*This blog was at blogger from 2009 to 2024, but it was time to move. The new home has all your favorite blogs from this site, but more categorized and easier to find. See you over at ScienceSexAndTheLadies.com
12.15.2014
Science of Orgasm Video
I kept seeing this Science of the Orgasm video on Facebook, and I finally checked it out. I put it off because I thought it was really long, but it was actually only 2 minutes and 45 seconds, so I probably should have just watched it when I first saw it.
If you want my assessment of this video, and I can only assume you do because you're reading my blog, then fine, I'll give it to you. It's okay, ya know. In general it's not like way off base or anything, but it's also a little too sure in statements it shouldn't be be, and it's also kinda skipping over some stuff I think is important for people to know. Granted, most people get little to no education about the physical qualities of orgasm in our school system, so anything is probably good. I seriously didn't learn about what arousal and orgasm actually does in my body until I was in my 20's and researching for what would become Science, Sex and the Ladies, so I'm not going to knock this.
Here's what I think should be pointed out about this video though:
1 When it says that blood starts to flow to the genitals, it doesn't also point out what that means for ladies. We all know what it means for dudes, but I don't think many people know that the increased blood flow is what makes lubrication begin seeping from the vaginal walls, or that as much blood pools down there for women as it does for men. I just think that knowing a simple thing like that could change an outlook a bit.
2 It describes male orgasm as 3-10 seconds followed by a refractory period, and it describes female orgasm as 20 plus minutes with no refraction period, and it doesn't even hint that there might be variation. In actuality, the best study on this topic (Masters and Johnson's Human Sexual Response from the late 60's), observed male orgasm basically as described, but it described female orgasm in 3 different ways.
A. just like the male type was described
B. multiple orgasms, each lasting a few seconds and needing continued clitoral stimulation for a number of second between each consecutive little orgasm. This last 2, 3 or sometimes a bit more orgasms, and all the little orgasms and stimulation in between could last a few minutes-ish at most.
C. Status Orgasmus...maybe quick multiple orgasms, maybe one long continuous orgasm that would last 20 seconds to a minute, but they found it to be rare.
So I think the ladygasm description on this video was a bit misleading because it was kinda a mix of the last 2 types and it ignored the possibility of the 3rd type. Plus, and it's not common at all, but men can also be multi-orgasmic, seemingly as long as he can manage to not ejaculate along with his orgasm. There was a man in this study who was recorded doing this.
3 This video says that during orgasm, relaxation of the hippocampus and the amygdala "in women further reduces emotion, producing a trance-like state, while in men it dampens aggressiveness." Really, we're sure of that? All women with the trance-like state when we come and all men with the low aggression when they nus? Really? So, there's a deep well of successfully replicated, peer reviewed studies proving pretty certainly that these badly defined and complicated states of being such as "trance state" "reduced emotion" or "dampened aggression" are specifically what's happening to people during orgasm and that it is split straight down the middle this way for men vs. women? I would bet a lot of money that this isn't the case. And if it is, I'd like more info about this because there are a lot of studies out there about what certain hormones or physical events "do" to people emotionally and behaviorally, and they often contradict each other. It's just that I'm awfully sensitive to "sciency" stuff spouting off in concrete ways about complicated, nuanced shit they don't really understand or care to explain fully. That way of speaking about information is irresponsible at best. I'm a bit of a stickler in that regard, so I just wanted to point out this we-will-unabashedly-speak-concretely-about-a-complicated-subtle-topic-even-though-it's-way-overreaching situation that was happening there.
Okay, that's it. Check out the video.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment