12.23.2021

Lady-gasm Knowledge Gifts for the Young Folk



Hey all. I'm living that Christmas life right now. I actually just got back from a trip with my sister and my nephew. We have a tradition of doing something big for the 17th bday - just me, her and the kid. This is the 3rd of 4. The first 2 were weekend trips to Chicago plus a show (1 was Hamilton and 1 was a K Pop concert - I learned a lot about k pop). However, this one got skipped because it was during Covid. He's older than 17 now. Anyway, we decided on no show and instead spend that on getting to a warmer place. So that's what we did. It wasn't as warm as we wanted and Indianapolis was warmer than expected when we left, so instead of living the Midwest vacation dream of leaving your sad ass friends in the winter to suffer in the cold while you live it up in warmth -wearing only t-shirts outside and other non-winter things, we ended up wearing lots of hoodies and getting really, really cold on top of a double decker bus. However, despite that, it was super fun. We saw David Spade (and others) at a Comedy club, and he was, well, pretty drunk or high, or something. He's a professional so he got through it fine, but dude was in his cups, as my mom would say.

So, now I'm back in the Midwest, working from my sister's. We're taking a group of niblings out for some Christmas at the Zoo tonight, and then Charlie's brother and his family are coming into town. Him and his wife are both military and stationed in Europe, so we don't get to see them that often. We'll be staying with them and I'll be working from an airbnb till close to the end of the year. Then, it's back to the cats and regular living. 

I'm sure you were super interested in my itinerary. You're welcome. I really just wanted to make sure I touched base here on this ol' blog. Let you know I'm still here. I also thought it might be nice to give you a list of things we should all probably get the young folks in our lives. Might be creepy, sure, but it's worth it. One, you get to see the horror on their faces and two, these are important life things that could save them from a lot of confusion, shame, and bad situations and relationships in the future. It'll at least give them a chance. These are focused on female orgasm, but could be useful helpful for all genders.

1 The Hite Report on Female Sexuality - Shere Hite wrote this in the 70's but the experiences and the information in there are as relevant and sensible now as it was then. Worth it, and it's like 1 cent online usually. 

2 My post about the inner clit not being a thing that creates lady-gasms like everyone is trying to say it is these days - I mean, just print it out and give it away to anyone who will read. I haven't found anything else that is speaking on that succinctly or at all really. I am either mostly right and people in the sexpert spotlight just aren't seeing it/talking about it (my assumption) or I'm an insane, persistent, idiot and people aren't talking about it because I'm so far off base it's just not a thing to talk about (I mean I can't rule it out, but I feel confident leaving it for you to decide upon after reading. I hope that's not the case, because, ya know, this is kinda my life's work, but whatevs). 

Anyway, all the hip, even otherwise quite thoughtful and knowledgeable, sexperts right now are saying that the inner part of the clit is now known to be the cause of 'vaginal' orgasms or other 'inner' orgasms. None of that is true on a variety of levels. If you give someone a Shere Hite book, they might be all like, "Cool, that's great and interesting but there is new information about the inner clit and orgasm that I've heard about." There really, for real, is not new information, and thinking there is just reinforces all the incorrect info and bad assumptions that Shere and people like her were fighting against back. I mean strangely it also reinforces the bad outcomes and problems at the heart of what contemporary sexperts are fighting against now - their assertions about the inner clit being a new orgasm spot are not only scientifically baseless, but also counterproductive...they just don't think of it that way.  

Anyway, point is that these days pointing to the great info that's out there already is not enough simply because there's too much accepted-as-truth bullshit out there that counteracts that good info and spins our wheels on this orgasm equality and good-info-about-ladygasms thing. So, print out that post as a very needed supplement

A Vibrator - make it one that doesn't look like a dildo, so they don't get confused and assume the point is to ram it in and out of the vagina like an intercourse bang-fest - because that is not the point and not a sensible way to arrive at ladygasm. It should clearly be something that is to be placed on the outside of the body, so they get the clue that it may go somewhere near the clitoral glans area. This is good for anyone that has a clit or may have intimate relations with a person having a clit. Penises can use it too, so don't make assumptions and just give a vibe to all the people in your life. 

So, I know it's too late for Hanukkah or Christmas gifts, but ya know, there's always birthdays.

Happy Holidays everyone!

12.07.2021

Inherent Vice - The SSL Review




Inherent Vice
I'm a fan of this directors movie's, PT Anderson. I'll watch anything he turns out. Punch Drunk Love, There Will be Blood and The Master, are probably my faves, and this one is probably my least fave. I saw Inherent Vice in the theater when it came out in 2014ish, and I wasn't too excited about it (although, I do think Joaquin Phoenix kills it within this role). I actually kept getting it mixed up in my head with a similarly themed movie, The Nice Guys , which came out about a year later. Anyway, we revisited it again a couple nights ago, and it still feels generally the same except that I discovered something bothersome to me in a sex scene that is also, lucky us, SSL Reviewable, and thus here we are. There's actually 2 SSL Reviewable scenes. The first is super simple and the 2nd is the one in question.  




An SSL Review (for those that don't know about them)
Only depiction or discussion of female orgasm and/or female masturbation/cunnilingus and/or the clit are eligible for SSL Review. Nothing else counts, including plain 'ol sex if it doesn't include anything listed above. I specifically critique the realism (for instance, were the physical things happening to that women while she orgasmed things that could realistically cause orgasm for a woman?) and also speak on what the depiction/discussion reflects from and adds to the larger cultural discussion around lady-gasms and female sexuality.

