10.10.2020

5 Halloween Season Movies #DirectedByWomen



Good afternoon. Here is another 5 Movie list for you, again, while I'm procrastinating on the next post. It's mid October, so these are scary or creepy or suspenseful, or just Haloweeny type movies directed by women that you might just enjoy for your Halloween season viewing. I'm including a couple that I've already put into lists before - but just because they are classics. 

To be completely transparent here, overall I'm not that into horror or the Halloween watching season. I love me a lot of movies and will pretty much watch any genre, but horror just feels boring and thirsty to me most of the time, so I don't often choose it (same with super hero movies). I'm biased. I get that. I'm obviously no expert on the genre and probably miss a lot of the homages to past classics and all Easter eggs people really enjoy, I also get that there's a particular humor in certain horror niches that people love, and I've actually seen a fair amount of the indie B-movie horror of the last 10 years because I know a few people working in that game. So I've definitely seen some stuff I'm into, it's just at the bottom of my go-to type of movie. That said. I really did enjoy and do recommend all of these 5. They truly are all worth a watch in my opinion and this is for sure the month to do it. 

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

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

You can find all my 5-movie lists HERE.

So, grab some snacks (maybe Halloween candy or some popcorn balls or something like that), and check of these lovely documentaries directed by women.

The Movies

1 The Babadook  - This is directed by Jennifer Kent. Even though friends were telling me I should, I was resistant to watch this simply because, as I discussed above, I'm not that excited about horror movies. However, I was wrong. It's a really well done movie. Highly recommend. Also, bonus, I SSL Reviewed it (reviews specifically on depictions or discussions of female masturbation, female orgasm, cunnilingus, or the clit) and it got a full 5 out of 5 vulva rating (!)(!)(!)(!)(!). 




2 High Life - This was directed by Claire Denis. I saw this at the theater, and granted, it's pretty bonkers, but I really liked it. Maybe not for everyone, but it's got the kind of shit I go to the movies hoping to find.



3 The Love Witch -  This was directed by Anna Biller. I couldn't resist including this one because it's just a lovely Halloween watching choice. I just happened upon this one on Netflix...or some other streaming thing. It's a modern indie movie, but created like a particular 60's genre, and it's fun and witchy as shit. Also one of the characters has my name, and I always like that.



4 Woodshock - This was directed by sisters Kate and Laura Mulleavy. I happened upon this streaming fairly recently. It was an early pandemic watch for me. It's also weird as fuck, and guess what? I liked that shit. Again, maybe not for everyone, but if you are into a psychedelic, suspenseful movie with a somewhat incomprehensible plot, this is the one for you...and I say that with the utmost love - for real.



5 Pet Sematary - This was directed by Mary Lambert. I mean it's a classic. I happen to see it at the Drive In last year. Excellent Halloween-time watch. Plus, Herman Munster is in it as the neighbor.


9.19.2020

Still Here, but Sadly Shere Hite is Not



I wanted to put a post up this weekend because it's been too long. I don't want anyone thinking I'm uninterested in this blog or the fight for Orgasm Equality or generally fucking up the deeply embedded, far-reaching cultural assumption that it somehow makes sense that banging into a vagina would cause the attached lady to orgasm. 

Listen, I am still dedicated to fucking up that assumption, and it needs to be fucked up because it doesn't make sense - not anatomical sense, not sense based on peer reviewed scientific investigations, not sense based on historical knowledge, not sense based on actual experiential accounts from ladies. 

It doesn't make sense, but yet it feels sensible enough. 

It feels sensible enough that degreed and experienced scientist are often willing to turn a blind eye towards the appalling lack of evidence for a 'vaginally stimulated orgasm."* - allowing baseless claims in articles to go unchecked in peer review.

It feels sensible enough that everyday women all over the world believe they should have them and will desperately scour sex advise for ways to have them, or pretend to have them, or convince themselves that feelings and sensations related to intercourse are vaginal orgasms. 

It feels sensible enough that despite no physical evidence that vaginal orgasms exists, sexperts will refuse to say this blunty in their advise. Maybe it's because their status quo sexpert curriculum holds the incorrect assumption that a percentage of ladies are known to orgasm vaginally. Maybe it's because they aren't sure enough or are too scared to say that there is not physical evidence for vaginal orgasms because they don't want to offend or rock the boat. Maybe they had some kind of spiritual/emotional climax while getting their brains banged out, assumed it was an orgasm, don't care to put thought into why defining "orgasm" as anything and everything is confused, scientifically inaccurate, and harmful, and now they just want to have fun talking and advising about sex in a surface, uncritical, and ultimately problematic way. 

And that's the problem, it's hard to get past the feeling that women can/should have vaginal orgasm. It's seems wrong and mean and narrow to burst the bubble of vaginal orgasm, to tell people that the things they have heard and assumed and seen and learned their whole life from basically everything that could give them clues about sex is pretty wrong about the ladies, and that the idea of vaginal-penile intercourse being orgasmic for both parties or about the vagina as an orgasmically sensitive orgasm is bullshit. It's scary to even insinuate that. 

Believe me. I know. You get real pushback saying this shit. People will tell you you're arrogant and that their personal experience says vaginal orgasms are real. Although honestly, those are just the loudest (sometimes very loud) people. If you really listen, you will not find this is what most people have to say - quite the contrary in my experience. But I do get why it's a controversy sexperts and researchers don't want to touch. And listen, I don't doubt what anyone feels about their personal experience, but I see no problem in doubting what people know about their personal experience. Frankly, without some bit of objective corroborating evidence I don't have reason to trust anything anyone says about what their bodies are doing. You say had a heart attack but didn't go to the doctor? Maybe. Might have been a panic attack. You're think you sprained your ankle? Could be. Could be something else too. You think you orgasmed when Kevin was pushing his dick in and out of you and your clit wasn't being touched in any way? Maybe. Maybe you just had fun and made noises like you orgasmed, but that's not an orgasm. 

I really do get it. The feelings and pleasure and emotions around sexual activity are personal, complicated and no one is here telling anyone else what they can and can't enjoy or find pleasurable. But any person with some authority on the subject - sexperts, researchers, doctors, therapists - have a responsibility to be educated (really educated) and clear about the physiological, anatomical knowns of orgasm. And there are knowns. The female orgasm is no more a mystery than the male orgasm. Ignoring the facts and perpetuating the baseless claim that "vaginal orgasms" are a known, observed phenomenon is fucked up at this point in history. If I may be blunt, it breeds ignorance, continuation of the current state of sexual culture and sexual politics, and mostly it perpetuates the confusion, shame, and lack of orgasm that have been plaguing the female population for centuries. 

And this brings me to Shere Hite. I just happened to write about her in my last post. She said the shit that needed to be said, and she didn't pull punches. She asked and really listened to women's specific, detailed experiences with orgasm, masturbation, pleasure and sexual interactions. And she also really listened to what the science actually can tell us about lady-gasms and our bodies. Since then, almost 50 years later, the science hasn't uncovered anything yet that contradicts what she was saying in any significant way (no way I can think of, really). She told us straight up in the 70's all the basic things I'm saying in this blog now. If we had listened to her, we would know that women need clitoral glans area stimulation in order to orgasm just like males need penile stimulation. We would know that sexual interactions between any 2 (or more) people can and should create ample opportunities for any body to orgasm as long as the correct stimulation is given to the penile or clitoral areas (or, might I add, the organ that is a little bit clit / a little bit penis for certain intersex individuals). The vagina is not the female organ of sexual pleasure (although you might call it an organ of male sexual pleasure ;)



Everyone is capable of and deserves a real opportunity to orgasm during sexual interactions. Making that statement tangible through her epic information gathering and spot-on assessments was the gift Shere Hite tried to give the world. 

She made a mark - an important push towards Orgasm Equality, but the world wasn't quite ready to embrace it. We still aren't in 2020. In fact, when I said there's pushback for saying these things, I meant it. She was loved, certainly, and her book changed lives. However, it pissed people off. Saying women don't need a dick up inside them to come is not a popular opinion. Despite the fact that she did an insane amount of serious research and created a straight up revolutionary piece of work, she was shit on for years. Apparently Playboy at the time dubbed her book, The Hite Report, "THE HATE REPORT" and Times did a shitty article on her as well.  I wish I could have read a bunch of the stuff that was written at the time about it, but ya know, the internet wasn't around at the time, so tricky to find. 

But the hate isn't really the saddest part to me. Hate is a side effect of any good revolutionary thought. It's the eventual disregard and marginalization of her work that really fucked her (and all of us) over. As soon as there was any way for people to "reasonably" disregard her hard statements about vaginal orgasms not being realistic, they did. The G-spot craze that started in 1982, less than a decade later, was a great way to ignore the truths Hite was telling us. It shouldn't have, since the G-spot doesn't cause orgasms, and everything Hite was saying was still absolutely as valid as it was before...but people don't want to believe you can't bang a woman into orgasm, so we mostly don't. The G-spot is out of vogue now among the hip, but believing the inner clit somehow causes orgasms from maybe, kinda, being pressed upon during a good fuck is SUPER popular. It's as ridiculous and probably even less supported by evidence than the idea of a 'G-Spot Orgasm," but it has been widely and un-critically accepted - especially and sadly by people that thinks they are knowledgeable and progressive around issues of sexuality. Even recently I had a debate with a man that called himself a skeptic and progressive that basically said Freud's idea of vaginal orgasms being more mature than clitoral orgasms is similarly extreme and harmful as the feminists of the 70's saying that vaginal orgasms did not exist (He used Anne Koedt's essay The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm  *Read it. It's good stuff btw* as an example, but she was of the same time and was in agreement with Hite's point of view). My point is, the sentiment out there is the same. People think it's crazy to say dicks don't give women orgasms. As I said before. They don't like it and don't wanna hear it.

