things like how direct or indirect the clitoral stimulation should be and how much pressure to use, but I would be shocked to all hell if you found one that just wanted you to tongue f*ck her vag.


Hysteria - The SSL Review

Hysteria. This movie sucked. I mean, I hope you don't think I'm not being too negative and blunt, but honestly it just sucked. It was boring, uninteresting, and did I also say boring...also the characters were ridiculously predictable archetypes. Maggie Gyllenhaal just over acted the hell out of it. You can only be so much of a throw-caution-to-the-wind, I'm-equal-to any-man, do-gooding, super-strong-woman type. A little goes a long way, Maggie. Let em tell you the whole plot. Doctor gets job manually masturbating women to alleviate their "hysteria," but it starts making his hand hurt. He gets his super rich and obviously-way-into-making-electric-machinery-as-a-hobby  buddy to make the first electric vibrator. Then, what a surprise, he gets with that wildly strong and independent women in the end! Done. I'm not spoiling the movie for you because all that is obvious in the first 10 minutes, and there's not much else to the movie except some predictable vibrator and lady-gasm jokes.

However, for obvious reasons (or in case it's not obvious - because there are discussions and depictions of female sexual release in this movie) I need to do an SSL review on this, so here goes. That aspect of this movie sucked too - which is really sad because this movie could have portrayed a realistic understanding of female orgasm. It let me down, though people...it let me down. I wrote a little primer on hysteria in my previous post, so feel free to check it out if you are lost about that.

I'm going to give you a quick overview of the points in this movie where sexual release is discussed or depicted. It's actually surprisingly few times. Early in the movie Dr. Mortimer Granville (Hugh Dancy) is sort of desperate for a medical job and ends up in an upper class practice, where he basically just manually stimulates upper class women to orgasm each week as a treatment for their hysteria.

To train him, the old doctor takes him in a room where an older lady is laying with a sort of curtained box around her middle area - covering her lady junk. She is otherwise clothed. It is her weekly appointment. The older doctor demonstrates the use of oils generously covering his hand (for lubrication - although that is not really said specifically) and then he reaches under the curtains and starts stimulating. He tells Dr. Granville to use his index finger in a circular motion. We see that the lady enjoys it, but an hour goes by before she reached  "hysterical paroxysm." The older doctor is obviously tired and overworked by the end.

That's the only lesson the dude got. He didn't even get to look at where the old doctor was stimulating. He then gets to give it a go with another patient. He oils up, reaches under the ol' curtain and starts stimulating. He still hasn't seen what he's touching, and I have a hard time believing that he could possibly know what the hell he's doing. But...I guess he does, because he gets her off, and the appointments come (no pun intended) rushing in. I guess he's a natural. He is obviously getting some serious over use injuries to his hand and wrist though. Some boring, stupid crap happens, and then he and his friend make the first electric vibrator. Dr. Granville knows it feels good, because he massages his hand with it. They try it out on a "former" prostitute. It works, and then after convincing the old Doctor to try it out on some of the practice's patients, it's a huge hit, and women are coming in minutes instead of hours.

So now I will discuss my grievances:

1. I take issue with the idea that a dude (or a lady) - with no prior practice in manually stimulating a woman, could just oil up his or her hands and figure out how to induce orgasm without ever even looking at a vulva. The old doctor training Dr. Granville didn't even give any indication of where "down there" he was supposed to touch. This scene really annoys me. I believe this scene could have been a great way to give a severely mis-educated public some directions on what parts "down there" usually need stimulation in order for a woman to come. Just simply pointing out that you don't focus on the vag hole and do focus on the clitoral/vulva area would have been hugely awesome and progressive, but they couldn't even do that.

2. The movie gives the wrong idea about the time it takes women to orgasm. The woman at the beginning took almost an hour to come, and the insinuation throughout the movie was that it did take all the women nearly an hour to come when the good doctor was doing his treatment. However, it was also insinuated that he ALWAYS got them to come in the end.


Medically Prescribed Vibrator Sessions? Sign Me Up!!

I just watched the movie Hysteria, and my next blog will be an SSL review of that there movie. Spoiler Alert: the movie was boring as hell, but there are some interesting things to discuss about its depiction and discussion of female sexual response.  Anyway, I thought I'd just write a little primer blog about hysteria.