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

Pussy Eater's Special - $14.95 - the first SSL Reviewable moment
Joaquin's character Doc, a 70's P.I., steps inside a trailer, home of a clearly sex-friendly massage parlor, "Chick Planet." Jade, the lady behind the counter, offers him up the Pussy-Eater's special for  $14.95. I'm not sure how to take the price. It seems low, right? But also it's maybe one of the more preferred menu items for a lady sex worker - to have her pussy ate out? On the other hand, dudes could be real gross and terrible at it, and it might end up some kind of terrible chafing on the pussy lips situation, and so maybe it's one of the worst menu items. It was also the 70's. I don't know. It just seems terribly inexpensive. 

Anyway, he doesn't partake because he's there for a reason - to ask if she's seen a certain man recently. She kinda avoids the question and calls her co-worker Bambi out, and they immediately drop to the ground behind the counter, seemingly with some pussy eating.  It was a distraction, turns out, and Doc gets got. 

This is SSL Reviewable simply because of cunnilingus. There's no orgasm or anything, just mention and insinuated behind-the-desk pussy eating. I'm always a fan of any mention of it simply because it's a sensibly realistic way a woman could get to orgasm during a sex act. There's also far too much dick sucking (both discussed and physically insinuated) in mainstream media, so just for fairness and equity, any mention of eating out gets a thumbs up from me (the oral sex gap and all). Also, I just kinda liked that the sex menu item offered up in this was one that focuses on the lady's organ of sexual pleasure and not the dude's. For originality sake alone, it's nice to see that in a movie, but also it's good for business - that business being making people think about cunnilingus as an integral, stand-alone sex act as much as people think of dick-sucking as such.

Fuck me like I'm nothing, and other things women love! - the 2nd SSL Reviewable moment
It's funny how I'll watch something that I saw years ago, but see things with completely new eyes. You know, like re-watching the original Ghostbusters and seeing how incredibly rapey it is. I didn't notice that at all the times I'd seen it before. 

This has a scene that didn't strike me when I saw it a mere 8 years ago either. The fact that just before this re-watch I had just finished reading a long Rolling Stone article about the many abuse accusations against Marilyn Manson, probably helped highlight the issue.

My gripe goes a little something like this. Can we stop depicting fictional women that truly get off on being treated like shit during sex? Women who love to be used up in aggressive and fucked up ways by powerful men? Can we stop depicting women that act as if the mere power a man gives off is enough to make her come? 

Outside of all the harmful, abusive tendencies this reinforces in an already abusive-leaning sexual culture of how masculinity manifests in sexual situations, I also call a loud bullshit on the pleasure part of this scenario. It's completely ridiculous to assume a person would physically orgasm from things that do not include the stimulation of their organ of sexual pleasure. However, we do that all the time with women in a way we don't for men. Even progressive contemporary sexperts will say crazy ass shit about women coming from things like bites on the neck, giving blow-jobs, a spank on the ass and other nonsensicalness. Here's the deal. Coming from a spanking on the ass or bite on the nipple is bullshit. And for the love of god, coming from the intensity of a man's powerful presence is bullshit. And contrary to popular belief, coming from intercourse alone (the vagina is not the organ of sexual pleasure - the clit is - and ya ain't stimulating it by banging a penis in the hole), is bullshit. The clitoral glans area people. The clitoral glans area.

Now, if you're mad at me for 'yucking somone else's yum' as the sexperts like to say these days, sorry not sorry. We've had far too much of these getting-off on aggression depictions out there. It ain't like you can't find it if you want it. And if someone wants to depict a submissive sexual kink, then do it more responsibly. We don't need any more of these blanket, powerful-aggessive-men-that-take-what-they-want-get-women-off-best depictions. It irresponsibly reinforces an already problematic understanding of  power in sexual situation. Not to mention it reinforces stupid, unverified, unrealistic ideas about women being able to get off from non-physical or non clitoral means.

Here's the scene I pulled from the script
SHASTA 
Mickey... Mickey could have taught all you swinging beach bums a thing or two. He was just so powerful. Sometimes he could almost make you feel invisible. Fast, brutal, not what you'd call a considerate lover, an animal, actually, but Sloane adored that about him, and Luz -- you could tell, we all did. It's so nice to be made to feel invisible that way sometimes... 
DOC 
Yeah. And guys love to hear this shit like this. 
SHASTA 
He'd bring me to lunch in Beverly Hills, one big hand all the way around my bare arm, steering me blind down out of those bright streets into some space where it was dark and cool and you couldn't smell any food, only alcohol -- they'd all be drinking, tables full of them, in a room that could have been any size, and they all knew Mickey, they wanted, some of them, to be Mickey... He might as well have been bringing me in on a leash. He kept me in those micro minidresses, never allowed me to wear anything underneath... just offering me to whoever wanted to stare. Or grab. Or sometimes he'd fix me up with his friends. And I'd have to do whatever they wanted... 
DOC 
Why are you telling me all this? 

She drapes herself over him and plays with her pussy. 
SHASTA 
Oh, I'm sorry, Doc. Do you want me to stop? If my girlfriend had run away to be the bought-and-sold whore of some scumbag developer? I'd just be so angry I don't know what I'd do. Well, no, I'm even lying about that, I know what I'd do. If I had the faithless little bitch over my lap like this 

-- And they're fucking. 
CUT TO:
It moves onto another scene after this. I'll fill in a little that isn't obvious from the script. When she drapes herself over Doc, he is sitting in the middle of a couch, and she lays face down across the couch with her butt right on his lap. From the angle, it isn't obvious that she's touching her pussy. I'm not sure that actually happens in the final movie version. Also, in the movie, "--And they're fucking" actually plays out with Doc spanking Shasta's ass really hard. He then aggressively rolls on top of her, and immediately fucks her hard and fast from behind to a quick completion. 