After I read The Hite Report on Female Sexuality, I tried reaching out to Shere Hite. I looked for emails and addresses and social media, publishers - anything. I think it was partly because she got so much hate that she kept her info more private than most. Then in about the late 2000s to about 2011, she seemed to pop back into public. She did a Colbert Report interview, some interviews, and then I found a random blog post where someone had gone to a talk of hers in England. The woman said Hite seemed confused and acted a little strangely. I have no idea where it was and can't find it now.  I couldn't really find anything about Shere Hite out in the public after that. I assumed she was ill in some way and assumed I probably would never get in touch with her. 

I was right that I would never get to talk with her or interview her. She died this month. Although I had kind of settled on Shere as a person not in the public eye any more, hearing that she had died really struck me. It reminded me one more time of how very resistant this world is to hearing truth about female orgasm. Hite's work should have been held in high regard and incorporated deeply into our sexual culture from the moment her book was released. Instead of slow marginalization through the years it should have been fundamental to sexual learning. She deserves more than she got, but I do believe her legacy, though sometimes invisible and put upon, exists as a small but mighty beacon of light that guides others towards lady-gasm truth and inspires those working towards those same goals.

Shere Hite, you gave us all a gift, and one day we will open it properly. 

*(vaginal orgasm/VIO or Vaginally Induced Orgasm/Gspot Orgasm/uterine orgasm/cervical orgasm/inner clit orgasm - or whatever the new hip term is for an "orgasm" causes by something pushing in and out of the vag)

8.30.2020

The Hite Report is bad-ass, but not much has changes - AKA I love you Shere Hite



Shere Hite, ya'll. This is a tribute, kind of, because someone sent me an old article of hers that came out about the time were shooting Science Sex and the Ladies  

Her book, The Hite Report: A Nationwide Study of Female Sexuality, her research, her conclusions are golden. They are also largely forgotten, ignored, misunderstood, or downplayed in lady-gasm research and advice, but that's not her fault. That's because we are a world obsessed with the idea that P-in-V intercourse is/should be equally as orgasmic for women as it is for men. It's not. It never has been and never will be. Everyone kind of knows that, but whenever that is really specifically called out as bullshit, the world kinda hardens to the idea and bounces it out of site until we all forget about it. That to me is where Hite's work (and all like it, really) exists at that moment. 




Everyone should read her book. Years ago I used to write posts about how you could get it for 1 cent on Amazon. It looks like it's closer to about $5 now, but still worth every penny. That's also why I post the text from 1 random page out of this book (and her different, but incredibly intriguing Hite Report on Male Sexuality book) every now and again. I call it Random Hite Report, and I was hoping it might interest people enough that they get the book and read it. 

I mean she said it straight out in that book...in 1976 - that women NEED external clitoral stimulation in order to orgasm. She had gotten written surveys from over 3000 women about the specific details of their partnered and solo sex life; the details of how they stimulate themselves, when and how they orgasm, how their legs are positioned when they masturbate. It's bad ass, and it tells a story of women with clits that are completely functional. Clits that can be stimulated to orgasm as quickly, easily and reliably as the penis, but unlike the penis, they are under-used, unused, ignored, misunderstood, and certainly not discussed. They are the organ of female orgasm, but they are almost never the focus and often not even part of partnered sex.

Hite wrote this groundbreaking book just after Masters and Johnson did their groundbreaking research that gave the physiological, scientific backing for the clit (not the vagina) being the cause of female orgasm. Hite gave Master and Johnson's research the feminist perspective it deserved. She (and a few other feminists of the time) filled in the reality of what M&J's physiological scientific revelations meant to everyday sexual encounters. Basically, it was clear that we're doing it wrong (for women of course, certainly not men). Our understanding of women and sex needed to change. The way women's bodies were engaged in partnered sexual encounters needed to change. The way we depicted and talked about  and taught sex and orgasm needed to change. 

None of it changed, though. Not really. 

I feel there may have been a small window of time in a small sliver of the population that got to live in the golden era between Hite's book and the point when the book introducing the public to the G-spot was dropped in 1982 telling everyone something like, 'Just joking! Women can still orgasm vaginally...it's just that it's the G-spot not the vagina that makes it happen!' (It's not true at all, but whatever). That's the time during which the movie 20th Century Women took place. I SSL Reviewed that movie quite highly

But for real. It's 2020 now. Everything Hite was saying should change still needs to change. The G-spot has recently gone out of vogue to talk about in the progressive, even feminist, world of sexperting, but the idea that something about banging penises into vaginas can cause lady-gasms hasn't. It's just now, people point to the inner legs of the clitoris as causing orgasm-from-fucking....because supposedly the penis pushes on the vaginal walls which kinda press against the clitoral legs (not the clitoral glans, mind you, which is on the outside of the body and has all the 8,000 nerve endings people know the clit for) or against the vestibular bulbs (that people call part of the clit, but it's not), and I guess that's what's supposed to cause an orgasm. It doesn't. Or at least if it does no one has ever seen that happen in all of scientific research, just like they've never seen a 'g-spot' cause an orgasm, but whatever. People say it, so the world believes it. 

The world wants to believe it. It's easier to just pretend women can orgasm from intercourse rather than acknowledge the incredibly sad truth that women are having SO MUCH sex with no orgasm and then do the hard work to change how we teach, depict, and do sex so that everyone gets what they need to orgasm. 

So...nothing too much has changed. Hite acknowledged it herself in an article from 2008

"As noted, The Hite Report on Female Sexuality showed that most women could orgasm easily and regularly via separate stimulation of the exterior vulva or pubis, and that the definition of sex should change to include such stimulation to orgasm as a normal part of sex. This would make sex more egalitarian. While this research showed that sex should no longer be so exaggeratedly focused on coitus as the sole high point or climax of sex, images of sex in pornography, popular culture and media did not change."

I get frustrated thinking about how little has changed since I started researching this stuff in the early 2000 and certainly since I released the movie in 2014. I can't imagine how frustrated Shere Hite was while writing that article over 30 years after sexual norms should have crumbled under the weight of her book's truth-telling. 

I'd love to talk to her about it, but honestly, she just dropped off the face of public life after about the time she wrote the article. I've tried many a time to get ahold of her in lots of different way, but nothing so far (anyone know her??? - I'd love you forever if I could talk with her). 

But, she did important work, and just because the world didn't take to it right away doesn't mean her work wasn't monumental. It just means that the change her work suggests is so monumental that it needs generations of work. She was not the first, but she grew the fire, and it's still smoldering, giving other people the fuel to light more fires. 

For me, her book changed everything. After a year or so of reading shit about lady-gasms, I started thinking...'it doesn't seem like a vaginal orgasm is real.' I can't find evidence that it actually exists, but even if it was hinted at, no one would say it, and most people just acted like vaginal orgasms were a given. Hite said it. She gave me the confidence to continue forward. It made me feel finally like I wasn't crazy.

That's how we do this. One fire lighting another fire, lighting another fire, lighting another...until we burn down the fucking P-in-V obsessed, clit-ignoring norms of sex. 

We'll get there.  

8.15.2020

5 Docs #DirectedByWomen That I Hope You'll Like



Good afternoon. Here is another 5 Movie list for you while I'm procrastinating on the next post. Listen, it's been a little heavy at work lately, and ya know, I kinda just want to watch a fab movie and eat dinner when get home. Maybe eat some ice cream, maybe. 

But I don't want you to think I'm gone or that I'm not thinking of you. I most definitely am. So, here's some good ol' docs for you to enjoy in the meantime.

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

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

You can find all my 5-movie lists HERE.

So, grab some ice cream (I'd go with Ben and Jerry's Milk and Cookies, if it were me), and check of these lovely documentaries directed by women.

The Movies

1 Wrestle  - This is directed by Suzannah Herbert  with co-director Lauren Belfer. I saw this streaming a few months ago. It's a good fly on-the-wall doc following a few members of a high school wrestling team. Engaging view - I recommend it. 




2 There's Something Wrong With Aunt Diane - This was directed by Liz Garbus. I saw this streaming about a year ago. If you're into true crime stuiff you'll enjoy this - even though it's not really true crime, but it has the feel.




3 Athlete A  - This was directed Bonni Cohen and Jon Shenk. I just recently saw this one. It's about The Indianapolis Star's investigation into the USA gymnastics abuses on their female gymnasts.  Strangely, although I have lived in Indy almost my whole life, and was there when this all news came out, I didn't realize that it was originating from The Star. I love good solid investigative journalism doing better for the world, and this is a good doc on it. Recommend. 




4 Hillary -This was directed by Nanette Burstein. It's about Hillary Clinton, ya'll.  I saw this a few months ago. Good shit. For real. - definitely worth a watch.




5 My Life Directed By Nicolas Winding Refn - This was directed by Liz Corfixen, who happens to be Nicolas Winding Refn's wife. Refn directed some movies I really love (and a couple I could live without), and this is her documentation of the time during the shooting of Only God Forgives, a movie I quite like and which got a pretty good SSL Review (solid ladybation scene for sure). I say check this out - especially if you want to see a director lose his shit about whether his movie's good or not. I kinda love this doc. 


