1977 Hustler Review Series Wrap-up: It's Not Great

The Final in the 1977 Hustler Series 
This is a wrap-up to a deal I made a couple years ago to SSL Review a Hustler from September 1977. I don't have any more reviews to do in this magazine, but I just feel like I needed to give it a final goodbye. And, I don't mean that in a good way - like because I loved it and I'll miss it or something. I mean it in more of a bad way - because it was gross and sexist and surprisingly racist...with a pedophile edge.

I'll get into that, but if you haven't been keeping up on this particular series - you can find all the previous SSL Reviews (reviews specifically of depictions or discussions of female orgasm, female masturbation or the clit), linked under the magazine section HERE. There were 6 sections in this magazine that included something I could SSL Review, and by far my favorite of those was the Huster XXX movie reviews - because those movies were bonkers.

Anyway, I started this because a fab lady named Jill Hamilton who writes the Cosmo Sex Position lists - like a fucking Orgasm Equality Hero btw- and a blog called In Bed With Married Women, which you will not regret reading, had a give away. We just needed to tell her what we'd do with it. I saw this vintage Hustler, and I promised to both SSL Review it cover to cover and to also masturbate to it. She chose me, and thus it began.

I didn't masturbate to it. It feels like I'd mess up some kind of karma if I rubbed one off to it. It doesn't deserve me. I liked seeing it though and seeing what it was like in a late 70's Hustler. I enjoyed doing the reviews too.

BUT....It was, as I said above, gross and sexist and surprisingly racist...with a pedophile edge. I normally put pics in these but, well, no, not for these. Here's some of the terrible-ness:
  • Chester the Molester. I honestly didn't know Chester the Molester was reoccurring cartoon in Hustler. I remember I babysat at this house across the street. Their last name was Chester, and me and my BFF called them Chester the Molester - just because it rhymed and we had heard that term before, I guess? Anyway, I'm not going to put a picture of it in here because I wouldn't feel right replicating the image for prosperity, but let me just describe it. It's a full page. Chester the Molester is an older white dude with white hair and a creepy smile. He's got a Nazi band around his upper arm. He's in a city in the foreground of the picture hiding around the corner of a building. Behind him and on the sidewalk next to the building a mom, dad, and a little girl are waiting to cross the street. Chester is not visible to them. They are clearly Jewish and in a Jewish neighborhood because the girl has a star of David necklace. The dad has a yarmulke, and there's a Hasidic Jewish man walking in the background. The noses are ridiculously over drawn for a little extra racism. Chester has a string attached to a dollar that he is pulling from around the corner and the girl is chasing it towards where he is hiding. In his other hand he has a bat raised ready to get her. Oh, and there is piss and shit on the sidewalk. That's it. That's the comic - the whole comic. Can I just ask Whyyyyy? It's not comedic. It's super racist. I don't really know what to say, but why?... and why a full page devoted to it, Hustler? You wrong.
  • They probably have alternative motives for selling a kid's sex ed book. There's a page titled "Hustler Books and Movies." It's got 5 little sections of different sex books and/or sex reels to order; one on masturbation, some little "dirty" comics, some explicit sex position photo books, a book series on modern sexual behavior that has "lots of full color explicit photos", and then a book called Show Me! with 2 pre adolescent shirtless children on the cover. It's supposed to be a sex ed book for your kids, and checking with wikipedia it is a sex ed book for kids- although a controversial one because of its explicit drawings. Buuutttt, again, I need to ask why they got that damn thing on that page? A book that was, at the time this magazine came out, being banned in some areas as child pornography? Even if it really was meant to be just a very straightforward book for kids, it is clearly being marketed on the down low in this Hustler as a way to look at drawings of naked kids, right? I'm not crazy?
  • There's another racist, nose-related comic, but it's only an 1/8 of a page this time and no potential molesting insinuated. It's also not funny.
  • Um there's a huge, several page-long comic with a really racist-ly drawn black football team. Their dialogue in it is also quite racists. They're having lots of sex, and there's some famous people in it too. It's pretty bad.
  • There's a big ol' article on child prostitution with a totally inappropriate cover page. It's pretending to be some kind of deep journalistic look at the problem of child prostitution, but it's really just a horseshit article. The really gross part, though, is that the front of the article is a 2 page spread of an almost pubescent girl, blond hair and innocent blue eyes, sitting on a bed in a dank motel room holding money. She's completely naked to the point that we see her vulva. Like....whyyyyyyyyyyyyyy? Did they feel like sexualizing a little cartoon girl in a story about child prostitution was good idea journalistic integrity? Is that why they made sure her legs were open enough to see everything? Come on, Hustler. Jesus Christ.
  • The rest of the grossness is just your average hardcore magazine grossness. I think I hit the worst above, but rest assured, there's stuff in there you could live without.
So, that concludes my Hustler September 1977 Review Journey. I am going to throw it away now. I think mid-nineties Penthouse is next. Hopefully it's at least a little less racist, although I'm not holding my breath.


Sex and the City S6 Part 2 Ep1-8: A Retro SSL Review

My new little segment is back for a another round (Here's the others). It's a modified, lazy version of an SSL Review. It's just me transcribing my notes, page by page, on all of the Sex and the City episodes. I watched them all - not necessarily in order - during 2007 and 2008, and I took notes on the depiction/discussion of female orgasm and female masturbation. It was my early attempt at this type of lady-gasm review stuff. Anyway, I never actually created reviews from these notes, but since they exist, I'd like to get them out there on the interwebs before they get burned in a house fire or something...thus this series.

Ramona and my SATC Notes

Anyway, the fun of this will be that I will transcribe these as word for word as I can while still trying to make it be a sensible read. I'll post a pick of the notes for your reference. I'll do one or more episodes at a time - from the beginning of the notebook to the end. I may add notes for clarification or add my SSL-Review-style comments.

Hopefully the notes I took privately 10 years ago won't make me look like a dumb asshole. I will add them in the TV SSL Review Master List  (of course you are also welcome to check out the Movie SSL Review Master List as well). Here we go.