Now, does she orgasm during this? I say the insinuation is there. She doesn't do the moaning vocalizations - which are normally the bullshit-fakey, but nevertheless common way lady-gasms are depicted, but she is clearly finding pleasure in it. Her eyes kinda roll back and there's gentle panting, and I think it's enough to insinuate to your average viewer that she orgasmed simultaneously with him - or at least got what she wanted out of it. Either way, a woman depicted as being pleased at the end of sex might as well be a depiction of orgasm because lady-gasm and general pleasure or satisfaction are so conflated it's hard to even discern what's intended in depictions and discussions of the topic. 

So all that to say, this scene was basically a woman describing, in more than a few ways, the kind of abuse that women in the Marilyn Manson case were alleging as abuse, but in this case, she was describing it as the height of pleasure. I also should add, that even though Doc gives a sarcastic, "Yeah. And guys love to hear this shit like this," as if he's above it, he, in the end proves that they do in fact love it. He basically can't stand the hotness of it anymore and simulates punish-raping her - which she loves. So...lesson learned - wanting to be aggressively sexually used is a great way to turn a guy on and aggressively using a bitch will get her off. Got it.

Taking exactly what you want sexually from a woman, using her for your own pleasure with no interest in hers, is not only powerful and sexy, but it's actually the best way to get a woman off. - That's the big takeaway here, and it's not just a one-off, essential character-building  quirkiness in a work of fiction. It's bigger than that. It's the most basic of assumptions that looms over all of our sexual culture. So, it's not cute or edgy. It's basic and dark. If you start looking, you'll find it all over the place, and continuing to give that message a fun voice is irresponsible.

Vulva Rating
Although I do like the fun addition of pussy-eating as the main menu item at a massage parlor, I did not like the irresponsible sex scene; reinforcing some of the darkest and sadly basic assumptions about what women want and how men should act in a sexual encounter. Also, she 'came' from nothing more than 10 seconds of getting banged from behind, which is unrealistic bullshit because lady-gasms needs clit stimulation and that ain't realistically how to get it

I'm feeling nice because of the $14.95 Pussy eating, so this will get 1 vulva out of 5.
(!)


11.13.2021

5 Teen-based Movies #DirectedByWomen



Forgive me for my continued lateness on these posts. I'm focusing a lot on my day job, but also, let's be honest, on watching Netflix/Hulu. I'm still slowly working on some things. For instance, the badass Scandinavian book called I Accuse by Mette Ejersen. It's on point like a motha fucka. I'm also still thinking about summarizing Masters and Johnson's research in Human Sexual Response. There's plenty of SSL Reviews of TV, movies and advice articles I have in the queue as well. There's also a discussion of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) - a self-reporting questionnaire commonly used to assess female sexual 'dysfunction' in both studies (including many related to female orgasm) and in actual ladies looking to get professional help. My partner in crime mentioned the FSFI as a good topic, and I agree. She also sent some more articles on the use and critiques of it.

BUT...for now, I just need to put something up so everyone knows I'm still at it, and as you might have noticed, the 5 Movies series is a fairly easy one for me to get up, so here we are. That said, I also really like this series because I LOVE movies and I truly believe in getting a variety of lady voices behind our media.

Okay, so to the movies. These are all movies that involve teens and teen stuff. We all love teen stuff, right?

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, get ready for relationship drama, best friends, angst, sexual experimentation, risky behavior, and figuring out life. I recommend Oreos dunked in milk, Ding Dongs (which were better when they were wrapped in foil btw), chocolate chip cookie dough, Doritos, and Mozzi's cheese pizza - much like me and my BBF Leslie would have snacked on while movie watching in our younger days during one of our many, many, many sleepovers.  

The Movies

Booksmart This was directed by Olivia Wilde. I went to the movies to see this, and guess what? Worth it. This is a good ass teen buddy comedy - funny, sweet, full of lady-friend stuff, and although I haven't done the SSL Review on it yet, it's got great lady-gasm content (high vulva rating folks!). It's not only a great watch, but it's great for orgasm equality, so check it.




2 Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen - This was directed by Sara Sugarman.. I like to watch random teen dramas I find on streaming sights, and this was one I saw recently. It's got a young Lindsay Lohan and is almost 20 years old at this point. If you are looking for PG early 2000's drama - this is the one.




3 It Felt Like Love - This was directed by Eliza Hittman, I'm not sure why I noticed and watched this movie, but I did, a couple years ago streaming, and I'm glad I did. It's a beautiful, poignant movie, and I also loved another of her movies I saw. I'll watch anything she directs. This is the most gritty, realistic, somber teen movie in this list, and although I do very much love me a wacky teen comedy for its own reasons, this one is not to be missed. 




Slut in a Good Way - This was directed by Sophie Lorain. It's a 2018 French Canadian romp about, largely, a teen girl, her friends and her sex and love relationships. I'll be honest, I haven't SSL Reviewed this one yet, but it wouldn't be great - there's some classic unrealistic banged to orgasm situations in it. Overall, though, it's a fun black and white indie vibe of a movie.




5 Dude - This is directed by Olivia Milch. I saw this one as soon as I heard about it online. It's a sleeper, man. It's a funny ass teen stoner movie  - easily up there with any of the best ones, and it doesn't seem like it gets the credit it deserves. Anyway - watch it.


10.17.2021

Ramy Seasons 1 and 2 - The SSL REview



Ramy - Season 1 - 2
So this is a Hulu show, and I'm not sure exactly how we heard about it, but it got a lot of good press since its release in 2019, so it could have been anywhere...or Hulu could have just told me to watch it in the way Hulu does such things. Either way, I'm glad we did. I'll be honest. I like it despite the main character. He acts too much like an actual dude I know, and it's a little annoying, but the surrounding cast, I really enjoyed, and there's some really solid storied in the (so far) 2 season series. 