7.26.2020

30% Is A Stat About Female Orgasm, But It's Not What You Think...probably, unless you read my blog a lot...



30% of Women Orgasm from Intercourse??? 
I have been recently using a set of pages in a book to cite the numbers I use in regards to how many women claim to orgasm from intercourse alone. I use the stat of 'around 30%.' The book is "The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Study of Evolution" by Elisabeth Lloyd (Harvard University Press 2005), and the pages are the first 22 pages after the introduction, actually the whole first chapter titled 'The Basics of Female Orgasm' (p21-43). 



So that 30% number. It, or numbers close to it, are thrown around quite a bit as the stat on how many women vaginally orgasm. It seems like it's a real number that is scientifically backed up. Actually, it is a real number. It comes from somewhere, but as they say - it doesn't mean what you think it means.  The truth is that there is no number out there that realistically reflects the percentage of women that orgasm from inner vaginal stimulation alone, with no additional clitoral stimulation. At best that 30% number is a loose, but certainly over inflated to some degree that is unknown, estimate based on a variety of studies that reflects not how many women vaginally orgasm, but how many women claim to orgasm during intercourse. There are known and uncontroversial biases in all of these studies that cause that almost certain over inflation of that number. There are also more complicated, slightly more controversial problems and biases that likely cause even further inflation of that number. I'll get into all that in detail below, but first I want to break this down a bit. There are mainly 3 categories that these numbers get related to. They are very different, but these important differences are rarely acknowledged and get jumbled up together in the conversation causing unnecessary confusion and misinformation. I'll separate them out and for fun give you my best prediction of what the percentages on those questions actually are.

Vaginal Orgasmers
If you ask me, the % of women that orgasm vaginally, that is orgasm from stimulation in the vagina but without external clitoral stimulation, is most likely, well, about zero. But, that's just like, my opinion, man. It's not willy nilly, and I have plenty of arsenal I use to back up that prediction, but also, despite what it may seem,  there simply isn't actual existing data on it. So, anyone that says they know, even vaguely, what that % is, well, they are either ill educated on the subject or lying. 

Hands-free Intercourse Orgasmsers
The % of women that can and/or regularly do orgasm during intercourse with no hands and/or vibrator, is truly unknown because the questions asked in surveys about this stuff are generally thoughtless, uninformed, and unfocused, so the results are shitty and don't allow for the distinctions needed to get real answers. 

I'd guess it's somewhere under that 30% - closer to the 20-24% in the Hite and Fischer studies below, but to me, the thing to remember here is there's no reason to assume this % reflects some sort of innate ability some women have and some women don't. Let's not forget that that the act of intercourse is not an act that necessitates the involvement of the clit, the organ of female sexual pleasure, like it does the penis, so getting a lady-gasm is not something that will just happen...unless you believe the vagina has some magical ability we don't understand yet, for some women, that causes an orgasm. I clearly don't buy that, but even for others that don't buy that, there is still a push to show that some women carry an innate quality that makes it more likely for them to orgasm during intercourse without using hands. It's still related to the external clit stimulation, which I appreciate because, well that is how women do in fact orgasm. It's become recently repopularized among sexperts (and unfortunately Lloyd herself has gotten into this) to explain why assert that the distance between the clit and vaginal hole is an innate quality in women that affects her ability to orgasm this way. The closer it is, the more a woman is able to come. 

I call hardcore bullshit on that. Besides not having strong evidence to back it up, let us not forget a woman can grind out her own clit stimulation. I highly doubt a clit a couple millimeters further from or closer to her vagina than average would have anything to do with the innate potential. The truth is there is every reason to assume every woman is biologically capable, with time, experience, and a partner that doesn't fuck it up for her, of grinding her clit against her partner or some bedding while she has a penis in her vagina (honestly though, that penis might need to just fucking stay still for a minute while she grinds). 
also, I'd like to reiterate that a partner that doesn't fuck it up is uberimportant because angle, pressure, and freedom of movement are key and need to be figured out on a case by case basis depending on how 2 people fit together. Where her clit is would certainly affect how she angles her hips to get the right grinding pressure on her clit, but there's just no reason to assume it says something about her biologically innate ability to orgasm. The only sticking point here, and it's actually a big one, is that the lady has to figure out this grinding thing on the fly while dealing with all the restrictions of movement keeping a penis up inside her creates. That's likely way more of a challenge than it should be and is likely why the numbers for this are so low...not because some women are biologically incapable of finding a situation that works for grinding her clit into an orgasm. 

Orgasming During Intercourse
The % for women that can and/or regularly do orgasm during intercourse is also unknown because again survey questions about it are generally shit, but at least some surveys either discern between hands-free vs. manual stimulation intercourse orgasm or acknowledge that additional manual stimulation during intercourse is a thing. I would guess that the numbers could be a bit higher than the 30%, like the 50%ish  Kinsey's study showed. Kinsey's team assumed manual stimulation was a normal way to orgasm during intercourse and so those numbers are intentionally included but not discerned from their overall intercourse orgasm numbers.  

Here's the deal though. Any woman that masturbates can do this. Ya just do what you do to masturbate but with a dick up your junk. There is absolutely no element of innate ability that some women have and others don't. It's open to any woman. Of course easier said than done. It's clearly not something that is modeled much and it unfortunately feels to a lot of people like a cheat, or an ego punch to the partner. It's something we consider and do in our culture much, much too seldom. 

But also, why are we so worried about having a dick in us when we orgasm?
And on that note, let me end my number best-guesses here by pulling out (pun intende) a bit and asking this. Why do we give so much of a shit about orgasming during intercourse at all, much less hands-free during intercourse? I mean, I get why Lloyd does. Her book is about the evolution of the female orgasm so she was specifically investigating how often lady-gasms arise form nothing but the reproductive act. But, most of us aren't writing Philosophy of Science books. We're just trying to have a good time fucking, and the truth is orgasms arise from penis and clit stimulation, not penis and vagina stimulation. 

The fact that we as a sexual culture are obsessed with women back-bending themselves into orgasming during a sex act that is shit for their orgasm just so their orgasm doesn't inconvenience anyone by needing something other than the very male-orgasm-centric act of intercourse - is kinda sad. God forbid the sex act include the kind of intentional focused stimulation to the clit that we almost always, under any circumstance, afford penises in a sexual situation. 

I mean, if you have figured out a great way to reliably get orgasms during intercourse, cool. But also, like fuck intercourse (so to speak). We should be less focused on intercourse when talking of female orgasm and exponentially more on external clit stimulation...because it's literally as important to lady-gasm as penises are to male orgasm. 

Back to the 30%
Why it's important to understand correctly
What is Lloyd saying and doing in those pages, why is she doing it, and why do I choose to use those pages over everything else out there as my citation on the lady-gasm during intercourse stats. I'm doing this post because I was reminded about the importance of that 30% stat recently by my incredibly Dedicated-To-Orgasm-Equality webfriend who keeps me honest, supplied with resources, and filled with thoughtful reflection. She quite rightly worries about how other people, and in fact Lloyd herself in later work and interviews, uses the orgasm-from-intercourse stats from this book. 

Specifically, these stats are often (I'd actually say mostly) incorrectly used as an indication of how many women do/can orgasm vaginally as opposed to how they should be used; as a loose and likely overinflated indication of how many women claim to orgasm during intercourse. It's important (and worrying) because without that discernment, and without having a full background understanding of the significant biases in the studies from which these numbers come, it gives the impression that about 1/3 of women have some quality that other women don't - an ability to orgasm from nothing more than a penis moving in and out of the vagina intercourse-style, when that is almost certainly not the case at all. 

But why even use the number at all
That said, these very imperfect, often misleading stats are all we currently have, and I refer to this chapter because the starting point from which I must begin many of my arguments is that stats seem to show, and lots of people believe, that there is a percentage of females that can and do orgasm from nothing more than stimulation inside the vagina. Those stats don't actually mean that, but I can't ignore that there are numbers out there, numbers like the ones we're discussing, that people (everyone really) use to make that argument. 

What I can do is begin by pointing out the reality of those numbers: What do studies really suggest is the % of women that claim vaginal orgasm? What exactly are the studies behind these stats and what story are the numbers really telling?  Why does claiming a vaginal orgasm not strongly indicate that the person actually had a vaginal orgasm? Lloyd's overview of these studies and those stats are the best out there for actually getting an idea of what women claim. Referring people to Lloyd's chapter has been s a shorthand for me to reflect the complexity and the flaws in these stats without having to detail it all out like I'm doing here. But...I'm probably going to start sending people to this page instead of her chapter, given that someone randomly reading my blog on the internet can find this page, but probably won't go buy Lloyd's book and read the first chapter unless they are REALLY into this stuff...

So to dive into these numbers we have to go through a few levels (listed below). I'll hit on each and how Lloyd's chapter and how I deal with them.
  • Understanding what stats are out there that speak to % vaginal orgasm among us ladies
  • Understanding the % of women that we can fairly assume orgasm during intercourse given the existing data
  • Digging deeper into the study assumptions from which these numbers came
  • Critiquing how these numbers are used
Understanding what stats are out there that speak to % vaginal orgasm among us ladies 
There are lots and they give a variety of numbers. Lloyd's all over this. Her review is comprehensive and touches on 32 major studies. The only really big one I know of that she doesn't include is Master's and Johnson's groundbreaking study, but that study was focused on the physiological investigation of orgasm as oppose to getting the % of vaginal orgasmers in a random (or at least somewhat random) population. However, if she had included it, it would not be counter to either Lloyd's argument or mine.  