Basically hysteria is a broad term that was used from ancient times in Europe to describe malfunction in women. Symptoms included [from Wikipedia]
faintness, nervousness, sexual desire, insomnia, fluid retention, heaviness in abdomen, muscle spasm, shortness of breath, irritability, loss of appetite for food or sex, and "a tendency to cause trouble" 
An old Victorian vibrator - probably not the first though
It was thought to be caused by a wondering uterus, so be careful of that. One of the treatments for hysteria was to have a doctor manually stimulate the genitals until the woman experienced 'hysterical paroxysm' which....was actually an orgasm. However, the doctors "believed" that, of course, women could only receive sexual satisfaction from a penis, so what they were doing had nothing to do with sex and everything to do with an upstanding and legitimate treatment for a real female ailment. Hysteria kind of hit a high point in the 1800's, and during that time [also from the ol' Wikipedia article]
Rachel P. Maines has observed that such cases were quite profitable for physicians, since the patients were at no risk of death, but needed constant treatment. The only problem was that physicians did not enjoy the tedious task of vaginal massage (generally referred to as 'pelvic massage'): The technique was difficult for a physician to master and could take hours to achieve "hysterical paroxysm."
The way I see this is that some doctors probably had the right idea about how to stimulate the vulva to orgasm. They'd had good feedback from women in their lives, had a sensitive touch, and some, well, didn't. Either way, whether they knew what they were doing or not, manually stimulating women all day is gonna be rough on the hand and wrist. At my company, we would see that as an insanely serious ergonomic injury situation. You know what happened, though? The first electric vibrator (actually I think it was meant for basic muscle aches in men but was immediately misused and marketed as a vibrator) was put on the market and not only helped the physicians hands, but also got the ladies there much quicker. Thank you hysteria!


A new Showtime Series about Masters and Johnson?

I heard tell that there's a Showtime series starting in 2013 centered around Masters and Johnson. They, of course, are the duo that did the very first (and still most significant) studies on the actual physical reactions to arousal and orgasm in men and women in the mid 60's. They concluded that all female orgasms were "clitoral" and sort of nixed all the Freudian vaginal-orgasms-are-mature / clitoral-orgasms-are-infantile thing that had been the mainstay in the decades before. They also showed that physically, male and female arousal and orgasms are very similar. For instance it seems like men with their boners is very different than the female situation, but it's really the same thing, just expressed a little differently. The first sign of arousal in both men and women is increased blood flow to the pelvic region. That's where the boner comes from in men, but there's just as much if not more blood pooling down there for women. However, for us it causes lubrication to seep through the vaginal walls. (Also - and this is not a term used in M&J's work - it also gives us ladies an inner boner - what I like to call a binner - as blood fills the the spongy erectile tissue of the inner legs of the clitoris)

I don't know a ton about the details of Masters and Johnson's lives, but I know a few things that could easily make for good soap-opera drama. Plus, add in the craziness that went on with observing and recording real people having real orgasms...and later counseling real people with real sexual issues, and this could be a pretty fun series. I hope they treat the research and female sexual response right. I'm interested to see how some things are addressed because M&J were kind of stuck in traditional ideas about sex even though they did some of the most progressive sexual work in the 20th century. They had issues with homosexuality, but actually did some interesting research into it. Also M&J clearly showed that masturbation of the clit (and to a lesser degree manual stimulation from a skilled partner) caused the most intense orgasms M&J recorded...much more intense than the hands-free orgasms recorded during intercourse (which were due to indirect clitoral stimulation). Yet, still M&J were not exactly masturbation enthusiasts, they seemed to believe getting a woman to have orgasms hands free during intercourse was the ultimate goal. ..you will definitely see an SSL review of this when it comes out. Check out details HERE.


Synchtube, Skype, and Music: "Science, Sex and the Ladies" Movie Update

Hey there ya'll readers. Just thought I'd give you an update on where we're at with this here movie. You may remember that we did a Kickstarter campaign for this movie in December and raised $20,000 to cover the recording of the score (you know - paying studio musicians, renting space suitable for movie score recording, paying an engineer - that sort of thing) plus paying for the final sound sweetening of the movie. (You can see the short video we made for the now closed Kickstarter campaign HERE - it includes a newer trailer)

So, quite awesomely, we have a fantastic budget for this part of the movie making process (thanks you, thank you again to everyone who was part of that), and we're really excited that we have the resources to put as much attention on the part of the movie you will be listening to as we did for the part of the movie you will be seeing.