Anyway, it follows Ramy, a 20-something and his family and friends living their lives in New Jersey (and maybe also in New York sometimes too?). Ramy is a first Generation Egyptian American. He lives with his mom, dad, and adult sister, and he's on a bit of a journey to understand what being a 'proper' Muslim means in his life. 

Anyway, I think it's well worth a watch, AND in the 1st season (there were none in the 2nd season), there were SSL Reviewable moments involving Ramy's mother, sister, and sexual partner. 

An SSL Review (for those that don't know about them)
Only depiction or discussion of female orgasm and/or female masturbation and/or the clit are eligible for SSL Review. Nothing else counts, including plain 'ol sex if it doesn't include anything listed above. I specifically critique the realism (for instance, were the physical things happening to that women while she orgasmed things that could realistically cause orgasm for a woman?) and also speak on what the depiction/discussion reflects from and adds to the larger cultural discussion around lady-gasms and female sexuality.

You can see all the SSL TV Reviews HERE (and as always you can find all the movie SSL Reviews HERE).
 
S1 Ep1 - Strangle me while I finger myself
Ramy is a Muslim guy, right? As is the case with most religious people, they ain't supposed to be fucking if they ain't married. We see he does indeed do that, though. We see it happen with a non-Muslim woman earlier, but later he's on a proper date with a Muslim woman. They ditch their escort and have a nice time together talking and such. They get back to her car, and she's into a kiss, but Ramy is taken aback a bit and basically says he just wasn't sure if she did that kind of thing, and she's like, 'Kiss?? Yeah, bro.'

So they do, and they are both into it and making out, and she tells him to get into her car. They continue making out, and when she reaches for his, pants, he's like...'whoa - whoa.' She asks if he's alright, and he says he is, so she asks if he has a condom. He tells her, 'yes, but, umm...' and she says, "What? You don't want to have sex?" So he goes, 'like, yeah, but I didn't know if you could - since we weren't married and all.'

So she tells him she didn't know he was that strict, and mentions possibilities for technically getting around the Muslim requirements while still having sex. He tells her he doesn't think they should, like, try to trick god or something, but that they should take it slow. She's like, 'OH! Cool - there's other things we can do.'

And from there, she straddles him as he's sitting in the back seat. They're still making out, and she says she wants him to strangle her while she fingers herself. He's like, "what?" and she reiterates it. He puts his hands on her neck. She has unbuttoned her pants and seems to be moving her right hand down at her crotch. He's clearly weirded out, and she tells him to for-real press harder on her neck. 

She's bucking her hips with her eyes closed and her hand down at her crotch.(we can't see it clearly, but seems like she's rubbing one out). She seems like she's building herself up to an orgasm for sure.  Ramy is clearly freaked out. In a kind of in disgust, but maybe more bewilderment, he keeps looking from her neck then down at her crotch where she's getting herself off, and then back up and repeat until he can't take it anymore.

He just stops and tells her he can't do it. He's not into strangling. She's disappointed and briefly protests, but quickly unstraddles him.

Lady Friend: God, you're so full of shit.
Ramy: What?
Lady Friend:  It's not the choking that's the problem.
Ramy: Look, it's just our first date, and I feel like this is happening...
Lady Friend: (cutting him off) What? You don't hook up on the first date?
He hesitates.
Lady Friend: Yeah, that's what I thought.
Ramy: Look, this is just, like, throwing me for a loop a bit. I didn't think that a girl like you was gonna wanna...
Lady Friend: A girl like me? Look, we had this like really nice night, and you felt weirded out by the idea of kissing me. I get it. You don't want to have sex, but I'm, like, in this little Muslim box in your head. I'm the wife, or the mother of your kids, right? I'm not supposed to come.
Ramy: (thinking for a minute) Okay, I'll choke you.
Lady Friend: (annoyed) God! just get out of my car.

I love this scene for a couple reasons. 

First, (and most obviously, if you read my blog), this shows a woman asking for a partnered sexual activity that would actually result in orgasm for her - which is basically rubbing her vulva/clit area with her fingers at the same time something else she finds erotic is happening to her - in this instance, choking. Point is, she is stimulating her organ of orgasm which is realistic for a depiction of someone trying to come...just as having something stimulating the penis would be realistic for a depiction of a dude pursuing orgasm. 

I love that this woman knew what could get her off and clearly asked for it, particularly because it is all too uncommon for real-life and depicted women to do this. I think this is largely because the things that actually get us ladies off are not generally the meat and potatoes of a hetero-sexual encounter - AKA any type of intercourse. Which, again you know if you read this blog, intercourse is straight trash for getting ladies off because the stimulation is focused in the vaginal canal instead of the external clitoral glans area (seriously, contrary to popular belief and popular depiction, banging sucks for lady-gasms). 

Point is, asking for things other than intercourse can easily feel ridiculous and 'extra.' Previous partners may have gotten weirded out or uninterested with that kind of ask. Or, given our sexual culture, neither partners may even really understand there are other valid options. So, it was cool to see a valid alternative depicted. I do wish her first go-to wouldn't have been intercourse, though (she first asked for a condom). It makes it seem like intercourse was still the first/better choice for her, even though the reality is that it's a much more shit option for her orgasm. That little ask kind of reinforces the idea that intercourse is still top dog, and everyone likes it and enjoys it the best. I'll give it all a pass, though, simply because it is so rare to even see a depiction of a hetero sexual encounter where a woman diddles her own clit/vulva area, so I'll take it where I can get it.