Understanding  the % of women that we can fairly assume orgasm during intercourse given the existing data
This can only happenof course, after  taking into account widely understood weaknesses of these many studies and how they negate and/or confirm each other, but also taking them generally at face value because they are all we have so far and any argument that outright ignores these stats would hold no water in a scientific argument. 

Lloyd nails this. She's goes through the studies and discusses how they relate to each other along with their strengths and weaknesses. It is a comprehensive review of these 32 studies, and in the end she doesn't come out with an exact % of women. She takes the pulse of all these studies and gets to a general scientifically conservative (meaning the reality is probably much lower) estimate of around 1/3 of women could be expected to claim orgasm during intercourse with no additional manual clitoral stimulation. She uses this number with full understanding of the huge problems with the studies from which these numbers arise. I usually say about 30%, and use this whole chapter as a reference for why that's a solid conservative number to start out with. What I'm saying is that there is no one number. the 30% I use and the 1/3 Lloyd uses are just best estimates. It's complex, but we have to start somewhere that scientists can agree on based on existing scientific data.   

Now here's some of the main points in her review. If you are interested, though I do recommend reading this chapter.

Important studies in Lloyd's review
There are two studies I, and I'd say she as well, take with more weight because of how they discern the questioning. Hite (1976) and Fischer (1973) both discern orgasm from additional manual stimulation during intercourse from orgasm during intercourse without additional manual stimulation (those who say they don't need any manual stimulation at all - Hite 24%, Fischer 20% - Hite's number is only among respondents who have ever orgasmed under any circumstance and who have had intercourse). 

Kinsey (1953) and Gebhard (1966) did not make that discernment in their numbers, although they acknowledged that they did not. Their numbers for orgasms during intercourse intentionally include women that used additional manual clitoral stimulation to orgasm and don't discern them from the overall total, so if you are looking to find percentages of women that orgasmed without additional manual stimulation of the clit, these aren't it. They are certainly and admittedly inflated if looking for vaginally orgasming women, but to what degree, we don't know (Gebhard 35-59% always or almost always depending on how happily married the women said she was) (Kinsey 50-62% anywhere from always to regularly).

No other studies Lloyd looks at make this discernment in their stats nor do they acknowledge that they don't. So, that alone would indicate to me that none of those other stats about intercourse orgasms give any kind of clear indication about how many women can orgasm from merely a dick moving in and out of her vagina without manual stimulation of the clit.

Biases and problems to consider
On top of all that messiness, Lloyd points out a variety of other problems with comparing data from different studies about women's claims of orgasm during intercourse. First, she notes the populations the studies used. Many were quite small, some were only gynecological patients, some only college educated people, and they were all from Europe or the US. These all may have a biased impact on the resulting stats.

Also, they all use different, and sometimes non-quantifiable ranges for their categories of how often the women claim to orgasm during intercourse. Some studies break it down to Always, Sometimes, Never. Others break it down by % of times. Others have a Always/Almost always category or a Sometime/Never category. It's almost impossible to really compare. 

And if I might be so bold, I have an additional problem with this, because...what does 'sometimes' mean to someone?  I have talked to a few women who when we first discussed it said that yeah, they do orgasm sometimes from intercourse. Then later in the conversation, it adjusts to that they have orgasmed once or twice, they think. Eventually, and usually not in that same conversation, they tell me that they probably have never orgasmed during intercourse. I bring this up not as a fact, but as something to think on. People can convince themselves of things when they want to, and doesn't it sound nicer to say 'sometimes' you do something rather than you 'seldom' or 'never' do something that you believe you should always be able to do. It's a way of hedging your bets without really feeling like you're lying. But this is really a personal sidetrack to the larger, and well-known problem in science of inaccuracy in all self-reporting studies, and Lloyd does indeed bring this up as another problem with all these numbers. Also, she very rightly says the following:

"Furthermore, the fact that all of the survey results reviewed earlier in this chapter are based on self-reporting, either through interviews or through questionnaires, probably biases the results towards reports of orgasm higher than those experienced. Ever since Freud, there has been a heavily normative equation drawn between a woman having orgasms with intercourse and her true womanliness and femininity, thus producing great pressure to have orgasm with intercourse. Given this enormous social pressure, the surveys are most likely to yield higher rates of orgasm than actually exist."

So given all those problems that Lloyd openly acknowledges, she asks an important question in the final paragraphs of this chapter.  

"Given the methodological problems just discussed with the sexological literature, what should our approach be to treating it as evidence? Simply put, we must use the evidence we have but without illusions about some of the studies apparent flaws. First, no one study should be treated as representative of the population at large. We should instead look to trends in the studies taken as a whole for a more representative understanding. Second, we should be aware that face-to-face studies may artificially inflate reported rates of orgasm, especially of orgasm during intercourse. And third, we must bear in mind that almost none of the studies draw the crucial distinction between assisted and unassisted orgasm with intercourse."

 She goes on at the end of the paragraph to comment on the use of existing evidence as the professional standard in scientific arguments.

"...if a researcher is writing about the evolution of female orgasm, then he or she should use the best, most scientific description of the phenomenon being explained. The fact that "the best, most scientific description" may, in fact have faults is not a good excuse not to use it."

I agree wholeheartedly, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't also critique that evidence with all the appropriate gusto it deserves.


Digging deeper into the study assumptions from which these numbers came
Once you have a sensible starting number from existing data, what are the underlying assumptions in the creation, execution, and conclusions of these studies and how do they affect the numbers? 

Vaginal orgasms are assumed to exist, but, like, do they???
For instance: that orgasms caused by stimulation inside the vagina (vaginal orgasms) exist is an assumption that is absolutely not proven but affects everything about these studies. Seriously. There has never been a physically observed or physically recorded orgasm caused by stimulation of something in the vagina (cervix, 'g-spot', inner clit stimulated through the vaginal walls) in all of scientific literature. 

One would assume when a women says she orgasms that she knows what an orgasm is, if she's had one, and reports it accurately, but like, is that a smart assumption???
Also, it's well understood that self-reporting can be flawed and that the female orgasm is a behavior women very likely feel pressure to exhibit. Lloyd touches on the way this might inflate orgasm, particularly orgasm during intercourse, numbers when she is going through the sensibly understood weaknesses of these studies. However there's a further question of underlying assumptions that's harder to swallow: Can women accurately report whether or not they have orgasmed? Do women have the correct understanding and underlying assumptions/knowledge about female orgasm to correctly differentiate a physical orgasm from other sexual, arousing, climactic mental or physical experiences? 

The hard truth is there are very real concerns that for a variety of reasons women might say they orgasm vaginally when they don't. Female orgasm is a very special case when it comes to self-reporting - much, much more so than male orgasm because of the quite unnecessary but nonetheless deep and ubiquitous confusion and misinformation surrounding the physical realities of female orgasm...for instance most people are misinformed that there is physical evidence of vaginal orgasms. there's not. 

The word 'orgasm,' is not clear (well, when speaking about female orgasm, but not so much when talking about male orgasm) and so why would we expect clear answers when questioning about it. Although it has a widely agreed upon physical quality in science that discerns it from other sexual experiences like arousal, ejaculation (in both men and women) or spiritual/mental climaxes, 'orgasm' is used wildly (again - for women, not so much men) both in the public and sadly also by scientific researchers and sex professionals. It is often said to mean whatever one believes it to mean. Any climactic experience can be described as orgasm without a 2nd thought. So, it is incredibly naive, in my opinion, to trust that when a woman says she orgasmed during intercourse, that she actually physically did so. The want for intercourse orgasms is so socially desirable, the discussion and depictions of female orgasm so unrealistic and convoluted, and the evidence that anyone ever in all of scientific literature has ever had a vaginal orgasm so non-existant (seriously, this is a real problem, people), that any study that's using only women's self-reporting about intercourse induced orgasms is suspect at best. 

And, have we talked about how grinding orgasms factor into answers about intercourse orgasms?
How might people report orgasms during intercourse without additional manual stimulation, but while specifically grinding the clit against the partner's body or against a surface like bedding or a pillow.  I imagine there are women who orgasm this way and distinctly understand it as creating additional clitoral stimulation for themselves, and there are also women who are specifically moving in ways that stimulate the clit, but internalize and express it as general movement during intercourse to get to an intercourse-induced orgasm. This is opposed to internalizing and expressing it as moving during intercourse as a means for getting the appropriate external clitoral stimulation they need for orgasm. It's a subtle but important difference and it might affect how a woman answers a survey on orgasms. I feel like it could easily be reported as a vaginal orgasm for some, but others may put it under 'orgasm during intercourse with additional clitoral stimulation' or something like that. It's really just a matter of how the person came to and internalizes that orgasm, but it can easily affect the numbers in ways researchers don't get because they simply haven't considered these possibilities and thus haven't created their research in ways that would account for issues like this.

Lloyd and I are interested in different types of intercourse orgasm discernment: An Aside
On that note, I'd like to mention that for Lloyd's argument in the book, the discernment I just made between orgasm during intercourse caused by hands-free stimulation of the external clit vs. orgasm during intercourse caused by stimulation from the penis inside the vagina are not necessarily a discernment important to her argument. Her book, The Case of the Female Orgasm, is not really about female orgasm. I mean, not really. It's a book that uses mainstream theories on the the evolutionary beginnings of human female orgasm to make important points about bias in evolutionary biology - I assume the female orgasm got chosen because it's such a fucking blatant example of the bias. Lloyd, the author, is not a sexologist or even a biologist. She is a philosopher of science, and the book is squarely a philosophy of science argument. 