SATC Notes Season 6 Part 2 Ep. 1-8

Season 6 Part 2 Ep1

  • Miranda's ex-man is mimicking her saying, "Oh Robert, no one's been in me this deep before" - making orgasm sounds.
  • She mentions to her new man he looks upset. 
  • Carrie says in voice over scientists say women when have sex, release chemical that makes women attach 
  • Samantha fucking from behind - she looks bored, but it's an emotional thing

Season 6 Part 2 Ep2

  • Nothing

Season 6 Part 2 Ep3

  • Sam asked nun if she's allowed to masturbate. Nun says, I don't know. I never asked.
  • Charlotte having sex cowgirl w/ husband sitting up - no orgasm - interuppted

Season 6 Part 2 Ep4

  • Nothing

Season 6 Part 2 Ep5

  • Samantha make porn movie w/ actor to prove he's not gay - it's porn looking and doggy style

Season 6 Part 2 Ep6

  • Sam - "I think my maid is using my vibrator"

Season 6 Part 2 Ep8

  • Samantha, after no sex-drive-chemo, has cowgirl style sex and is obviously bouncing w/ obviously no clit stimulation (pretty graphic) - and orgasms crazy-style

Modern Day Me Comments
A list:

  • I have no idea why I wrote down that Miranda told her new man he looked upset...unless maybe I didn't complete that thought, or maybe it's connected to Samantha's V.O. about sex chemicals
  • The sex chemical thing would not make an SSL review today (really most of this wouldn't) because it isn't specifically depicting or discussing lady-gasms, lady-bation, or clits. I wrote it down though, I'm sure, because it's stupid and misleading to say women release attachment chemicals during sex because all people do. 
  • Not enjoying and/or orgasming from sex with a dude because of an emotional relationship issue when all the physical things are the same as scenes that did show the character orgasming is classic for this show and all media. Yes, emotion affects arousal affects orgasm, but there is a strong sense in our culture that women's physical ability to orgasm is innately more attached to her emotional state than a man's is...but I would say the hard truth is that women just almost never get the right physical stimulation we need to orgasm, so when we're pissed or annoyed we stop faking and/or find much less joy in the other closeness/emotional aspects of sex, so it just seems like we're more emotionally fickle with our orgasms. But, that's like, my opinion, man.
  • Samantha orgasming during intercourse with no additional clitoral stimulation. Unrealistic yet classic Sam
  • STDs can be passed through sex toys, people. You shouldn't use a vibrator in some random woman's house you're cleaning...but you know, maybe she's been sheltered her whole life, and this vibrator she found while cleaning houses awoke something in her and changed her life. Maybe she got her groove back. In that case, it's worth the risk.


Freudian BS in a Legit, Peer-Reviewed Journal: A Retro Journal Article I Read

I'll be real here. I'm still focusing on other parts of my life at the moment, and I haven't written anything for this blog yet even though I have many things I would like to be writing on. However, I got all excited because I got an email from a grad student studying orgasm. They thanked me for my December 2016 post below and my Dr. Stuart Brody trashing, and then piled on a bit more well-deserved Brody trash talk, which I ABSOLUTELY loved. Anyway, I thought, why not repost? If you've already read it, sorry. If not, then please enjoy. It's not short though...It's long.

The repost of: Freudian BS in a Legit, Peer-Reviewed Journal: A Journal Article I Read originally posted December 27, 2016.

Welcome back to 'A Journal Article I Read,' a series where I summarize a lady-gasm related journal article in a way that is hopefully both comprehensive and also not too long. You can find a list of all the journal articles in this series HERE.

Here is what I'll be summarizing today.

A woman's history of vaginal orgasm is discernible from her walk.
Nicholas A1, Brody S, de Sutter P, de Carufel F.
J Sex Med. 2008 Sep;5(9):2119-24.

The BS intent of this article - a background from me
This is a unique summary for me because I have a lot to say about not only this article, but also about the author of this article and the background of why this article exists. Spoiler alert: I'm pretty darn disappointed with the amount of bias, the direct link to Freudian BS, the incorrect assumptions about scientific understanding of vaginal orgasm, and the experimental design. 

Let me begin with the quickest summary of my discontent that I can conjure up.
 Freud thought the vaginal orgasm was the only mature way for a woman to orgasm and that ability to orgasm from clitoral stimulation only was a sign of immaturity. He just made that shit up. Like if I just decided to say that for men, orgasm from penile stimulation was infantile, and to gain full maturity a man must be able to orgasm from anal intercourse...and people believed me and acted like it made sense.

Anyway, it was not backed up by reality or scientific investigation and it still isn't. In fact, there actually is still not any physical evidence at all in scientific literature that women can orgasm through vaginal stimulation alone. This is after decades of research into female orgasm - which does btw clearly back up the knowledge that women can and do orgasm from outer clitoral/vulva stimulation just as men do from penile stimulation. Clitorally stimulated orgasms have been observed and physically verified numerous times. Just like penile orgasms, it is fairly clear in scientific literature how they can happen, what happens in the body when they do, and to some extent who can have them...i.e. any intact healthy body is capable of a penile or clitorally (really anything around that tissue even if it's somewhere in between a clit and a penis) stimulated orgasm. Female orgasm is not mysterious or confusing, but vaginal orgasm is because as much as it's discussed, researched, and advised about, scientists have not yet found physical evidence that orgasms can happen though stimulation inside the vagina without additional external genital stimulation.

So, to be real clear, when a person (and believe you me a shit ton of these people are scientists in peer reviewed journals*) speaks about the vaginal orgasm, about what women and/or their bodies are like who have them, about their health benefits, about what they look like in the brain, these people are, if you will, talking out of their ass. If they make no mention that orgasms caused by stimulation inside the vagina, with no additional outer vulva/clitoral stimulation, have never been physically verified, then they are not speaking, and may not even understand, the whole story. We don't actually know if these orgasms can happen. We don't know what is actually happening in the body when the women who say they have vaginal orgasms are experiencing what they call vaginal orgasms. So please tell me how we can make distinctions between women who do and do not have them?


So...what exactly pisses me off so much
Incorrectly going about a study as if vaginal orgasms (orgasms caused by stimulation inside the vag only w/ no additional outer stimulation) are a scientifically understood and verified phenomenon is sadly pretty normal for female orgasm studies in peer reviewed journals. Me critiquing that uninformed assumption in these journal summaries is par for the course, so that's not what I'm most worried about in this one. I'm worried about the Freud-was-right-vaginal-orgasms-are-the-only-mature-sexual-climax-a-woman-can-have-and-clitoral-orgasms-make-women-less-mentally-and-physically-healthy agenda this article and this author seem to have. Because I do feel like there is evidence for this kind of agenda.

A little history of clit hate
Freud made that shit up about vaginal orgasm in his whole psychoanalysis deal. Wilhelm Reich was a student of Freud. Alexander Lowen was a student of Reich. All of them had similar feelings about the supremacy of the vaginal orgasm. Reich combined elements of the body into psychoanalysis and Lowen updated Reich's philosophy. It's called bioenergetic analysis. A main tenet of which is "blocks to emotional expression and wellness are revealed and expressed in the body as chronic muscle tensions which are often subconscious. The blocks are treated by combining bioenergetically designed physical exercises, affective expressions and palpation of the muscular tensions." - from Wikipedia.

Stuart motha-fuckin' Brody
Let me also point out that this is an article by a man named Stuart Brody, who is an absolutely prolific writer of scholarly, peer reviewed research articles jocking hard on vaginal orgasms, penile-vaginal intercourse, and even barebacking. He's not the lead author in this particular one, but I see him as a constant player in Freudian BS studies, so I'm picking on him. Please see a list of some of his articles at the bottom of this post - and it's just a few. This dude really cranks these out. But seriously, just take a minute to check out the names of these articles. I think it will help orient you.