The second reason I love this scene is because it calls to attention a particular element of the Madonna/Whore syndrome (the idea that a woman can either be sexual OR maternal/good) that exists in the world. Obviously, overall that's a bunch of bullshit that sucks, but there is a specific element about what kinds of sex acts count as whore-ish that I felt was touched on here. Granted, intercourse is the big one we think about for causing a good woman to go bad - and that seemed to be at first where Ramy's head was, but then things expanded a little further, and it could be argued that this woman's focused interest in getting off was maybe even worse to Ramy.  

That she had a strong sexual urge that she needed itched and that really had nothing to do with his body - was maybe even more gross and foreign to him than the idea of a good woman wanting to bang. I mean even a wife and mother must have intercourse from time to time...but rubbing her own clit??? The freak out level that Ramy got to as this woman tried to bring herself to orgasm was telling. And, this was actually a fairly puritan sex act as sex acts go in the religious world. I mean, they weren't having intercourse (the big one, as they say), and he wasn't even having to touch her genitals or her, his genitals.  Her statement, "I'm the wife, or the mother of your kids, right? I'm not supposed to come," is poignant. Sure, women can have intercourse, but only with men they should be having it with. Women having purely selfish sexual desires bent on orgasm, though - desires that do not include the act of a man's penis inside her, don't seem to be that cool in any situation and might be the freakiest shit a woman can do. I don't know if that reading was the intent of the writers and actors in this scene, but her use of the word, "come," gave it that hue for me, and I think that is a nasty aspect of the Madonna/Whore syndrome that deserves more air time, so I appreciate it whatever the intent.

S1Ep6 - Showerbation
This is a simple scene of laby-bation-interuptis. Dena, Ramy's sister, was in a situation that was a bit sexy and/or exciting, and in the next scene she's at home taking a shower. She's in one of those sweet ass showers that I sometimes dream of where the water can come from more than 1 shower head at the same time. Anyway, it's a nice shower, in my opinion. So, there's the overhead one, and then there's a removable showerhead that can also be turned on, which she does, and guess what? She moves that shower head down towards her crotch and backs up to lean against the shower wall. She tilts her head back, and although we are only seeing shoulders up, it's clear she's working the clit/vuvla area and it's working her up towards an orgasm. Unfortunately, family knocking on the door and telling her to hurry up makes her stop before any orgasm, but it's still a clear and realistic depiction of a way someone might masturbate to orgasm.

I want to nitpick here a sec and say that the showerhead water pressure she used seemed ridiculously low to me, like really pathetic. I mean it was like, if I had to use that pressure to merely rinse off my body, it would be annoying as shit. Granted, shower heads are not a way I masturbate, so I may not know the finer details of it, but I imagine water pressure is important...unless she rubs the shower head against her vulva so it's getting both the feel of the water coming out and the actual pressure of the head itself???...instead of using the showerhead close to the vulva, but not touching, and letting the water pressure alone do the work??? Who's to know? Either way, though, the mechanics of this are sensible and realistic for the possibility of masturbating to orgasm - because either way there is the clitoral/vulva area simulation which is what a lady needs as much as a dude needs penile stimulations. 

Obviously, I love this scene because it is one more lady-bation scene, and every new one helps to normalize the idea that women masturbate. The more that is normalized, the more women will masturbate, the more likely it will be that a lady had masturbated to orgasm before ever having sexual interactions with another person, and the more likely she will be able to figure out what she needs in order to orgasm with someone else (i.e. that intercourse itself ain't gonna do it, and that her clit needs as much attention as any penis might).

S1 Ep9 - Hot mom and dad couch sex
This is a classic sex scene. Ramy's mom and dad are on the couch. Something gets them hot. They furiously begin kissing. They un-clothe only enough to get the dick in the vag, and she straddles him as he's sitting. The dick goes in immediately it seems, and she is furiously bouncing up and down. Her hands are around the base of his head. They are both panting to a boiling point and then they collapse on each other, out of breath. It was 35 seconds from beginning of the kiss to post-orgasmic collapse. There was no indication that either of them had hands stimulating her clit/vuvla area. There was no vibrator brought out to press against her clit/vuvla area. The bouncing she was doing was straight up and down, and their bodies were not angled or pressed against each other in a way that would indicate continuous (or really any) contact between her clitoral/vuvla area and his body/pelvis - no grinding against him at all. In other words there was no indication that anything other than the inside of her vagina was getting stimulated. However, because of the way both their vocalizations crescendo and then finish at the same time, it seems as through we are to assume they had an incredibly quick, passionate, simultaneous orgasm through intercourse. 

It's such a classic type of scene because it's how so much "passionate" sex is depicted - an incredibly intense, quick move from zero to bouncing on a dick to collapsing on each other in orgasmic bliss. 

It's bullshit. 

At least for the dick-less person. Like I said above, a penis stimulating the inside of a vagina does not an orgasm make...seriously. Contrary to very popular belief, there's not some magical spot in the vagina that causes orgasm when stimulated - at least no orgasm has been recorded from stimulating any of these "spots" in all of scientific literature; not the G-spot, the c-spot, the vaginal walls themselves, the cervix, the inner clitoral legs through the vaginal walls - none of these things people like to talk about as reasons intercourse can cause orgasms are backed up with any real physical proof. As close as it gets is that G-spot stimulations may cause ejaculation/squirting, but that is different than orgasm (in both males and females). Point is, this act described above is a super realistic way for a person with a penis to orgasm (and ejaculate - usually happens simultaneously for males) but absolutely not a realistic way for a person with a clit and vagina to orgasm (or even ejaculate - which is not that common anyway). It's an incredibly common depiction that makes it seem as if what is happening is equally orgasmic for both people, but it is not. It both perpetuates and substantiates the great lie that intercourse is as orgasmic for the ladies as it is for dudes.