Lloyd is interested in how many woman can orgasm from only the sex act that is responsible for reproduction. We know men are closer to 100% on that. But what about women, she asks? The center of her argument is that the majority of women absolutely do not orgasm from this reproductive act, no matter how you look at the relevant studies that exist out there. She elegantly and decisively fucks up all the theories about female orgasm evolution that refuse to acknowledge that very clear reality (pretty much all of them). It's a thing of Philosophy of Science* beauty, but she is not interested in quite the same thing I am. For her, it doesn't matter that grinding the clit against a partner during intercourse isn't a 'vaginal orgasm' but instead a clitoral orgasm during intercourse. Either way the point to her is about ladygasms that happen without anything more than the reproductive act - even if it's because the clitoral glans just happens to get some action in the process. It's nice to note, though, that what she finds, even with the assumed inclusion of these hands-free grinding orgasms during intercourse, is that the numbers still clearly show most women don't orgasm from just the reproductive act. 

So while Lloyd's point, when looking at female orgasm and intercourse, is related to what the existing scientific inquires can tell us about how female orgasm relates to reproduction and what that says about how female orgasm evolved, my focus on the topic is different. 

Mine is focused on the use of the existing science related to specific details of physically achieving female orgasm. I use this in order to build understanding of how female orgasm happens and what anatomical parts and types of physical stimulation are important to achieving female orgasm. From this, a base physical understanding of how lady-gasms might realistically happen during sexual interactions can be attained. Further, my activist hope from clarifying the scientific understanding of the physical female orgasm (a clarification that our culture is incredibly resistant to illuminate, by the way), is that it will lead to substantial change in how female orgasm is studied, depicted, taught, discussed, and real-life attempted in a way that eventually results in as many female orgasms during sexual interactions as male orgasms. 

In more casual terms, my point here is to use actual existing physical scientific evidence to convince people how fucking ridiculous it is to assume women will come from getting fucked. I want to make it clear that stimulation to the inside of the vagina has never in all of scientific literature been shown to physically cause an orgasm and probably isn't a way orgasms are induced and that the overall indication from the scientific literature is that the female orgasm needs stimulation of the clitoral glans and surrounding external tissue as much as the male orgasm needs stimulation of the penile glans and surrounding external tissue. And, if our culture were to understand those things, I mean truly, fully 'get' it, we'd all be appalled at how shitty and unorgasmic most sex is for porn stars, movie/TV/novel characters, and most importantly - actual women in actual relationships...particularly, but certainly not limited to cis hetero ones. 

Even without digging deeper into these underlying assumptions, Lloyd's numbers are still important
These are things I live/love to pick at. However, although these questions are not something that would have been outside the realm of what Lloyd could have delved into, these questions of the existence of vaginal orgasm or of women's capacity to accurately identify an orgasm much less specifically an orgasm caused only by stimulation to the inside of the vagina are more controversial questions and would have put her lady-gasm evolution argument on shakier ground. 

What she did do, though, I think is still important. She showed that the data we already have in front of us indicates that most women don't orgasm at all during intercourse most of the time. That was all she needed in order to move forward on her argument from rock-solid ground, and personally, I think that's powerful in itself. That even in a quite conservative (scientifically speaking) accounting of what we know, we KNOW that intercourse is shit for lady-gasm. We KNOW it, yet it's still the most culturally beloved, go-to hetero sex act. 

The 30%ish  number that come out of her review in that chapter are powerful to me because it really highlights that even without all my uber-orgasm-equality-activist critiquing of the stats and studies, the scientific world should know better. Scientist and studies regularly ignore that reality, and it's bullshit. There's no excuse for scientists to uncritically take claims of vaginal orgasm at face value or to create studies and conclusions with underlying assumptions about a strong connection between intercourse and female orgasm. Yet they do.  Most women don't orgasm when intercourse is happening to them. Full stop.  

Lloyd's numbers are not the whole story, and clearly there is a lot more critiquing of them that is needed, but if even just these uncontroversial stats would be taken seriously, there could be some progress just from that alone. 

Critiquing how these numbers are used 
After looking deeply at the simple biases and weaknesses as well as the larger problems with the underlying assumptions, one simply cannot abide by something like a sex advisor saying that 30% of women orgasm vaginally. It's misleading and not actually backed by the studies that produced those numbers. 

1 The studies, all of them, are quite literally not giving us numbers for how many women orgasm vaginally. They, I'm saying it again, are only giving us numbers for how many women claim to orgasm from vaginal stimulation alone (if they even do that - most just give us numbers for claiming orgasm during intercourse, which might include women orgasming from a variety of clitoral stimulation options that happen during intercourse, but not necessarily because of vaginal stimulation). 

2 A vaginal orgasm isn't even a verified physical thing that has ever been known to happen, so it's a little problematic to be spouting off, without qualifying it, that 30% of women do this thing that we aren't even sure exists. 

Some may counter that there are a few studies out there where researchers assert that vaginal orgasms happened in their lab during experimentation.. These kinds of studies aren't included in Lloyd's chapter because they are usually super small, but more importantly, they aren't surveys out to get intercourse orgasm numbers within a random(ish) population, so they wouldn't make sense to include. However, they also wouldn't contradict neither Lloyd's nor my arguments. Although the researchers in these studies may have taken the time to bring these women into the lab to orgasm, and they may have gotten some things like blood pressure and heart rate measurements during orgasm, they didn't didn't get physical verification of the orgasm. Heart rate and blood pressure aren't able to mark orgasm. They needed to check for the rhythmic pelvic muscle contractions that mark orgasm in both men ans women, but they didn't. So yes, there are claims of women in labs orgasming through only stimulation inside the vagina (cervix, G-spot, inner clitoral legs through the vaginal wall, whatever), but not one of those studies actually verified physically that the orgasm happened. Not one. These studies are still all claims of orgasm. 

And of the studies that have taken the time to physically verify orgasm claims, none of the verified orgasms were from stimulation anywhere inside the vagina. Clit, baby. 

(I review a lot of those studies HERE if you're interested in seeing more)

Make sure your local sexpert gets it right
So, next time you see a stat for the number of women that are able to orgasm 'vaginally' or 'from intercourse' or 'with no additional clitoral stimulation' or 'during intercourse,' I hope this helps clear up the different meanings those statements have, where those stats come from, what they indicate/don't indicate, and what kinds of problems, biases and silly underlying assumptions are at play. I hope you see, frankly, how complicated and ultimately unreliable they end up being and how casually they are thrown around. I hope you see how nobody ever seems to make sure it is known these stats are indicating women's claims orgasm even though that is what they indicate. 

Most importantly, I hope you notice that when they are used, they reiterate the incorrect but widely, almost universally, believed assumption that there are women out there who can orgasm from a penis rubbing the inside of their vaginas and that this is a known of science. It absolutely is not, and it is harmful to women and to the sexual culture that this is believed so strongly. 

Correct the next sexpert you hear that uses these numbers incorrectly.



*Although, unlike Lloyd, my focus is not a specifically Philosophy of Science argument, I have deep love and respect for the discipline. I 100% credit my Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Biology classes in college for flipping my brain and making me think of feminism, science, and orgasm research completely differently, for allowing me to put the infant thoughts of this work together in the first place. Those classes sparked my lifelong passion and activism in the lady-gasm space - so big love from me to Philosophy of Science (Thanks Dr. Stuart Glennon). 




7.10.2020

Squirrels, Fire, Diabetic Cats, and Cinnamon Toast - Random Thoughts From Me

 

Hello all - Listen, I'm feeling a bit listless right now, as in I don't feel up to getting deep into anything. A big assessment of a TV show, or movie or article, like, I just can't get into it right now.  Honestly, all I want to do right now is make cinnamon toast and watch some TV - something real mindless like Kid's Baking Championship or some sitcom. I have time right now to write, though, so I'm gonna get something up on this here blog and then I'm gonna make that cinnamon toast. 

Cinnamon English muffin is more correct - pic by me

I've been sitting here looking through my drafts, hoping to find something that catches my attention. I always put ideas and notes in Blogger drafts from TV and movies I've seen that have SSL reviewable moments or links to articles and that kind of thing. I was looking through it for easy stuff I could pop out real quick into a sensible post. Even the stuff that seemed like an easy write-up just felt like too much. 

And, ya know, I do this shit because I like it. When I spend 8 hours writing something, I want to kinda enjoy it, and I think the only way to continue that is only do it when I want to. But, I also gotta balance that with keeping the blog updated, so that's why I try to keep an arsenal of easy stuff so when I need to get a post up, I can just find one and get it done. What I'm doing now is the last resort when even that feels like it sucks - I'm just kinda writing stream of consciousness - 'cause I don't mind doing that, and sometimes it gets me in the o'l writin' mood.  