The AnC Synchtube / Skype meeting!
Now here's where we're at. A few weeks ago, we finished our last round of tweeking and got a final version of the movie sent out to Nathaniel Blume, our old and awesome friend who is cool enough to collaborate with us on this. We actually met him randomly because Charlie's brother Paul happen to work with him in some kind of  IT related job, and when Nathan said he was interested in doing music for movies, Paul introduced us. He has since moved out to LA, completed film scoring studies in the SMPTV program at the University of Southern California, and makes a living in that business. Yet, he can't quite leave his Hoosier roots behind (and who can really), so that's where we come in.

He's been playing around with the movie for a while, but now that he has a final version, it's getting serious. The 3 of us in AnC - me, Charlie, and Barnaby -  have been meeting with Nathan to discuss where music should and should not be placed. As Nathan pointed out, this movie is not easily categorizable...it's not quite a doc or an informational movie or a narrative, so there's not a lot of precedence for this, and it's not really obvious where music should go. We're kinda figuring things out as we go here. Anyway, it's pretty fun, and I think Nathan is gonna do some cool stuff with it.

I'd also like to point out that we've figured a great way to have our meetings - being that he is in LA and we are in Greenfield, IN. So - we Skype with one computer, and we watch the movie together through Synchtube on another computer. It's a neat site. I create a "room" and upload the movie into it. Then people can join my room, and we all watch the same movie at the same time. I control it and when I rewind or pause - it rewinds or pauses for everyone. I love it. It's pretty new and run by like 2 guys right now, so I think it can be a little buggy, but it works great for us. We've gone through "the Science " and "the Sex" sections of the movie so far, and we'll be hitting "the Ladies" section soon.

Anyway, the movie is well on its way to being a finished piece......


My Dream Comes True Via A Conversation About Fifty Shades of Grey

I had an pretty cool experience last night. Like I've said before here, I really don't know who reads this blog. I know there are people. I see how many page views I get, but a lot of that might just be search robots for all I know. I have friends and acquaintances now and then tell me they like the blog, but who knows if anyone actually reads this thing regularly. I'd love to think so, but like I said, who knows.

Last night though, I was out dancing, and a friend - a friend I don't see very often -comes up to me and says we should talk about the book Fifty Shades of Grey. I haven't read this but have heard about it. I have a pretty good idea of what it's all about, so I wasn't sure how this conversation would turn. Then, I was pleasantly surprised when she said something like, "the orgasms in there had no clitoral stimulation at all. The guy was just like 'come for me' and she would just come. It was so ridiculous."

This is like my dream, people. This is a woman that has read my blog and started to look critically at how female orgasms are portrayed in the media. I love that more than you will ever know. Maybe one day people will really push  back on authors, directors, producers and anyone else making media to actually depict female orgasms accurately and realistically.

In the meantime, I'm downloading Fifty Shades of Grey to listen to, and you should look forward to seeing an SSL review of that book in the future.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, you lovely woman for talking about this to me last night. I'm not gonna use your name, cause I don't know if you want me to, but you know who you are.


More on Google Searching "Female Orgasm"

In my last post, I critiqued the 2nd link that came up when I googled "female orgasm." It wasn't such a great article - let's just say that. However, I looked at the other links on that first google search page, and I found some pretty good ones too. Since I feel like we should all be reporting positives along with the negatives, I thought I'd pass along some of the better ones.

This one is the Female Orgasm page on the Brown University Health Education site. It has the basic info about what an orgasm physically is, and it also points out that women can orgasm through masturbation as easily as men. It is when partners are added that things get harder for women. Pro-masturbation, accurate physiological information about the orgasm, and no discussion of the G-spot (which might seem incomplete to some, but since there are no real clinical, research based connections between g-spot and orgasm, it makes sense. The G-spot is better discussed in an ejaculation section) ---- that's a good webpage in my book.

Okay, I started writing this post after I found the Brown University site, and I wrote it as if I'd find some more good links, but, oh, I have not. On this first page of the google search, I found a couple things about why the female orgasm exists. They mostly were linked with the book The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution, which is actually a pretty good book. These weren't much in the way of informative though. I also found some weird ones - like one from Cosmo that had strangely specific instructions about how women could get an orgasm that lasted 15 minutes. That's right - 15 minutes...let's just pretend for now that this makes any kind of physiological sense. Oh, and of course this 15 minute orgasm is given to a woman by a male partner. I may have to write about that one.

There was also a pretty bad one on netdoctor.com that I should probably write a few words about in another post. Then there was the Wikipedia page for orgasm that is long and all over the place. I feel like I could write a book about what was going on with that page. So...I guess at least that Brown University one was good...