We need less of these scenes. The more of them we see, the more we all assume this is the way to have a mutually orgasmic sexual encounter, the more abnormal sex acts that specifically include clitoral/vuvla area stimulation seem, the more ridiculous ladies will feel when they ask for that specific clitoral/vuvla stimulation, the less dudes will know that clitoral stimulations is necessary and not an extra cherry on top, and ultimately the less women will actually orgasm in partnered sexual situations (actually orgasm...not some level of acting out orgasm). 

The Vulva Rating
This is a mixed review. The first scene depicting a woman using manual clitoral area simulation to get herself off with a partner is unusual and refreshing, but the insinuation in the overall scene that it is her 2nd choice after intercourse softens its power. The masturbation scene is on point and a solid addition to the whole of media. The scene depicting Ramy's mom orgasming from intercourse that is realistically very unlikely to actually induce lady-gasm is a negative addition to cultural knowledge of lady-gasms, but it is not an uncommon type of scene or one that is outside the norms of our cultural understanding of lady-gasms (wrong as these understandings may be). 

The truth is when it comes to masturbation or a woman on her own, media depictions of lady-gasm tend to be more realistic, but when a women is in a partnered sex situation, depictions tend to be intercourse focused and incredibly unrealistic. Ramy follows those norms. In many ways, I feel like this overall depiction is the status quo. It doesn't take us back, but it doesn't put us forward either. So, in that way, I am giving it a fairly neutral rating. Ramy Season 1 and 2 gets 3 out of 5 vulvas.

(!)(!)(!)

9.25.2021

PEN15 S1 Ep3 - The SSL REview



PEN15 - Season 1 Episode 3
My sister came to visit me about a year ago. It was a heavenly experience in which only her and I were alone in a house with no responsibilities for about 4 days. We did, like, whatever the fuck we wanted, and it was the best. One of the things we did was watch all of PEN15. She had been watching it with her oldest daughter, and correctly assumed I would also love it. For those who need to know, PEN15 is just like a way to write penis without actually writing it - something someone, say in middle school in the early 2000's, might write in a chat or something. That's relevant because it's a show about 2 best friend, Anna and Maya starting 7th grade in the early 2000's. The very, very special part of this is that it is 2 grown ass women playing Anna and Maya, but the rest of their 7th grade cast mates are actually middle school age. Which could be a bit problematic considering Anna and Maya are always lusting after some of the young gentlemen in their class, but I actually think that this is done thoughtfully and without sexualizing the boys. Also, somehow, you do kind of forget after a while that May and Anna are, in fact, grown ass women. It just works somehow. 



Anyway, to me, it's a solid comedy. I highly recommend. It is also a really great story of girls and their inner adolescent life...which we really don't have enough of - especially compared to the stories of boys and their inner adolescent life - which honestly, we have quite a bit of from many perspectives and in a variety of cultural backdrops- particularly about their sexuality. I mean, how often have you come across a scene in movies or TV where a very young teen boy is sexually awakened somehow...I don't know, by any number of things - a Sears catalog, seeing a cousin undress, some porn their friends found, a hot teacher, some panties, a vaguely erotic book they found at the library - I don't know, really anything. It's just very common to see a 13ish year old boy, discovering sexuality and masturbations and generally making everything about sex and this growing need in their young life. It's much more rare to see that happen for a young teen girl. I imagine the issue is that this young adolescent sexual awakening time in a person's life is, well, exciting and meaningful and scary and weird and wonderful and it's just a lot. It's the kind of impactful part of our lives writers want to write about and directors want to direct about, and there's a lot of men out there doing the writing and directing. It makes it seem like this intensity of young sexual awakening is heavily in the domain of maleness and masculinity. As if dudes have this part of themselves that lady-types would never understand. 

Well, it's time we ladies put that notion to rest and started sharing the breadth and variety of young sexual awakening stories that we have as well - from a variety of perspectives and a variety of cultural backdrops. Our voices and our experiences deserve the light of day my friends, and this show is a lovely edition. Episode 3 is about masturbations, and I am pleased to SSL Review it.

An SSL Review (for those that don't know about them)
Only depiction or discussion of female orgasm and/or female masturbation and/or the clit are eligible for SSL Review. Nothing else counts, including plain 'ol sex if it doesn't include anything listed above. I specifically critique the realism (for instance, were the physical things happening to that women while she orgasmed things that could realistically cause orgasm for a woman?) and also speak on what the depiction/discussion reflects from and adds to the larger cultural discussion around lady-gasms and female sexuality.

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

 
The First Time and the other times: It's a lot

The Ponies started it all
The show opens with Maya playing something like My Little Pony's on the floor in her bedroom, cross-legged in a shirt and panties before bedtime. The ponies are having a conversation and then they start to kiss. The camera pans up to Maya's face as she looks up with a kind of dull inwardly focused expression. She looks back down as the camera pans with her, and we see that under her undies, her vulva is kind of cartoonishly pulsing. The camera pans back up with her eyes until we are looking at her in a bust shot. We see from her shoulders that both arms have moved down to her vulva area and they are moving around as her face goes quite blank, as if she might just drool out of lack of knowledge about what her face is doing anymore...but also with a touch of concentration. 

The shot then moves to behind her, seeing her whole body. It's obvious both hands are pressing against her vulva rhythmically as she gets a bit faster, and then we see the slight forward movement of her back curling her torso more into itself as if, well, maybe she is coming. The shot switches back to a close-up of her face, and we see her eyes shut for a hot second and an almost inaudible, guttural 'mmmph' comes from her mouth before she kind of 'wakes up' to the outside world again. At that, the camera moves back a bit to more of a bust shot, and we see her pull her hands up into shot where she touches her thumb to the tips of her fingers and sees the clear vaginal lubrication string between. Then she hurriedly wipes it on the carpet and runs into bed when her mom calls from downstairs about brushing her teeth.