The premise of the article
Anyway, Brody was an author on a previous article that claims to show that women who orgasm vaginally use less immature defense mechanisms. Since one must find some type of measurable aspect of maturity in order to prove someone (non-vaginally orgasming women, perhaps?) immature, that study uses a series of self-report questionnaires about personality and psychological defense mechanisms against a questionnaire about their sex lives...and voila, proof that non-vaginally orgasming women are less mature. And do be sure, Brody cites that study several times to back up a variety of statements he makes in his article I will be summarizing below.

This, I would argue, is the first backbone intent in the article I will be summarizing below: Freud/Reich/Lowen were actually right about vaginal orgasms reflecting female maturity! The second backbone intent takes it all a bit further to prove, as Lowen's bioenergetic analysis would tell us, a mental problem (immaturity) manifests itself in us as a physical problem...often tension or 'muscle blocks.'

So, put those together, and we get why the fuck someone (Brody) would even care to study whether a woman's history of vaginal orgasm is discernible from her walk...because immature clitorally orgasming women probably have tension and muscle blocks, and they won't have that swaaang in their walk like the mature vaginal orgasmers...and this article will prove this and Freud and bioenergetics were right all along!!!!!!

What annoys me? Let me count the things.
  1. So, the premise here in itself is annoying to me. Freud just made shit up. Just. made. shit. up. There's been decades since then that have shown us he was pretty off base - particularly about female orgasm. Why are people still acting like what he says is worth further scientific investigation?
  2. The fact that in this study, and in every other study, Brody and his cohorts assume vaginal orgasms are a verified and scientifically understood entity and that the women in their studies who say they orgasm vaginally are actually orgasming vaginally shows ignorance of the existing scientific data and bad experimental design - and is annoying to me. 
  3. That this study bases its data on how some 'experts' visually rate women's body movement instead of using technology to actually take measurements of things like women's hip rotation is lazy and possibly extremely biased - and is also annoying to me. 
  4. Maybe the most annoying thing is that this shit is somehow legitimate lady-gasm science. This article's in a respected peer reviewed journal - a lot of his studies are. Brody is legit. He doesn't seem to be an outcast from the mainstream lady-gasm researchers (although he does have critics- thank you Prause and others, he's still getting his work into mainstream journals). He teams up occasionally with some of the most well known scientists in female orgasm research (Komisaruk for example) and gets included in major journal expert reviews on the topic of vaginal orgasm. This article has also been referenced a fair amount in pop culture. It was even used in a quite popular book Vagina by Naomi Wolfe to emphasize the importance of and help prove the existence of vaginal orgasms.  

More proof of Lowen/Bioenergetic asshole-ery
Before we begin the summary, I'd first like to show you I'm not completely making assumptions about how deep into the vaginal-orgasms-are-real-things-and-also-the-best-things agenda this article, this author, and Lowen/bioenergetics has. Below is a quote from a book written by Lowen (the father of Bioenergetic Analysis). This book is cited in this here article I am about to summarize. I repeat. This is not from this Brody article, but from a book that is referenced in this Brody article.
Most men feel that the need to bring a woman to climax through clitoral stimulation is a burden. If it is done before intercourse but after the man is excited and ready to penetrate, it imposes a restraint upon his natural desire for closeness and intimacy. Not only does he lose some of his excitation through this delay, but the subsequent act of coitus is deprived of its mutual quality. Clitoral stimulation during the act of intercourse may help the woman to reach a climax but it distracts the man from the perception of his genital sensation and greatly interferes with the pelvic movements upon which his own feeling of satisfaction depends. The need to bring a woman to climax through clitoral stimulation after the act of intercourse has been completed and the man has reached his climax is burdensome since it prevents him from enjoying the relaxation and peace which are the rewards of sexuality. Most men to whom I have spoken who engage in this practice resented it.    
I do not mean to condemn the practice of clitoral stimulation if a woman finds that this is the way she can obtain a sexual release. Above all she should not feel guilty about using this procedure. However, I advice my patients against this practice since it focuses feelings on the clitoris and prevents the vaginal response. It is not a fully satisfactory experience and cannot be considered the equivalent of a vaginal orgasm.  
-Lowen, A. Love and Orgasm: A Revolutionary Guide to Sexual Fulfillment. New York, Collier Books, 1975. pp.216-217.

So, that's the point from which I'm starting this summary, but I'd like to let you see for yourself. I will summarize below as straightforward as I can - just as I always try to do, and I will only add in my thoughts or opinions in the me brackets "[Me:]" So, please enjoy,

Summary quick-style
This article is actually quite simple. 16 women take a survey with a question about how often they reach vaginal orgasm. 8 said they vaginally orgasm always or usually and another 8 say they vaginally orgasm rarely or never. The ladies then meet the researchers outside and walk for 100 meters while thinking of something nice, and another 100 meters while thinking of a man they are interested in romantically. They are taped from a distance doing this, and then 4 people, "two appropriately trained (in Functional-Sexological therapy) professors of sexology...and two female research assistants" watch the tapes and come to a consensus on whether or not each woman has had vaginal orgasms or not. "The basis for judgment was a global impression of the woman's free, fluid, energetic, sensual manner of walking (with an emphasis on energy flow through the rotation of the pelvis and the spine)."

The raters made a correct assessment for 6 of the 7 women who claimed vaginal orgasm and 7 of the 9 women who claimed not to have vaginal orgasms.

I'm going to go over some main points the authors put forth in the introduction with a quick discussion of the studies they cited to support their statements;

This article begins with, "A growing corpus of empirical research has clarified that orgasm triggered by stimulation of the vagina and cervix differs physiologically from climax induced by clitoral stimulation." This is backed up by citations for 2 Komisaruk studies about women with spinal cord injuries having 'cervical orgasms' that are facilitated by the vagus and not the pudendal nerve and also by Brody's own studies about vaginal orgasms being associated with less use of immature psychological defense mechanisms and about there being more prolactin hormone releases after p-in-v intercourse vs. after masturbation.
[Me: Not one of these studies actually verifies that the women who claim vaginal orgasm are having an orgasm, so they're, let's say, not all that convincing. Also, the 'cervical orgasms' in the Komisaruk studies are not only never physically verified as orgasms, but furthermore they are strangely 'achieved' by a method of cervical stimulation that is not something one could do at home or even with a penis during intercourse. These Komisaruk studies referenced here are cited in pretty much any study talking about vaginal orgasms, but are rarely cited, in my opinion, in a way that could actually back up what the authors presume to back up. I detail the main Komisaruk study HERE].

"At a more speculative, theoretical level, the idea that chronic muscle blocks (or excessive muscle flaccidity) impair sexual function by impairing feeling, sexual motility (and perhaps being a tangible representation of corresponding  psychological blocks), and the discharge of sexual tension has it's roots in a theory developed by Reich [11]. His student Lowen [12,13] developed that theory (and safely distanced it from one of Reich's less well reasoned theories later in his life) and the corresponding psychotherapeutic approach of  bioenergetics, which sought to integrate psychoanalytic psychotherapy approaches with direct liberation of chronic muscle blocks. Other body therapies focus more exclusively on the muscle blocks alone. These body therapies and the underlying theory have rarely been subject to empirical evaluation."
[Me: The citations [11-13] are Reich and Lowen's philosophical work including the book by Lowen that I quoted above.].