Another Crappy AskMen.com Article About Female Orgasm

From time to time, I like to google "female orgasm" and see what I get. I gotta keep my fingers on the pulse of society's ladygasm knowledge - don't ya know. So, the 2nd link on the first page of my search was this brilliant article on the AskMen.com Love and Dating section.

I'm telling you, it's pretty much the only thing you'll need to read if you want to "Understand the Female Orgasm" which is, aptly, the name of the article in question. As the article says, it, "will help you understand the female genitalia and the female orgasm inside and out."

You will learn things like, "when you tease her, you build up awesome tension, and when she finally orgasms, it will be an explosion of release." OOO - I love awesome tension and explosions of release! "Keep in mind, however, that roughly 26% of women have difficulty reaching orgasm. And usually, it's her own mental block that keeps her from reaching orgasm -- it's not you."

Weeeellllll...it's probably a little you. However, even though this is one of the stupidest articles I've ever read, I won't argue too much with the "it's not you" statement, because honestly, we need to stop blaming men for not "giving" us our orgasms. The truth is, a lot of women know about as much about how to get their own orgasm as men know about "giving" it..and this article does not help that situation at all, my friends. It's just plain bad, and the information presented is just so weird. For instance, here's the explanation in the "What Happens?" section in this article.

When a woman orgasms, regardless of which area of her body you're manipulating, her body physically reacts in the same way. During an orgasm, she feels:

  • stimulation in her clitoris
  • her heart rate, blood pressure and breathing increase
  • tension builds within her pelvis
  • muscles contract throughout her body, especially in the vagina, uterus, rectum, and pelvic floor
  • tension is released upon orgasm

First of all, this is the entire explanation given for what an orgasm is - so I'd say this is not so comprehensive. Secondly, it's like an alien read bits and pieces of Masters and Johnson's  Human Sexual Response (the definitive study on the physical aspects of orgasm) and then gave us its mixed up alien explanation. The list is supposed to be what a woman feels during orgasm, but "stimulation in her clitoris" should really be in a "how to elicit orgasm" section and should really be written "stimulation of her clitoris." Actually, there is no physical reaction in the clitoris during orgasm at all. The clit is more like the receptor and transformer of the sexual stimuli. I mean, I guess she might still be feeling stimulation on her clit because she's still rubbing the hell out of it while the orgasm is happening, but it's not like the orgasm caused her to feel stimulation in her clit.

Okay, yes, she should feel "tension build within her pelvis," but she will feel those during the build up to orgasm - not during orgasm. The orgasm itself is actually the release of muscle tension (and blood congestion) within her pelvis.

All the other things on the list can legitimately be put into the category of what a woman feels during orgasm, so I have no real squabble with those. It's just that this "What Happens?" section, as a whole, is so mixed up. He wrote "During an orgasm, she feels:" but the succeeding list he made is instead more like a list, in no particular order, of some random facts he found flipping through the pages of Human Sexual Response. As opposed to being informative, the author made the well-established facts about the physical aspects of female orgasm even more vague and confusing than they already are to most of the population.

As I said, there are a lot of bad parts, but I'll just go over a few real quick here.

1. Lucky us, the article decides to let us know about the "two areas of a woman's vagina that can lead to the most satisfying female orgasm:" Well, it ends up that those two parts turn out to be the clitoris and the vagina. I hate to break it to you, but the clitoris is not part of the vagina, and the vagina is not a part of the vagina. It is the vagina. I realize the author first uses the word vagina in the slang way - as the whole of the female genitals. However that's not what it actually is. It is the muscular barrel that penises, fingers, tampons, and dildos go into and babies and menstrual blood leave through. This is supposed to be an informative article, so could we at least use words accurately?

2. The following is written in this article about the G-Spot..."Theory dictates that the G-spot can be either a bundle of nerves coming from the clitoris or a gland (or series of glands) that produces lubrication." I have heard a lot of inaccurate shit about the G-spot, and in fact, most of what is written about it is inaccurate, but I think the aliens were again taking over the writing process, because that is a different kind of inaccuracy than I have ever heard. I honestly am not sure where he got that.