She gets immediately back on the horse
Her second time is almost immediately after her first. After she hurriedly jumps into bed, and her mom comes up to kiss her goodnight, she tell her to leave the lights on and when she leaves, Maya turns down the picture of herself and Anna that is sitting next to the bed, pushes her comforter down to her knees and takes both hands and starts rhythmically rubbing her vulva over her panties. It cuts to the opening credits, so no orgasm in that one.

The ear hole and other sexy things
So that was her awakening to masturbation. She is pretty into it, and it also sort of awakens a sexuality in her - in that she is seeing sexuality in things that she never did before. It's comedy, so those things are kinda weird, but also not necessarily that weird. There's reality in a young person high on the realization that they can orgasm whenever they want exists getting turned on by things that would not turn on a person 20 years later. I also think that since this is a show with adult women and teen boys, that they were careful not to choose shots describing Maya's sexual interests that could also be sensibly seen as showing young boys in a sexually enticing way. I approve of that choice, and I also think it makes for better comedy.  Anyway below is a few of the things that Maya focuses on that seem to excite her sexual urges. We know they do because we see Maya look at them with the same dull, inwardly focused look on her face. There is also kinda tribal type music that starts playing as the outer world sounds drown away when her urges start arising, and she also doesn't pay attention to people talking to her and when she answers she kind of mumbles incoherently, like she's an idiot.
  • At school: The ear (like ear hole), back of the neck at the hairline (these are all, like, ultra close-ups), the eyebrow, the bow of someone's glasses, elbows, the ends of some moussed boy-hair, the Gobi Desert in a doc they are watching 
  • At dinner with her family: (also all in close-ups) fried chicken, sweating cherries, cut fruit, some type of calamary, I think.
Trying it in a bathroom stall at school
Maya tells Anna that she needs to poop, and Anna's ready to go in with her (because Maya usually wants Anna to come with) but she asks to be alone because it's gonna be extra stinky - and asks Anna instead to wait outside and make sure no one comes in. So, she's in the stall, a little nervous about getting caught even though no one is in there, and we are seeing her straight on from the waist up sitting on the toilet. She unzips and puts both hands down her pants, moving them like she did in previous scenes. She has the same kind of dull look on her face, and then closes her eyes a bit, saying quietly, "Sex. Sexual. Sex. Vagina. Vagina." You know, the kind of dirty sex talk a 7th grader might be into. It cuts to Anna outside who overhears something, so she comes in and talks to Maya through the stall. We again see Maya rubbing quicker, but Anna ultimately bothers her too much, and Maya quits before she orgasms. 

After school jerk-off marathon
 Maya closes all the blinds, turns off the lights, and goes into her closet, pulls her pants down and yells, "No one come in for an hour, I'm taking a nap!" She again has both hands rubbing on her vulva as she is standing in her closet tongue kissing a poster of some young dude. It's intercut with Anna on her bed singing to a song - it's actually a pretty good total scene. 

Anyway, Maya comes in a very similar way, with the inaudible "mmph" still standing, but with her face pressed against the closet doorframe expressing the same dull, inward look we've seen before. She pulls her pants up.

Then interspersed with scenes of Ana doing things, we see snippets of Maya masturbating in the following ways:
  • On her knees on the bed with a pillow between her legs that she's pressing with her hands in towards her vulva and also humping
  • Sitting on the floor, with her legs straddling a wall mirror so she's watching her vulva. One hand is rubbing her vulva area furiously. At this point her mom is calling her for dinner, so she has to stop and pull on her pants before her mom walks into her room, and before her mom leaves, she says, "What's that smell?" to which Maya says she ate sweet potatoes and farted. 


Dead Grandpa knows what you're doing, Maya
After dinner with her family, Maya's mother tells her somewhat off-handedly that her dead grandpa is watching over them all the time - even when she sleeps, which freaks Maya out, and she starts seeing him when she's masturbating or thinking about it. That night, she's sitting cross-legged on her bed, with footy PJs rubbing her vuvla area with both hands. Suddenly, her dead grandpa appears in front of her. She freaks out, and says, "Sorry, I didn't mean to do that. I wasn't doing what you think I was doing. I was just scratching."

Maya's like gross boys
There's another scene where we see Maya's guilt. The 3 boys Maya and Anna eat with at lunch are talking about seeing scrambled cable porn and Maya asks if they are talking about, like, masturbation. Anna says, "Yes, Maya, just ignore them, they're pervs." Then the boys say they heard about someone that puts peanut butter on her crotch so their dog will lick it, and Anna is totally grossed out and says she could never do that. Maya feigns being grossed out, but clearly gets the picture that she is gross for what she's doing and Anna would not approve. 

That afternoon, though, Maya lies to Anna saying they can't hang out because she's doing something out, and goes home and masturbates - A. LOT (that the after school masturbation marathon referenced above). Ana finds out, is mad, and eventually Maya tells Anna that it's not about Anna, it's about herself.  She sees dead people - specifically her dead grandpa. So Anna suggests they do Ouija board to see what he wants.