"However, one study of men found that the Rolfing method of tissue manipulation led to both a decrease in standing pelvic tilt angle and an increase in cardiac vagus nerve tone associated with improved parasympathetic function [14]." [Me: Maybe check out the Wikipedia on Rolfing HERE] There is then a quick discussion of a few more studies, including one that these authors admit does not have clear controls, that relate physical therapy to improved sexuality. The articles cited in this section are pictured below.

"Observation of the characteristics of a person's walk can convey diagnostic information beyond the obvious musculoskeletal an neurological disorders" It goes on to point towards a few studies (pictures below) that illustrate the point.

The Introduction ends with: "The primary hypothesis in the present study is that clinical sexologists appropriately trained in the relationship between personality, sexology, and body movement will be able to differentiate between women with and without a history of vaginal orgasm purely on the basis of observing the women walking. As an exploratory measure, there is also an examination of the association of vaginal orgasm history with specified components of the walk (described below)."

[Me: The introduction of a scientific article, in my opinion, is meant for a few things. It orients the reader to the history of research on the subject thus far. It also sorta justifies why this the experiment being undertaken is a worthwhile experiment and what the outcome of this experiment might mean to the science of this subject. So in many ways, the introduction is an incredibly important thing to read because it gives you a look into the authors' mind. It exposes biases that aren't usually discussed as biases.]

[Me cont: So, to put this in perspective, let me piece together what the authors of this article are trying to do here. They are linking together 1. the Freudian/Reich/Lowen assumption that vaginal orgasm are better for women in the mind, body, and soul. 2. The idea in bioenergetics that psychological/emotional problems manifest themselves in the body, i.e. 'chronic muscle blocks' and 'excessive muscle flaccidity'  and 3. that if a woman were to have these psychological/emotional problems manifest in their body, one might be able to see it in her movement. So, in essence, the authors are going from the hypothesis that vaginally orgasming women are mentally/emotionally/physically  healthier people who will express that health in their energetic movement. Women who do not orgasm vaginally are less mentally/emotionally/physically who will express that unhealthiness in their bad, unenergetic movement.]

Materials and Methods
  • Female psychology students in Belgium were asked (by a female researcher) to answer a preliminary questionnaire on sexual behavior.
  • Of the women who did the questionnaire and who indicated their willingness to be contacted further, 10 were chosen who responded that they 'always"'or 'often' had vaginal orgasms (vaginally orgasmic) and 10 were chosen who responded that they 'rarely' or 'never' had vaginal orgasms (vaginally anorgasmic). Vaginal orgasms being defined as "triggered solely by penile-vaginal penetration." [Me: Are women who 'rarely' have vaginal orgasms the same as women who 'never' have them? I mean, I'm obviously skeptical of all these answers, given that their ability to have vaginal orgasms is not physically verified (and vaginal orgasms themselves have never been physically verified), but even if one believed these women's answers to be completely true, wouldn't one wonder if they were grouped incorrectly? Maybe women who 'rarely' have them are physically capable of vaginal orgasm and the 'nevers' are not. So grouping them together would confuse the results. The authors don't discuss this as a possible problem. Experimental design, people.]
  • The women also reported their ability to have clitorally stimulated orgasms on the questionnaire
  • After anonymity and confidentiality were assured, the women were given a complete description of the study although participants "were blind to the experimental hypothesis." Written informed consent was obtained, and they were scheduled individually to meet the researchers in a public place
  • 4 participants (3 vaginally orgasmic and 1 vaginally anorgasmic) did not show up, making 16 total participants.
  • Participants were asked to walk 100 meters while "thinking pleasant thoughts of being on a vacation beach" and then another 100 meters while "being in the same local but with in the company of a man for whom they had thoughts of love."
  • These walks were filmed at a distance and the videotapes were then rated by "two appropriately trained (in Functional-Sexological therapy) professors of sexology...and two female research assistants." 
  • "The raters conferred and agreed on a vaginal orgasm status for each woman."  [Me: Why did they confer? Why not let them all rate separately and see if they match each other and match the women's self reports? Did they try it that way first but found it made the results messy as hell, so they had them confer and luckily got better, more positive results? It makes me wonder.]
  • "The basis for judgment was a global impression of the woman's free, fluid, energetic, sensual manner of walking (with an emphasis on energy flow through the rotation of the pelvis and the spine)."
  • The researchers all also rated each woman's walk (from 0-10) for the extent of their: hip adduction, hip rotation, stride length, arm movement, and fluidity of movement. [Me: this was made in 2008. It was very possible at that time to use video of women walking to not just visually rate these things, but to do actual objective measurements of things like stride length and arm movement. Since the authors are trying to create evidence that the psychological problems from not orgasming vaginally can literally manifest physically as muscle tension and 'blocks' that make the women walk less 'fluidly,' you would think it useful to show that there are real objectively measured limitations in these non-vaginally orgasming women's movement. Yet, all the ratings on the movements are just, like, the rater's opinions, man. I mean, I'd at least like to see the authors acknowledge their choice and give a quick explanation for why they chose to have only subjective ratings of these women's movements. And, in case you are wondering if 2008 was too early for people to be thinking about the technology to do objective measuring from video and the pros and cons of rating movement that way, you're wrong. Here's a 2007 textbook dedicated to analyzing human movement patterns in relation to sports biomechanics.]
  • "An additional derived variable reflecting the movement of the leg through the back (sum of ratings of stride length and vertebral rotation) was calculated."
  • The correlation between women's reported experience of vaginal orgasm and the researchers' guesses of vaginal orgasm was examined using "chi-square and Fisher's exact tests (a similar analysis was performed for clitoral orgasm history)" 
  • The associations between the researchers ratings of the individual components of a woman's walk and her history of vaginal orgasm were examined.

  • "The hypothesis was supported, because the trained sexologists were able to infer vaginal orgasm history on the basis of watching the women's walk."
  • "Reported clitoral orgasm ability was unrelated to both rated vaginal orgasm ability and to reported vaginal ability."
  • The only statistically significant correlation found between history of vaginal orgasm and any of the ratings of individual components of the women's walks were from the data points made from the sum of stride length and vertebral rotation. [Me: it seems a little fishy to me that this combination was the only element of the researchers' individual movement ratings to show correlation with the women's reported vag-gasm history. What actual meaning does that combo number have in the end? Clearly none of the straight-forward movement ratings such as stride length or hip rotation correlated, and it makes me wonder if that lack of correlation led them to start combining the ratings in every possible way until they found one that happened to have a statistical correlation with the vaginal orgasm self-reports. They call it exploratory, so I imagine this is close to the case. that kind of thing is probably not an uncommon practice and not really unethical or wrong, but it sure seems like it's sort of a disingenuous way to make a study show more positive results. To their credit I will say that when they spoke of this correlation in the Discussion section. They said "However, the exploratory nature of the secondary finding implies that less emphasis be placed upon it pending appropriate replication."  So, I think even the researchers don't place much meaning on this combo rating of stride length and vertebral rotation.]
  • "Age was unrelated to the sexual variables."