It's not getting me in the writing mood, though, so this won't get all that much more exciting. So, let me just tell you some highlights of my recent weeks:

  • The squirrel that lays spread eagle across a knot on a tree in my backyard stood on that same knot a few days ago and, I believe, licked it's own dick. We have a picture of it. It's impressive.
Squirrel auto-fellatio pic by Charles Borowicz

  • My neighbor's son and his friends were over on the 4th of July, and they started doing fire poi and breathing fire in the middle of the street. Some neighbor's friend also rolled up and did what felt like professional firework show in the street. An old dude on a motorcycle had to wait for about 10 minutes before it ended and he could pass.
neighborhood fire poi pic by Charles Borowicz

  • I hired a woman into my work group recently, and I'm super excited about my new team dynamics (corporate excitement, ya'll!)
(no pic of the woman I hired or my team. That's weird, and would probably get me fired)
  • My dumb, diabetic cat seems to be getting her shit under control now. I live a life where I give a cat 2 shots of insulin each day - which really is surprisingly easy. She don't give a fuck about the shot as long as she's eating. Also, PSA - if your cat's piss is quite large and sticky (like not clumping well in the litter and super annoying to scoop out) motha fucker probably has the sugars. 
Eds, lookin like a dead raccoon - pic by me
(I might literally have thousands of pictures of her on my phone)


Okay - I should also write something about female orgasms because all SSL posts must have a lady-gasm connection, but again, I can't think good right now, so I'm just going to keep it personal. My first masturbation style was putting a pillow or stuffed animal between my legs and rubbing against it with my underware on. That's lady-bation that isn't often shown in media, but it deserves more love in the world, so to all ya'll out there that rub one out in that manner, respect. Ain't no shame in that game. 

Also on that note, I really want check out OMGyes! and do a review on it. Everything I see about it looks on point - it's actual women talking in detail about how they actually make themselves orgasm. I hope it's as good as I think it is. 

Okay, I'm going to make my cinnamon toast. My next post will be better.

6.28.2020

A Dirty Story With 7 Realistic Lady-gasms!



Sorry it's been 2 weeks again. I have a couple post I'm working on, but none are done yet, so I'm going to write a quick one. It's not unimportant though. In fact, I think it's one of the most important aspects of change that need to come in order to get to Orgasm Equality - clit-stimulated orgasms in porn and erotica. 

Clit-gasms!
So, yes, of course you can find orgasms caused by external clitoral glans area stimulation all over porn, romance novels and erotica, but it is a truly rare find to have ALL the lady-gasms in one of these works resulting from clit glans area stimulation. There's usually 1 maybe 2, but then there's also some caused from stimulation inside the vagina - usually from a penis or a dildo. And once you have even one of those B.S. never-observed-or-recorded-in-scientific-literature vag-gasms in there, it kind of ruins the whole thing. 

I mean everyone already knows that diddling the clit-button works for orgasm. That's undisputed. The part that needs changed is the idea that vaginal stimulation should be expected to cause orgasm as well. So, yeah it's nice to see any scene in any erotic work that depicts orgasms from clit stimulation, but as soon as there's another scene in the work that depicts orgasm from vag-stimualtion as well, all progress goes out the window. In the end, the overall message is unchanged from the shit message we're already getting from our sexual culture - that clits AND vaginal canal stimulation will make a lady come. The only way to create progress is for the whole work to be realistic about lady-gasms, not just part of it. 

For Orgasm Equality to get a foothold, we have to acknowledge, once and for all, that females need external clit area stimulation in order to orgasm as much as males need penile stimulation to orgasm. However, the idea of banging a woman into an orgasm, as unrealistic as it might be, is so deeply held and the image such a common one that a belief in it is not going to go away until we stop seeing it our media. We need to start seeing an unequivocal lack of lady-gasms from banging. Otherwise it won't be enough to force people see lady-gasm differently than we currently do.

A good start to that is to depict every single lady-gasm in an erotic work realistically. Every. Single. One. In porn maybe the best way to do that is to do the same that is done for males - allow the female actors to actually come. No faking. But that's a whole bigger, more complicated, socially deep issue that we won't get into today. 



A Progressive ass dirty story
Today, I want to highlight an explicit erotic story about a F-F-M threesome that had 7 female orgasms and every single one was externally clit area induced. Every. Single. One. Not most. Not 6 out of 7. All of them. It's unheard of. I mean, I think. It's rare at least. I have been masturbating to video, photo, and written porn for a couple decades now, and I honestly think this is the first work featuring 2 or more people I've encountered that has this honor. Granted, I don't get into niche, feminist works. I am very basic and mainstream in the venues for which I find my porn, but I fear even in very niche feminist works it wouldn't be too much different - there always seems to be at least one scene of a lady getting banged into orgasm, even in lesbian porn. If you have examples that prove me wrong, please share. I would love to highlight them. 

Okay, so this was a story on Literotica.com - a free erotic literature site. It's called "When Jessica and Yazmin Slept Over" and it's by Estrellita85. It's in the voice of a man named Steve who becomes a friend and then an experimental lover with Jessica. Jessica has another sex partner Yazmin that visits and, well, they have a threesome. Here is a list of the the 7 lady-gasms.

1 The first one was Jessica's. It happened when she was lying on her back, Steve slowly banging her, and Yazmin was sucking and licking her clit. Solid. Full realism on that one. Clit licking will sensibly work to make a lady come...and getting banged while that is happening can certainly add a little spice, so thumbs up. There was a lot of lead-up to that, but ya know, read the story if you're curious.

The second one was Jessica again (she was the center of attention at the beginning of this). I mean, basically she was sitting on Yazmin's face getting everything from her clit to her anus tongued, and she done up and came. Again, a mouth on the clit/vulva area is a realistic way one might orgasm. This was all happening while while Steve was also eating Yazmin out, which brings us to the next one.

You guessed it. This one was Yazmin. She had a finger in both her holes, Steve's mouth on her clit, and Jessica licking her body when she came. Mouth on clit. Estrellita85 is continuing to keep it real, my friends.

Yazmin got a 2nd turn at the bat, and like Jessica before had Steve's penis inside her vagina and Jessica sucking her clit. She came. Again, I'm totally into this - fully support this depiction.

Ya'll, Yazmin did it again! This time Steve's penis moved to her ass. Don't worry, there was lube, and she really wanted it.  Jessica was just watching (I'll get to her in a minute). There was plenty of stuff happening before leading up to this. This whole thing is a pretty long story, actually. Anyway, at the time she came, she was on her knees rubbing her own clit. Earlier, before the ass, while Steve was still in her vag, she started diddling herself, then Steve took over, so there had been a fair amount of manual clit play by this time.  I LOVE when there is a depiction of a lady taking her pleasure into her own hands. That should be a much, much, much more common occurrence during intercourse than it currently is. Oh - and Steve finally came during this as well.

Now, during the end of this, Jessica was next to them rubbing her own clit, and minutes after they finished, Jessica came as well from her own hand on her clit. Watching and masturbating to orgasm? That's a orgasm-realistic thumbs up from me!

So, there was a shower, ya know, to clean off after that, and then the last lady-gasm was Jessica's. After some tongue play on the ol' anus, she got a little Steve up in there. At the same time, Yasmin first licked and then strummed her clit. I mean, that's legit. Oh and Steve came this time too.

Respect to Estrellita85
Seven out of seven, my friends. I am impressed. And it wasn't like this story avoided intercourse or was not hardcore. There was lots of intercourse in more than 1 hole. It's just that, quite correctly, the ladies orgasmed at times when something that actually causes orgasm in woman - clitoral glans area stimulation - was happening to them instead of during times when the only thing happening to them were things that cause males to orgasm - ya know, like ramming penises into vaginas/asses/mouths for instance. 

This is huge. The truth is that we need erotic depictions of realistic female orgasms. Not only does it help people realize how lady-gasms can realistically happen, but it also gives people ideas and cultural permission to approach female orgasm that way with partners. Things we see and know other people do seem so much more 'okay' to ask for and to do than things that seem rare or weird - like stimulating your own clit to orgasm while getting fucked, for instance. Yeah - maybe you've seen that once or twice. Maybe. But, start looking at sex scenes wherever you see or read them, and start noticing what percentage show a woman rubbing her own clit to orgasm during it. It ain't common, and that reflects, sadly, in real encounters as well. 

Point is, I think this writer has a realistic understanding of the lady-gasm and had a point of view to put forth. It's progressive and revolutionary, and it's just what the world needs if we're ever going to achieve Orgasm Equality.

Get it Estrellita85! You are now an official SSL Orgasm Equality Ally!

6.14.2020

Terrible Advice About Vaginal Masturbation



My awesome over-the-web friend who sends me awesome (or more precisely - awesomely incorrect about lady-gasm) web links and articles, sent me one recently to a article on vaginal masturbation at the website Bustle:

How Does Vaginal Masturbation Work? A Sex Educator Breaks it Down. *spoiler: she doesn't actually*

It starts with a simple question from a reader: How does vaginal masturbation work? Not Clitoral.

Now if it were me, I would have said something like:

So, lady (or dude, I guess), for some sensual enjoyment, one can play inside one's vagina all one wants. Touch down there and do what feels good. Putting a vibrator in there is fun and can shake the whole vulva a bit. Use lube. It can feel good, so go forth and explore, but if you're asking how to masturbate to orgasm from vaginal stimulation with no clitoral glans stimulation, which I think is what you're asking? Because you're just curious, or so you can learn to (or help your female partner) come when getting a basic fuck? - then the answer is - it doesn't work. Sorry. 

More precisely, it's super unlikely, maybe impossible.

Don't Expect A Vaginal Orgasm
Although one might assume from looking or reading pretty much anything about sex, that females can orgasm from just inside-the-vagina stuff, one would be wrong. They don't - at least not in any scientific literature. Ever. No actual physical verification of orgasm caused by stimulation inside the vagina has ever been observed and recorded. I'm not lying about that. This is quite unlike clitoral glans area stimulated orgasms which are undeniably a way females can orgasm. Those have been physically verified and recorded tons of times. In fact stimulation of the clitoral glans and surrounding external tissue should be considered no less important to female orgasm than penile glans and surrounding external penile tissue is to male orgasm.