I've heard some people say that the G-spot is part of the "clitoris" simply because they have decided to arbitrarily put every part of a woman's genitals that may feel good when stimulated into a big basket and call them all part of the clitoris. I've even heard some theories that the inner parts of the clitoris, the largely not-so nervy, clitoral legs that become very erect during arousal, are indirectly stimulated during intercourse and are what cause "vaginal orgasms." (I see that as pretty unlikely at best  - both that "vaginal orgasms" exist and that if they did it would happen this way, but that idea is for sure out there.) I, however, have never heard anyone say that the g-spot is a bundle of nerves, much less that these nerves are connected to the clit.

I have also never heard anyone say that the G-spot produces lubrication. It's odd. Lubrication does come from the the vaginal walls, so maybe that's where he was coming from. However, maybe it has some weird connection to the most accurate (if I might say so) explanation of the g-spot as being a series of ducts and glands (embryonic-ly related to the male prostate) which can produce ejaculate-like liquid when stimulated. In fact, the prostate explanation is a pretty common one among people who study that kind of thing, and it seems like it should be reflected here. The two explanations this article puts forth are not common and certainly not in the major books on the subject like The G-Spot and Other Recent Discoveries About Human Sexuality. They are, simply, bizarre.

That's kinda hilarious and kinda sad because it just goes to show you that people can say anything at all about the G-spot and readers/listeners just go with it.

3. The article spectacularly ends this way:
Keep in mind that any type of sexual stimulation can lead a woman to orgasm. And although there are some women who can will themselves to orgasm without even being touched, it is rare.

Massage, foreplay, direct stimulation, and even talking can make a woman reach orgasm. Most women, however, find that direct stimulation of the clitoris is the easiest way for them to climax. So use your tongue, your fingers, even rub your penis against it, and she might climax.

Until next time, keep it coming.
 Yes, yes, she might climax, so just try whatever - being sure to keep in mind that any type of sexual stimulation can make a woman come. That is very helpful info. Probably rubbing a woman's belly while merely talking about oral sex will make her explode in awesome-style orgasm...and of course we all know a few women (not every woman - it is rare) who can just will themselves into an orgasm right?

This is truly an ending that makes it very clear that there are no real answers when it comes to female orgasm. It might be clit stim that gets her there, but hey, you might just need to talk dirty to her. I mean, who could understand female sexual response? Lady parts are crazy - anything goes when it comes to ladygasms! Honestly, there may be a person or two out there who has a freak ability to just will themselves into an orgasm without physical stimulation, but why does it seem perfectly normal to include that in an advice article about how to get women off? Including that in an article about how to get men got off would seem ridiculous and laughable.

Yet men and women's orgasms are physically so similar - both the stimulation needed to achieve orgasm and the physical changes leading up to and during orgasm. Somehow, men's orgasms are discussed as if we know what physically causes them and women's orgasms are discussed, as we can see in this article, as if women are strange mystical beings with an unknown and diverse set of genital connections that can react in an infinite amount of ways.

The article does have pieces of good info - like that the penis and clitoris are from the same embryonic structure or that most women do orgasm from clitoral stimulation or that when women get turned on but don't get to come, they can experience discomfort from all that blood congestion accumulated during arousal - just like men can (blue clit - like blue balls). The problem is that, like with so many other articles and books I've read, any good information gets watered down or even negated when it gets thrown into a big pot with all the bad, contradictory information from the same book or article. It would be different if the actual accurate information about what exactly the female orgasm is was common knowledge, but it's not.  The willy nilly pieces of info tossed about, like they are in this article, add to the bullshit idea that female orgasms are mysterious, confusing entities.

As usual, I found a big ol' turd when I googled "female orgasm." Although AskMen.com might seem like an obviously shitty, horrible place to get good information on female orgasm, I doubt that is obvious to everyone. Plus, this article (and ones like it) are excessively easy to find when searching for some female orgasm advice. These kinds of crappy articles are more influential than we'd like to think. People do read them and do take some if not all the info to heart. This is the kind of crap we have to fight against if we ever want the larger cultural understanding of female sexual response to be accurate and realistic. So...if you have any good ideas about countering this kind of stuff at the source, I'd love to hear your thoughts.


Sarah Aarons Kickstarter Dolls and stuff.

 Its Charles again filling in for Trisha. I'm gonna be photographing Artist Sarah Aaron's work she made for our Kickstarter campaign later tonight. It should be pretty sweet. I don't know what she did so I am really excited to see them. Its been an interesting week movie wise. I've been doing some refining. We have our edit done and in our composers hands, but we're making a few visual tweaks still. I'll update with a pic of the artwork later (*obviously I updated it.) Also, I've never posted from my phone before but it seems to be working out pretty well.