  • "Appropriately trained sexologists were able to infer vaginal orgasm history on the basis of watching women walk. The sexologists made global inferences about the women's vaginal orgasm history based on the extent to which the women had a fluid, sensual, energetic, free gait. The ratings were unrelated to the women's reports of clitoral orgasm with a partner, and clitoral orgasm was unrelated to vaginal orgasm."
  • 6 women who claimed to be vaginal orgasmers were rated correctly, and 1 was rated incorrectly.
  • 7 women who claimed not to be vaginal orgasmers were rated correctly and 2 were rated incorrectly.

  • "Although the couple of incorrect diagnoses could simply be that, it is also possible that in the case of the two false positives, it might be that the women have the capacity for vaginal orgasm, but have not yet had sufficient experience or met a man of sufficient quality to induce vaginal orgasm." [Me: I'm assuming the 2 women who were rated incorrectly as vaginally orgasming are not ones who marked themselves as 'rarely' vaginally orgasming (since clearly they DO have a capacity for it), because if that were the case, I feel REAL confident the authors would have been real quick to tell us that and make their results look even better.]
  • The study goes on to say that these women who were pinned by the researchers as vaginal orgasmers but were not, may not have a man with a '"penis of sufficient length to produce cervical buffeting" or that isn't able to keep his erection (either because of erectile dysfunction of premature ejaculation) long enough. They also note the there are studies saying women are most likely to have vaginal orgasms with men who have signs of greater fitness - like attractiveness. [Me: Can I just quickly mention that 'buffeting' can be defined as 'to strike against forcefully and especially repeatedly; batter.' So cervical buffeting with a big ol' dick sounds to me not like a good way to bring about lady-gasms as these researchers seem to say it is, but like a terribly painful sexual encounter akin to a really long and brutal gynecological exam. This banging the cervix for orgasm thing seems kinda out of touch with reality to me, and it's also not backed up in scientific literature, and contrary to what this article would have one believe, it's certainly not backed by the Komisaruk article they cite here. They cite the same Komisaruk article they cite and I discuss in the Introduction that finds women with spinal cord injuries can orgasm from cervical stimulation, but the conclusion is a stretch of the evidence at best (I detail it here). And seriously, this study does not include buffeting the cervix. It actually uses a make-shift thing that does not actually touch the cervix but creates a suctiony stimulation at the cervix, so even if this study did find that orgasms were created from this stimulation (which it doesn't in any verified physical way), it would not be something that could be replicated by ramming a big dick into a woman's cervix. This is the only study I know of (and there are no others referenced) that can support the idea of women needing cervical stimulation or  'buffeting' to orgasm... and it's not a great one.]
  • They point out that "as in any correlational study, a universe of possible unmeasured forces could play a role in the observed findings." They mention that maybe some anatomical features could predispose women to less readiness for vaginal orgasm, and specifically use a recent study correlating more distance between the vagina and urethra to women who claim vaginal orgasm [Me: you can see more on that study HERE. Surprise surprise, there are no actual vaginal orgasms verified in this research, so one should be skeptical of its conclusions] "such characteristics might conceivably influence both vaginal orgasm and pelvic movement directly, whether they are a true precursor of vagina orgasm, or develop as a consequence of developing vaginal orgasm." 
  • They also mention that it might be that women who orgasm vaginally might feel more confident or comfortable or have a better relationship and it shows in their walk. [Me: Ooooorrrrrr...maybe being vaginally orgasmic is a thing women covet because of how much women in movies and porn and books are able to do so, and how much it seems that men like it (remember: stimulating the clit is pretty inconvenient and men resent doing it according to Lowen up there), so after saying they can do that on a survey, those women feel all good about themselves, but the women who just had to admit that they are lame and can't orgasm vaginally on a survey feel, well, lame. Ooooooorrrrr...there were only 16 women in the study, and the raters only got about 82% right, so it might be the luck of the draw and their walks are not really different between groups at all.]
  • They point out this was a small convenience sample of volunteers so that may "limit the generalizability of these results to older women and to the wider community"
  • "The present finding of vaginal orgasm being associated with a more fluid, sensual, energetic, free, unblocked gait adds to the empirical research findings of penis-vaginal orgasm history being specifically associated with the indices of women's better psychological and interpersonal function." 
  • They mention that a recent study [their own previous study] associated women who could orgasm vaginally with having less use of immature psychological defense mechanisms - and say that "Two of the specific immature defense mechanisms (somatization and dissociation) that differentiated vaginally orgasmic and vaginally anorgasmic women might be related to aspects of the present finding. Dissociation involves disconnection of the usually integrated psychological (including sensory-motor) functions of the self, and somatizations involves converting psychological problems into physical complaints and impairments." 

The authors say that even with the small sample, the results are consistent with both theory [Me: made-up Freudian and neo-freudian theory?] and previous empirical findings about vaginally orgasming women having better psychological function. [Me: Let it be known the 'previous empirical findings' they cited were all Brody's own previous studies - 4 of them were cited]
They also say the present findings provide some potential support for "theoretical assumptions of a link between muscle blocks and impairment of sexual and character function" [Me: this is cited with 3 works by the neo-Freudians Lowen and Reich - including the book by Lowen that I quote above.]
The authors also say the findings are "consistent with the possible utility of incorporating training in movement, breathing and muscle patterns into the treatment of sexual dysfunctions"

*I want to give Dr. Nicole Prause a shout out for being a scientist in the lady-gasm field who speaks out in direct ways against those non-sense assumptions about vaginal orgasm. I talk more about here HERE.]

More Articles By Stuart Brody!
Vaginal orgasm is associated with vaginal (not clitoral) sex education, focusing mental attention on vaginal sensations, intercourse duration, and a preference for a longer penis. Brody S1, Weiss P.
J Sex Med. 2010 Aug;7(8):2774-81.

Slimmer women's waist is associated with better erectile function in men independent of age. Brody S1, Weiss P. Arch Sex Behav. 2013 Oct;42(7):1191-8.

Women's partnered orgasm consistency is associated with greater duration of penile-vaginal intercourse but not of foreplay. Weiss P1, Brody S. J Sex Med. 2009 Jan;6(1):135-41.

Simultaneous penile-vaginal intercourse orgasm is associated with satisfaction (sexual, life, partnership, and mental health). Brody S1, Weiss P. J Sex Med. 2011 Mar;8(3):734-41.

Condom use for penile-vaginal intercourse is associated with immature psychological defense mechanisms. Costa RM1, Brody S. J Sex Med. 2008 Nov;5(11):2522-32.

Immature defense mechanisms are associated with lesser vaginal orgasm consistency and greater alcohol consumption before sex. J Sex Med. 2010 Feb;7(2 Pt 1):775-86.

Vaginal orgasm is more prevalent among women with a prominent tubercle of the upper lip. Brody S1, Costa RM. J Sex Med. 2011 Oct;8(10):2793-9.