Granted, people do say and insinuate regularly that females can and do orgasm from nothing more than intercourse. The truth is somewhere around 30% of women claim in surveys to orgasm this way. Depending on the question and the study it can go a bit up or down from that,* but only around 1/3 of women claim this happens to them even sometimes. So, at best, it's not common, and I fear there is real reason to assume some women claim to have these orgasms when they don't. I'm more than willing to take any heat from saying that, but I'm honestly not calling anyone liars. It's much more complicated and deeply cultural than that. There's plenty of sensible, good reasons women might feel pressure to say they orgasm this way; or truly believe they do when they don't; or squirt/ejaculate without orgasm but identify it as orgasm; or orgasm from external stimulation, but don't think about it or respond in surveys that way because it happens while they are having intercourse. I could go on. There really are lots of reasons. I have a whole movie about it, and this blog post explaining details about the glaring lack of vaginal orgasms in science and why women might not be having the 'vaginal orgasms' that surveys seem to indicate they are. Point is, just because you hear that women orgasm from nothing more than a banging, and you even see it in our media, doesn't mean it's true - just that it's a ubiquitous idea.

Ejaculation
Although orgasm isn't a sensible goal for inner vag-play, there is one thing you might work on inside the ol' vag. If you're interested in ejaculating, there is indication that stimulating the "g-spot" inside the vagina can cause that in some women. And I'm not using g-spot in the way it is commonly used - which is as a magical button in the vagina that causes orgasms. Again, contrary to popular belief there's no evidence that any stimulation, including g-spot stimulation, vaginal wall stimulation, cervix stimulation, or the very 'hip and now' inner clitoral stimulation through the vaginal walls, has ever caused an orgasm. So, although everything you read about g-spot stimulated ejaculation will probably tell you you'll have intense orgasms and will also conflate and confuse the words ejaculation and orgasm, don't be fooled into expecting this will get you an orgasm.

I'm using g-spot in the way it was (mostly) used in the original book from 1981, The G-Spot- And Other Recent Discoveries in Sexuality, that coined the phrase  'g-spot'. It's the area towards the stomach a few inches in the vagina where the urethra sits against the vaginal wall. The urethra is surrounded by erectile tissue and Skeen's gland (otherwise known as the female prostate), which can engorge and might be felt as a little bean-sized bulge in the vaginal wall. The authors recorded women ejaculating through the urethra from rather strong partner finger stimulation on that area - largely using a 'come hither motion.' They also said it's a little hard to do with your own fingers, but maybe a toy would work. Also, I want to be quite clear. Ejaculation is not an orgasm. This is true in men as well. Orgasm is the sudden rhythmic release of muscle tension and blood congestion in the pelvis, and ejaculation is the emission and expulsion of ejaculate. It just happens that most often men ejaculate and orgasm at the same time.

What I'm saying is you can try it. It might be fun, but don't expect too much. You may or may not be someone that ejaculates. The female prostate may be more or less developed in different women. There's not great knowledge and understanding about if every woman even can ejaculate or what exactly ejaculation looks like in the female population, but it doesn't seem to happen commonly, and again, it's not an orgasm and it's very possible it may not be all that exciting/pleasurable/physically satisfying for you. The pressure that is said to be needed on the g-spot during stimulation may not be that comfortable or worth whatever feeling you get from the ejaculation, but that's for you to explore on your own. You could also explore trying to ejaculate and orgasm at the same time by working the clitoral glans area alongside the g-spot. I will point out there may also be women that tend to ejaculate spontaneously when they orgasm, much like how men ejaculate. If this is you, you'd probably already know. I merely say this because advice writing on ejaculation tends to confuse this phenomenon with ejaculation being an orgasm. In fact writing on ejaculation is almost always confused and convoluted and it's actually quite hard to parse out. Just remember despite everything you will read in sexpert advice columns, the idea that any kind of g-spot or inner vag-area stimulation causes orgasm is very, very much not backed up by science, so judge the things you're reading from that perspective.

Try whatever feels good, but have sensible expectations about orgasm
Okay, so try ejaculating if you want, but don't get too worried about it. You can also touch and enjoy your vagina as much as you want, but if you want to orgasm from masturbation, the vagina is not where I would advice you to focus. There's just no other responsible way to say it. Stimulate the clitoral glans area however works for you if you want a good chance at ogasming. Of course, feel free to add any other body, mind, or vaginal canal stimulation to that clitoral glans area stimulation for some fun, hotness, and variety, but don't assume those other stimulations might, themselves, cause orgasm.


I mean, that's what I would say. However, the advice in Bustle didn't go that way at all 

The author never really answered the question - not in a way I think the questioner wanted - not in a way that actually told the questioner how to self-incite an orgasm from nothing more than stimulating inside the vagina, and not in a way that conveys a realistic and science based understanding of how lady-gasm works.

The author did a few things I very much appreciated, though. She praised masturbation. She said women don't do it enough, but it's important. She suggested lube. She suggested starting slow and with your own fingers (although then it lists out a few toys by name and manufacturer to use if you want and when you're ready - because ads, I guess). I'm completely behind that advice, and I think overall the article was kindly written, well intentioned, and well within the common knowledge about female orgasm that I would expect to see from an educated progressive sex educator.

Problem is, the common knowledge about female orgasm from well-educated progressive sex educators is, if I may say something that I imagine would get me into a brawl at a sex ed conference, not based in good scientific evidence and overall a bit shitty for the future of women and our orgasms. I'm honestly not saying that sex educators are intentionally bad or mean or not knowledgeable. I'm saying that the paradigm in which their education, knowledge, experience, and the sexual culture exists is shit, and they are working responsibly inside of that shit - which seems like the right thing to do from the inside. Looking from the outside, though, it seems clear that complacency about propping up the idea of vaginally stimulated orgasms is a huge underlying, ubiquitous rot that leads to more of the same misunderstandings of lady-gasm. Yes, the rot is wrapped in a new package for each new generation (we're currently in an 'all orgasms are clitoral' phase), but in the end, they lead to oppression of the female orgasm, shame, frustration, and damage to female sexuality.

Those are definitely fighting words, but I'm not actually looking for a fight with anything but bad information. Women, like this author and the expert she uses in it, have exactly the same goals and aims that I do - to make sex better for women and women better through a healthy sexuality (and everyone else better in the process). We just have different ideas about how that happens. Specifically, I will have no part in holding up the idea that women could/should come from stuff stimulating inside their vaginas because it's actually quite ridiculous and not supported by the science on the subject. However, the progressive, feminist, sexual education status quo definitely does take part in holding that up - in a kind, well intentioned way, but a way nonetheless. I think this is largely because it seems harsh, thoughtless, and anti-feminist to assert that vaginal orgasms are a bit BS, when there are actual women who say it happens to them. No-one, especially a progressive sexpert, wants to marginalize a woman's said experience, but, ya know, I'm fine with it. 

So on that note, allow me to do a specific critique of the answers given in this article. I have 2 main problems with it. It incorrectly tells us that there is no difference between a clitoral orgasm and a vaginal orgasm and frankly, it doesn't answer the questions asked (because how could it, really).

"All orgasms are clitoral!" (aka it's easier to believe vaginal orgasms are real if you imagine they have something to do with the clit)

The article very specifically said "'vaginal orgasms' and 'clitoral orgasms' are the same thing." 

Then it goes on to say: "Also, the external part of the clitoris — the clitoral head, which has more than 8,000 nerve endings and is the only human body part that exists solely for pleasure — is kind of hard to avoid when you’re aroused and touching any part of your genitals, inside or out. So, I’d argue that any time a person with a vulva masturbates, it’s going to involve the clitoris, either inside the body or because vibrations/rubbing/sucking/whatever you’re doing is also touching the clitoral head.

So, the author here is repeating a very popular talking point in the progressive, feminist, sex education realm - that orgasms caused from stimulation inside the vagina are not different than orgasms caused by stimulation of the external clitoral glans (aka clitoral head) area. Another way it's often said is 'all orgasms are clitoral.' Either way, the point being made is that, yes, obviously orgasms can be caused by specific external clitoral glans area stimulation - that's undeniable, but given that the internal clitoris extends down into the body and v's on either side of the vagina and that the clitoral head is close to the vag hole, then you can also get "clitoral" orgasms just from a good banging with no additional stimulation of the clitoral glans area.

Let's forget for a second the most glaring problem with this idea, which is that an orgasm caused by a basic banging alone has never been observed - so it really can't be 'the same thing' as an orgasm caused by external clitoral stimulation - a thing that actually has been observed and recorded. I mean something that we understand and something that is unknown simply can't be said to be the same thing.   Instead, let's just pretend that a vaginal orgasm is, as most science, sex ed, and sex advice would have you believe, an undeniable fact of nature. How exactly is it supposed to happen, anyway?

First and foremost it's all about the inner parts of the clitoris. This is said because it is hypothesized that when something moves in the vagina (like a penis), it pushes against the vaginal wall, which presses against the the inner parts of the 'clitoris' through the vaginal wall...and that causes a vaginally stimulated orgasm. I summarize the two main studies about this HERE and HERE. Both use ultrasound, and 1 shows that the clitoral crura get jostled during intercourse and the other shows that the area where the vestibular bulbs** and the crura V around the vagina get crushed against the vagina during penile intercourse. Both claim these are how vaginal orgasms might happen, but of course don't actually observe them happening in this way.