Greater tactile sensitivity and less use of immature psychological defense mechanisms predict women's penile-vaginal intercourse orgasm. Brody S1, Houde S, Hess U. J Sex Med. 2010 Sep;7(9):3057-65.

Vaginal orgasm is associated with less use of immature psychological defense mechanisms.Brody S1, Costa RM. J Sex Med. 2008 May;5(5):1167-76.


Random Hite Report #25

Hello, welcome again to one of my favorite segments on the SSL blog, Random Hite Report! It's simple really. I flip through the pages of the The Hite Report: A Nationwide Study of Female Sexuality  (or sometimes The Hite Report on Male Sexuality) by a one Ms. Shere Hite and copy the contents of the page where I land - no more no less. Anyone who reads my blog will know that this 1976 book is a fave of mine; not only because of its realistic and progressive insight about the female orgasm that is still shockingly relevant 40 years later,  but also because of its very touching insight into the lives of the women who took part in this huge, comprehensive survey. This is an under-appreciated and under-read book if you ask me - I suggest you buy it online (seriously, you can get them for like 1 cent) and read it.

 So, sit back, getcha a beverage, and enjoy a little...Random Hite Report.

The Hite Report: A Nationwide Study of Female Sexuality Dell. 1976.
Pg. 317 From chapter "Clitoral Stimulation" in the section titled, 'How Have Most Men Had Sex With You?"'

...imaginative kind, paying little attention to my clitoris. They then go immediately to penetration in the 'missionary position,' have a whale of a good time, and go to sleep immediately afterward. This is an extreme picture, but it is too well defined to ignore."
    "They undress me and try to penetrate at once. It's horrible."
    "Whenever I have sex with a man they always are trying to get there, of course. That seems standard."
    "A little foreplay, to one end."
    "Unfortunately, most men just get into you."
    "In general, they tended to minimize foreplay and to concentrate just on intercourse. I can't generalize about technique other than usually foreplay and just good old hugging and kissing. Gets less and less once we get to know each other."
    "Foreplay with constant pressure to have intercourse."
    "They try to arouse me, then as soon as possible, start intercourse. Some few do not hurry and wait for me to advance to the next step."
    "Nothing really standard except the bed, the penetration, the ejaculation, and orgasm (real or faked)."
    "In and out."
    "Caressing my body, breasts, vagina....asking me to caress their penis...then bang bang..."
    "Kiss, pet, go down on me, then lay me on the bottom and unless I've really wanted this person for a long time, this isn't satisfactory."
    "Men are very uninformed about women's sexual desires. Most men will engage in a little manual stimulation but expect a woman to reach orgasm during intercourse. They cannot understand that some women prefer clitoral stimulation."
    "They jumped on and rode."
    "It used to be pretty standard until we saw that fucking mechanically was damaging to us. Now usually we are tender, sometimes intense and passionate, sometimes just affectionate and close without 'real sex.' Our sexual times are varied."
    " With some recent and beautiful exceptions, the en-.... 


Mustang - The SSL REview

I found this movie on Amazon and knew nothing about it when I started watching. I wasn't expecting all that much because I'd previously picked out and watched a few clunkers. It was absolutely lovely though. I recommend highly. It's the story of 5 sisters in a small village in Turkey, and follows them as their lives change. That's all I'm going to say because I don't want to give away too much of the plot. I will have to give you a particular plot point, but it's super early in the movie so it won't ruin too much. If you want to watch this movie, though, I'd say go watch it and then come back and read this. Other than that, this will be a pretty simple SSL Review.

The SSL Review Review
A quick summary of an SSL Review for newbies. An SSL Review is a critique of depictions or discussions of female masturbation, female orgasm, or the clit. I only review those scenes - not the movie as a whole (unless I feel like talking about more), and I focus mostly on the realism of the depiction/discussion and also how it fits into a larger cultural discussion of female orgasm and sexuality. As you will see, the scene in question from Mustang is a bit of a stretch to fit into my criteria, but I thought it was worth a review.

Check all the SSL Review movies HERE and TV SSL Reviews HERE.

Masturbating on Boys' Necks
Like I said above, I'm going to try and not get too into the details of the plot and spoil everything, but I'll need to give you a little background on the scene in question. On the last day of school five sisters (roughly from young preteen age to older teen) decide to walk home with a group of boys from their school instead of take the bus. It's a nice day, so they want to enjoy it. They all go into a lake on the way home and play chicken with the girls on the boys shoulders trying to knock each other off. They walk through an apple orchard, take some apples and get run off by the owner. They have an absolutely splendid time.

When they get home, they are laughing and happy, but their grandmother is not. She is in conservative garb, and we are reminded that these girls are in a small, conservative town in rural Turkey. She starts yelling at them and taking them oldest to youngest into a room to beat them in punishment while the other girls bang on the door telling her to stop and asking her what they've done. They tell her they only took a few apples from the orchard.

The grandmother finally tells them that they were seen "Rubbing up against boys necks. Rubbing your parts on boys neck." The girls try to tell her it was just a game, but she says there is no such game, telling them,"You're disgusting! My granddaughters pleasuring themselves on boys necks!"

So, the movie goes on from there, and although that incident is important to the movie, that's the last the neck pleasuring situation was ever discussed.

My Thoughts on the Neck Pleasuring Situation
To start, I'm cool with pleasuring one's self by grinding on a dude's neck. You do you. However, the girls were clearly not actually doing that. They were actually just playing chicken in a lake. So, there is a discussion of  'pleasuring one's self" (i.e. masturbation) here even though it was a false accusation, and I think that's worth a few words on this blog because it says something about how our world views female sexuality, masturbation, and pleasure.

I think the first thing that caught my attention here was that the groin area touching the boys' necks was enough for a woman in this town to accuse the girls of basically masturbating. Although it's a really prudish, paranoid accusation, it makes physical sense, and I have to say, I appreciate that aspect. The way the vast, vast majority of women masturbate to orgasm (Check out The Hite Report stats on this) is by either grinding their crotch against something or grinding something (a hand for instance) against their crotch. So, I actually like that this movie quite accurately focuses female pleasure in the outer vulva area and not, as is often the case - in penetration of the vagina. I mean science, media, jokes, sex education are constantly centering depictions and discussions of female pleasure and orgasm on intercourse instead of where it should be - on the outer clitoral/vuvla area (because women orgasm from stimulation of the outer clit just as men orgasm from stimulation of the outer penis. Women do not seem to orgasm from stimulation inside the vagina).

All that to say, I think it is important to note that the instincts these older women had about what a girl might do to pleasure herself (rub her junk up against something) is spot on even though these are very conservative old women in a sexually conservative culture. I mean, I think that sexual penetration strictly for reproduction is the hallmark of conservative sexuality in lots of cultures. It necessarily involves male orgasm, but has no interest in nor is any good for female orgasm. Yet, here these old ladies are recognizing that grinding your junk against something might get a gal off. Now, how do these old prudey bitches know about something like that?

They know about it because it's true. It's just plain true that rubbing against something feels sexual good -orgasmically good- because it stimulates the clit, something intercourse doesn't do necessarily. You can stimulate the clit against something during intercourse, but the clit doesn't need to have anything to do with the pushing of a penis in and out of a vagina. These bitches, I submit to you, know about it because they accidentally grinded on something once, and then did it on purpose after that, if ya catch my drift.

Although clearly I don't approve of the sexual prudery or the sexism this scene is depicting, I do like how this situation is as dire as it is because of sexual knowledge these women shouldn't actually have. I like that these old women know how lady junk actually works despite what I imagine is very little to no accurate information about the female pleasure cycle in their past. YET...we can be assured they know these things anyway, because if they did not, then they would have not seen any problems with getting girl genitals near boys' necks since that has nothing to do with the penetrative action of reproductive sexual intercourse. I like that despite our cultural mis-educations, we ladies still often figure out for ourselves in our own unique way and our own unique time how we really attain orgasmic pleasure. I love that this movie was written and directed by women, and I feel like in scenes like this one (and many others throughout) it shows.

***Now, this is a movie of a culture of which I have almost zero real-life experience, so it's possible I'm applying my own hands-on understanding of different religiously conservative cultures and maybe I shouldn't be, but I'm doing it anyway, so feel free to correct me if you think I"m missing something here.***

Vulva Rating
This movie gets 4 out of 5 vulvas. Although it doesn't happen to be positively depicting progressive female sexuality, it is depicting an idea of female orgasmic pleasure and masturbation that is physically accurate. It is a movie made by women where women discuss female sexual pleasure as centered (correctly) in the outer vuvla/clitoral area. It also, in my opinion, shines a light on the reality of women's sort of inner circle knowledge about our own sexual pleasure - even is we don't have a full or deep understanding about how our bits work and even if we don't know how to express or don't feel allowed to express our knowledge of our sexual bodies, I think to some degree we all "get" that our vulva and not our vagina is what is important to our orgasmic sexual pleasure.



Birthday Clit Pics

Listen, I got a lot going on right now, and as much as I'd like to read and summarize some lady-gasm related journal articles, write about some of the various Orgasm Equality Heroes out there I haven't given props to yet, or SSL Review something, I also want to look at houses in the city I'm moving to and watch Ridiculousness. Also, it's dangerously close to my birthday, and so I'm gonna phone this one in.

But I want to entertain you as I phone this in. So, I Googled  'clit birthday' 'birthday clitoris' and 'glitter clit' so that I could bring you only the finest in random clit related images I
could find.


First, you can get this for my b-day. I'll take it to work to let all my coworkers know I' super LIT about what's happening in the lab.

Second, you could also get me this mug. I'll keep it at home to gross out the nieces and nephews when they come over. 

Third, speaking of my nieces and nephews, my sister's kids always get me wierd earrings for presents. They could get me these...if they're the scumbags I know they are. Actually, the 'big' part is wierd. Who cares about the size. They should say "I heart MY clit"

Fourth, this shirt is a good gift. Clits R Us. Clit-er-us. Clitoris. I mean, genius.

Fifth, don't make me this cake because 1. It's not my happy wedding  2. There is no clit on this vulva, and 3. what the fuck is the white drips at the bottom, yo?

Sixth, You can get me these cookies. Honestly, for my personal taste, they don't look that good to eat, but they are pretty.

Seventh, Fuck you. Clits aren't hard to find. They're always in the same place. Figure that shit out.

Eighth, Do it. It's my birthday.


Chewing Gum S1 Ep4 - The SSL Review

Chewing Gum!
Like I said in the first SSL Review I did on this. You should check this show out on Netflix. It may have a tricky British accent to follow, but turn on the captions and get on with watching it. It's great. It's also progressive in the ol' female orgasm department, and I feel like it has a unique perspective - not just because her gender or color or anything like that, well it is a lot of that, but I don't think the way a writer or director identifies is enough to bring a truly unique voice to a work. It's how they use their craft as well. To me, it seems like Michaela Coel (writer/star) really unabashedly dives into her own perspective and brings things into her story that are new and unexpected. In short, she's just a great creator and people should watch this show.

Michaela Coel - Chewing Gum creator, writer and main actress
And it's SSL Reviewable
This means I will be critiquing only discussions or depictions of female orgasm, female masturbation, or the clit. For these reviews, I'm mainly interested in physical realism (like are the things happening to the woman's body actually things that would realistically make a female orgasm?) and about how the depiction/discussion plays in the larger cultural conversation about female orgasm and women's sexuality.

Please, my friends, do enjoy more SSL Reviews for MOVIES and TV SHOWS.

Season 1 Episode 4 - Eating Out, Unicorns, and Threesomes
So, just a quick intro in case you haven't seen this or read my SSL Reviews of previous episodes; Tracey is a 24 year old virgin. She has been quite sheltered by her incredibly religious mother, but she has very unsheltered friends and she's looking to get her sex stuff on. She's done some sexual activity at this point, and she has a boyfriend, Connor, and she'd like him to put the ol' D in her P. Problem is in this episode they're about to, but he can't get erect. He tells her she's just too pure.

Pushing Pussy Onto Faces
So Tracey's talking to her friend Candice, who is telling here she needs to get dirty and sext him, but Tracey's awkwardness in her sexting pictures leads Candice to ask,
Candice: Do you want to suck his dick or smile at it?
Tracey: Neither
Candice: Tracey, he wants you to push your pussy in his face like you're about to take a shit on it. He wants to get his nose all up in there.
Tracey: Yeah, I don't know who told you it was common...this thing...(some background: Candice had previously given her aggressive advice about making a guy go down on her, and Tracey's fully clothed attempt at that was awkward, and no-one enjoyed it)
Candice cuts Tracey off and tells her to do some internet research.

Threesomes Need More Marks And Johns
Later Tracey is hanging with Candice, her Candice's grandma Esther, and two sisters, Kristy and Karly. They are talking about boobs:
Candice: All any man wants is good boobs and a cooked meal.
Kristy: Yeah and if not good boobs, four of 'em.
Esther: Tell me about it.
Kristy: Babes, I've been thinking about a threesome you know.
Tracey: (kinda questioning and curious) They all want a threesome.
Kristy: Yeah, but never with John or Mark.
Tracey: Yeah...no, no, 'cause they're biblical names.
Karly: (like Tracey's an idiot) 'Cause they're guys!
Kristy: Listen, If I said to any straight man, let's find another guy on 3zup, and I'll wiggle my clit while you two kiss each other, he'd die instantly.
Tracey: (clearly confused) Yeah, he'd die instantly, and I'd laugh at like, his funeral. Imagine if he didn't even know what 3zup was?
They all look at her confused
Tracey: Hey Esther, what would you say, like over his grave, to explain what it was?
Esther: (kindly) Oh, bless, if you are looking for a threesome, you can find two other people who are also looking, or one other if you're a couple.
Tracey:: 3zup!
Esther: It's an app!
Tracey: Thank you, Esther.
Tracey starts on the app as the other women are talking in the background
Candice: Yeah, why is a threesome with a man so ridiculous, but one with a woman so obviously possible?
Kristy: As long as she's uglier than me I don't mind.
Candice: Ugly, pretty, I'm fine with my cockatoo.
Kristy: Yeah, why do I have to like another girl's breasts just 'cause I like my own?
Candice: Exactly. You got a dick, it don't mean you want one for dinner.
Esther: I have to say, I'm a bit partial to a bit of cunt
Candice: (laughing) Nan!
Esther: Just as a starter
The Swimming Coachd Diaries
Later Esther and Tracey are walking. Tracey is looking at her 3Zup app and talking to the camera, and ignoring Esther next to her telling the story about her encounter with her swim coach when she was 16. We hear the story on and off.
Esther: Then she pulled up my skirt, she knealed down....saliva'd on my vaginals, and injected her middle finger up as far as it would go...and pumping it back and forth in my pum. (with a wistful, delighted look) I carry that night...
The Wise Yet Kinda Racist Unicorn
In the meantime, Tracey finds a single woman ready to do a 3some on the app (a "unicorn"), and arranges a meet up in a place (where? you'll have to see for yourself). Her name is Sasha.