From ScarletTeen:sex ed for the real world  http://www.scarleteen.com/article/bodies/with_pleasure_a_view_of_whole_sexual_anatomy_for_every_body

With this I'd like to point out something the author actually said, because she's right. The clitoral head (aka glans) has 8,000 nerve endings. It's incredibly densely innervated, but that's the head, not the whole clitoris. When people talk about the clit having all those nerves, please remember it's the clitoral head, and so a penis pressing against any part of the inner clit though the vagina during intercourse is not the same as a penis pressing against a dense set of clitoral nerves. That is very often lost.

But, not to worry, there's also hypotheses about the head getting stimulated during intercourse. There's a very old idea (famously studied by Princess Marie Bonaparte in her life-long obsession to have a vaginal orgasm so she wouldn't be frigid anymore) that during intercourse the glans can get stimulated as well if it's big enough or close enough to the vaginal hole...like the closer/bigger it is, the likelier one is to orgasm from just banging. Masters and Johnson in all their research said there was nothing to this bigger/closer idea and there's actually not great evidence that even claims of vaginal orgasm follow this rule, but there are 2 recent studies that have reignited this idea (but aren't that convincing and of course don't give any real physical evidence that orgasms can actually be caused this way). I summarize them HERE and HERE.

Also, just ponder this. If, as the author would argue, anytime a person masturbates - stimulating anything in the genital region apparently, that they are also stimulating the clit (which we know can cause orgasm - the external parts of the clit, at least), then why, might I ask, do the majority of women never orgasm during intercourse? In all the many times we women get fucked, in all the different ways we get fucked? How did all that fucking-related stimulation down there - particularly inside the vagina, - not cause orgasm most of the time for most females? Might it be because it's just not true. It's not true that the external clitoral stimulation that we know can make a female come- will simply happen from just any ol' thing you do down there?

Here's the deal, and this is why saying vaginal orgasms and clitoral orgasms are the same thing (aka all orgasms are clitoral) sucks. It's because that idea is just the latest in a long line of wishful hypotheses about how an orgasm might happen just from a good banging (because how convenient would it be for females to just come from intercourse - the same thing that makes males come). Although it's fervently believed in, that type of orgasm simply hasn't been observed. Before all-orgasms-are-clitoral was the hip, progressive excuse for validating vag-gasm belief, it was the g-spot. That has only very recently gone out of vogue (kinda), and before that - before Masters and Johnson said that the vagina doesn't cause orgasms in 1968 - it was just believed that the vagina itself was able to cause them. These orgasms don't actually show up in scientific studies, but any idea that can be even kinda sensibly grabbed onto about why they might happen, well, those are abundant in scientific studies.

The belief in an orgasm caused by intercourse is so deep that it not only covers up/completely ignores the lack of vaginal orgasm evidence, but it also makes us super willing to accept any jumbled, messy reasoning for why it might happen. Saying 'it's all the clit' is one of those jumbled messy reasonning that we're currently clinging to, but I find it particularly problematic because just using the word clit makes the idea of the vaginal orgasm feel more substantial, more scientific, more feminist, and more progressive - when in reality it is quite the opposite. 


But, also, the question is never given a good answer...because there is no good answer

I'm sticking with the idea that the questioner was hoping to get direction for orgasming using only vaginal stimulation. I don't think they were intending 'masturbation' as simply touching your genitals in a pleasurable way. It's already pretty obvious how to do that - just touch yourself in a pleasurable way. They wanted to know how to come from vaginal masturbation- which isn't obvious.

The author and sexpert in this article sidestep the answer in a couple ways. They keep pointing out that the whole body should be enjoyed during masturbation, and that it's not all about the orgasm. They also give very little specifics in their advice, and when they do try and give specifics, they often creep in some clitoral glans stimulation into the advise even though the questioner specifically said 'not clitoral.' 

I imagine that the main reason there isn't great advice and why that they keep focusing on pleasuring the whole body and downplaying the orgasm, is because the sexperts in the article are trying to be inclusive and all every-sexual-touch-and-pleasure-is-equal-and-valid, but they simply don't have a straight answer because a straight answer for how to come from vaginal stimulation alone doesn't exist. As well-trained progressive sexual educators, though, they just pivot focus to pleasure instead of orgasm - because it is something they can actually answer. The article ends with this "Not to hate on orgasms (love those!), but there really is something amazing about observing and feeling the different ways your body reacts when you're touching yourself. So start slow, grab the lube, and get exploring! You're in for an excellent time." 

Not an orgasm, but ya know, a good pleasurable time where you get aroused but don't have an orgasm. It's great. Guys call it blue balls.

Let me just go through the most specific of their advice, though. The only discussion of inner vaginal movement/stimulation is the come-hither motion of the finger one can use to hit the 'g-spot.' 

"One motion that many people with vaginas like is the 'come hither' motion, which is when you put two fingers inside your vagina and then bend them at the second knuckle. It’s the sex move that’s most likely to stimulate the G-spot, which is a sensitive area behind the pubic bone. For a lot of people, G-spot stimulation can lead to intense orgasms or even 'squirting.'"

As I discussed above, the g-spot and the come-hither motion to stimulate it might cause ejaculation, but not orgasm. The article never points that out, though, and in fact very wrongly says 'intense orgasms' might occur, even though there is no evidence that any orgasm would occur at all - much less an intense one.  Also, that come-hither motion is not something that will likely happen during intercourse or something that is easy for one to do to themselves, so I imagine the questioner won't be that excited about it.

Other than that, the advice involves the clitoral glans a lot. The article says this. "Even when you’re focused on having a penetrative orgasm, why not get your clitoral head involved too?" (because the question specifically asked for ways to masturbate without the clitoris, but whatever.) "You can work your body up to high arousal by stimulating the external part of your clit in the ways that feel best to you. Then, you can switch to penetration only or penetration plus external stimulation, based on how you’re feeling."

I like the general idea of advising to do both penetrative and external stimulation. That's actually on-point. One can of course come during vaginal penetration as long as the external clit area is stimulated as well, and there's plenty of ways to do that. The problem is, though, that the article is never clear, as I believe it should be, that the outer stimulation has to happen in order to expect orgasm. But, that would mean the article would have to straight up tell the questioner that vaginal penetration shouldn't be expected to cause orgasm, and it isn't going to do that. 

The overall idea of this advice, though, is hilarious (hilariously sad) to me because it's basically the old-timey 1950's marriage manual advice about doing lots of external clitoral stimulation as foreplay, and then right as she's getting close to orgasm, switch to intercourse! If she didn't frustratingly lose her orgasm caused by the change from appropriate clitoral stimulation to vaginal stimulation, it's maybe possibly possible that she might start coming right when the stimulation moved from clit to vagina. This would allow her a half-assed technical win on the vaginal orgasm front - which would have been the goal. Vaginal orgasms were considered the only mature ones by professionals up through the 70's, ya know. Point is, that advise sounds like the masturbation version of the 50's marriage manual advise to me, which is a little sad. 

The next specific advice given is,
"'Try starting at the opening of the vagina, then lightly drag your fingertip ever so slowly towards your clitoris,' Dunne says. 'You can trace your way back down one side of the labia lips to the opening of your vagina, trace circles around it, and then back up. Try placing some gentle pressure on the vaginal opening, and if this feels pleasurable, you can move to insert a finger into your vagina to begin exploring there. A dildo or a vibrator could be interesting — lube included — if you are feeling ready for it.'"

This advice just seems like a sneaky way to get the woman to kinda touch the opening of the vagina a little, so maybe she might technically think it's vaginal, not clitoral, masturbation, but also get working on the clitoral glans area...because again, I think these sexperts know deep in their sexpert hearts that's where it's at.


My big point here is that even though this was a really specific, pointed questions about how to masturbate vaginally - which I can only assume means the woman wanted to know how to stimulate inside her vagina to orgasm. The sexperts mostly avoided it. They first downplayed the idea that she should be interested in orgasm. 'Just touch yourself - that'll be fun enough, right?!' Then they tried to get her to masturbate the clitoral glans anyway, either kinda slyly or in the ol' get real close with the clit and try to move into the vagina right before you come for a technical vaginal orgasm win. Then when they finally did mention inner stimulation, it was just the ol' come-hither move, which is 1. actually quite hard to do to yourself. 2. Not actually something that has been shown to cause orgasm at all - only ejaculation 3. Not that similar to penile intercourse stimulation. 

So, I'd like to point out that if these sexperts can't answer a pointed question about how one might vaginally stimulate themselves to orgasm, how the hell do they or anyone expect intercourse to work for orgasm? And...why do they feel like they need to be so kind to the idea of getting an orgasm from things stimulating the inside of our vaginas - it only breeds the status quo continuation of shitty, clit-ignoring sexual interactions and a lot of misinformation, lack of ladygasms, confusion,  and shame at not being able to orgasm in a way society tells us we're supposed to but our bodies don't actually allow. It's bonkers really, and I know that's not the outcome most sexperts are aiming for.


*The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution. LLoyd, Elisabeth A.  Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 2005. (You can find a deep dive into various studies on the % of women that claim they have vag-gasms in the first chapter of this book.)
**(these were deemed the "clitoral bulbs" in a 1998 study - it's the study that leads people to say that the whole clitoral structure wasn't discovered until 1998...but that's not really true. The study just decided to rename the vestibular bulbs the "clitoral bulbs" and call it all the clitoral complex...but that's disputed)