Some sexy touching etc. happens - nothing more, but mostly it's awkward and less than sexy. Eventually Connor tells Tracey he's lost his boner because he's always getting this 'don't mess up' thing in his head, and Tracey tells Sasha he can't get it up.
Sasha: Oh, erectile dysfunction.
Connor: No, no definitely not that.
Sasha: Let's use toys.
Tracey: I just wanted him to bust my vulva.
Sasha: Hey Hey Hey, You escaped Michael Fassbender. This is yet another struggle to overcome (Some background: Sasha is a bit racist and has a 12 Years A Slave Fanatasy going on with this threesome) 
Tracey: Sasha who are all these people
Sasha: (ignoring her question) Tracey, look at the gays, ok. Bum sex is rarely the order of the day. They do loads of other shit. They use loads of other bits. Stop making his dick the center of sex. Dick-centric sex sucks.
It cuts to a different storyline.

The Best Stuff
When it cuts back. We see just Tracey and Connor. She's on her back and he's above her. They kiss for a second, and then he goes down toward her junk under the blanket. It's a close on her face and she nervously says, "ok," and then as if she just felt something, "oh," and then "oh, I see," as if she indeed gets why Candice is always talking about this face on her pussy thing. She's still talking quite calmly, but clearly 'getting' the whole thing as she says, "That's actually, uh, something else. That's quite nice....umm...(gently) oooo." It goes on.
Tracey: Connor?
Connor: Yeah (from under the covers) 
Tracey: What do I do if I need to fart?
Connor: (mumbles something indiscernible) 
Tracey: I'm just aware of how close you are to my bum.
She starts to come suddenly with some oohs and uhs, and some random mouth noises. It's a bit silly, but not porny or over the top, and clearly indicates something happened for her. Connor pops up from under the covers and says,
Connor: Tracey, I'm still hard.
Tracey: Yeah?
Connor: Shall we do it?
Tracey: Oh, ok, yeah.
Connor: You're beautiful.
Tracey: Ok, I think I'm ready.
Connor begins penetration.
Tracey: Ow! Ow!
Connor: What? That was just the tip.
Tracey: Oh my god! Just do the thing with the tongue. (calmer) Please, just do that again. That's very nice. I like that one.
Connor: Fair enough
Cynthia Sees Porn
In another storyline, Tracey has a younger sister Cynthia who is even more sheltered than she is, and she's very by the rules. However, she saw Tracey looking at porn for research and borrows Tracey's laptop to check it out for herself. After typing in "sex" to the search engine, she...see's some things. She's watching this stuff fully clothed, sitting cross-legged on the bed with hands in full view, and after seeing a dude squeezing a breast through the shirt of a woman dressed in school girl outfit, Cynthia kind of spontaneously comes with no actual physical stimulation to her vulva. She has a wierd noise with it that isn't porny, but is fairly loud and comical.

The SSL Review
There's a lot happening on the lady-gasm, clit, and ladybation front in this episode. Overall, I absolutely loved the specifically women-centric sexaulity stuff in here.
What I loved:

  • A woman focusing on oral sex when giving another women sex advice. For not the first time, Tracey is wanting to get de-virginized and instead of talking about penetration Candice is telling her about grinding pussy int a dude's face. It's generally pretty aggressive, dirty words coming out of Candice's mouth, but it's also awesome. It really decentralizes penetrative sex as a focus of female sexual desire in a way that one rarely sees in media.
  • The racist unicorn reiterates the decentralization of intercourse in this show by clearly and bluntly telling Tracey to stop making his dick the center of sex. She also doesn't miss the slightest beat when Tracey tells her Connor can't get it up. She just immediately says they'll use toys. 
  • "Dick-centric sex sucks." I mean this line was straight up said in this show, and it was followed by a depiction of non-dickcentric sex that was super awesome for Tracey. This is a completely accurate statement if you ask me because ladies don't get orgasms from dicks, and it's such a progressive and I think very intentional orgasm-equality storyline to walk down. 
  • There was a very female-centric view of threesomes in here that just really isn't all that common. It flipped the script with Kristy talking about wiggling her clit while she watched 2 dudes. I love this, because she specifically puts her orgasm and pleasure (through masturbation) in the center of her flip-the-script scenario. The writers didn't have to do that, but I think as is common in this show, the writing is quite creative and female desire/orgasm focused. I feel it's obvious that women who have put a lot of thought into female sexuality wrote this and are specifically trying to make points.
  • Esther's memories and her admitting to liking a cunt every now and then, I think, is part of a larger picture of Esther as a very sexual and frank woman. She's also a grandmother and she can be quite kind  and motherly- particularly to Tracey. The lovely rounded characterization of this older women is a great part of this show and sadly uncommon.
  • Cynthia's no-touch orgasm was clearly unrealistic given that the penis or clit generally needs to be touched in order to get an orgasm, but it was no more unrealistic than any number of depictions of teen boys in teen sexploitation movies coming in their pants at the first sign of sex or a hot girl. It was  intentionally funny and ridiculous, and I'm fine with that.
  • Last but certainly not least, Tracey's first orgasm in this show was from oral sex. She also had a chance to have intercourse as well, but chose against it because, I would say, she was following her body's desire and not what she was supposed to do (I mean it hurting was a reason she didn't do it also, but I think it's fair to say that after the good stuff she had just felt, she didn't see the point in going through some pain for no reason, and I respect the hell out of that).
The Vulva Rating
Chewing Gum continues to be an Orgasm Equality standout to me for the very intentional commentary on female desire, sexuality, and orgasm from a distinctly female perspective. The discussion about threesomes, the blunt fuck-you to penetrative-focused sex, the depiction of authentic desire, pleasure, and orgasm in Tracey's character. It's not only realistic and uncommonly perceptive storytelling of female sexual things, but it's intentionally progressive, I think. They push the envelope in a beautiful way. This show gets 5 out of 5 vulvas!