At home on this Ouija board Maya and Anna both place their hands on the planchette, swearing meither is moving it. They call on Maya's Grandpa and he spells out 'clit' and after that, they try again, and he spells out the first part of masturbation before Maya throws the planchette across the room. Soon after Maya's brother comes in, tells them they are idiots because Ouija is just one of them subconsciously moving it and leaves. Maya starts to cry. I

n the next scene Anna and Maya are sitting on the bed and Anna asks her what's wrong to which Maya says she needs to tell Anna her subconscious. They have the following conversation. Keep in mind - Sam is one of the lunch boys talking about masturbation.,

Maya: I'm like Sam, only I'm grosser because I'm a girl, and I'm a pervert, and I really shouldn't be doing what I'm doing. I've been putting my hands down my pants, um, my area down there to feel good. (She's crying as she's sayin it.)
Anna: Um, when I'm in bed, sometimes I put my hands between my legs to feel good. 
Maya: Really?
Anna: Yeah.
They both let out a tiny laugh 
Maya: Wait, you mean like this? 
Maya holds her hand up, palm facing out. Her 3 middle fingers are together and she draws small, gentle circles in the air. 
Anna: Not exactly, um, sort of
Maya: And you don't feel gross?
Anna: How gross can I feel if you do it too? (She says this with a little breath released at the end as if she's both embarrassed and relieved at the same time.)
Maya: Promise I'm not a pervert?
Anna: (whispering) Promise.
Maya: And swear you won't tell anyone?
Anna: Oh my god. I swear. You swear too?
Maya: I swear, yeah.

Then they pinky swear.

They masturbate on
In the next scene, we see Anna laying on her bed on her side hearing her parents fight, and she takes a breath and moves her arms down to press against her vulva area. It then cuts to Maya, who sitting on her bed, opens a National Geographic to pictures of sandy deserts. She traces her fingers across the sandy dunes that, honestly, do look a bit like a vulva. Then she sticks a hand down her pants. She then looks around, probably seeing if her dead grandpa is watching, doesn't see him, but then pulls the covers over top of her just in case. Then, through the credits, she seems to be humping her hand under the covers.

This, my friends, is a top notch episode for lady-gasms
If you read my blog, it's pretty obvious what I love about this episode. 

Normalizing Lady-bation
Firstly, there is the simple element of giving voice to the masturbatory/sexual awakening of the adolescent girl. It's just one perspective of this, but one more than we had before, and that's moving in the right direction. The more depiction in books, movies, and tv of girls masturbating, the more normalized it will become, and the more likely there will be more girls that feel more comfortable trying it...which is a gain for female orgasm.

Because, for the love of all things holy, ya gotta know how to get yourself off before you can have any chance at getting off with another person. I mean this is PARTICULARY true for those with clits and vags. A person with a penis can go into a sexual situation with another person and just do what they've seen in TV/books/porn, and it will be basically the right moves to get off (stick the dick in something, vag, anus, fist, mouth - and move it in and out), so they at least have a good chance. 

When the ladies do what they see, read, hear about (get a hole filled with something that moves in and out of it) they have like zero chance because that ain't what makes an orgasm for the ladies (seriously. it's really not a thing even though everyone thinks it is. Seriously. I can't stress this enough. I made a whole movie and over a decade of blogs on this basic premise that people generally, for some reason, really don't want to recognize). Rubbing the clitoral/vuvla area to orgasm is not what one usually thinks of when they think of 'sex,' even if it is often thought of as how women masturbate. But, that is basically what does in fact cause orgasm for the ladies - at least as much as getting the penis rubbed causes it for dudes. But ladies sure the fuck shouldn't count on that clit simulation just happening in a partnered sex situation the ways dude's can count on penis stimulation happening to them in even the most naïve sexual encounters. 

All that to say, if the ladies want any good chance at all to come with a partner, we need to know how to come by ourselves, and any media that makes that more normal or enticing is doing The Good Work. 

Realism
Also, this was realistic masturbation/orgasm depictions. That's important, because if this were something like girls ramming themselves with cucumbers or something to get off (which is an all too common depiction), it would be ridiculous and unrealistic in a variety of ways. 

1 - again, ramming things in holes is not a realistic way the person with the hole gets off - like anatomically and physically it just doesn't make sense and has never been documented in scientific literature (again, seriously). 

2 - on surveys about how they masturbate, ladies almost unanimously stimulate the external clit/vuvla area - with hands, shower heads, vibrators, furniture, bedding, while on their back, on their stomach - whatever. Point is, just as was depicted in this show, masturbation for the ladies is usually some form of getting the clit/vuvla area rubbed, and that is an anatomically, physically realistic way to attain orgasm. So, bravo with that PEN15.

I also want to commend the chill nature of the orgasm depiction. Way too often, lady-gasms are depicted as loud, physically overactive, or like, earth shattering in some way. My guess is that's because people are used to women faking orgasms and over-doing the sounds and the movements. With some exception, men depicted orgasming are much closer to how Maya depicted it - maybe slightly louder, but not all crazy vocalizations like we see from ladies most of the time. That, I believe is simply because we're used to seeing men actually orgasm, and actually orgasming has a strong element of being inward and focused, and it's probably not as insanely amazing as media makes it out to be. 

I mean, I love me an orgasm, even a little wimpy one, but shattering into a thousand pieces and becoming one with the universe, as one might read in a romance novel or something, is not really how most people would describe most orgasms. My point is, I like seeing women having orgasms that seem like actual orgasms and not performances about how orgasmy they are. Particularly with a young gal like Maya just trying and learning about her orgasm, she's probably at a fast-and furious stage which is good, but it's probably not the strongest orgasm she'll ever have. One day, she may build up that physical arousal more slowly, edge a bit, have a good understanding of what she needs to do when to get the timing right, and probably have a stronger orgasm when she so chooses, but she needs to do a lot more jerk-off experimentation before that happens, and even then, ya know, it's just an orgasm, not an existential rainbow bursting out of your junk. So, I like the subtly here. 

Vulva Rating
This gets a full 5 Vulvas. It's depictions are realistic. The actions were sensibly actions that could get a lady off. The vocalizations were not overdone and porny - and actually quite subtle and nice for the 1st orgasm of your life situation. The whole episode normalized lady-bation. It touched on the shame that arises from masturbation, particularly as a girl, and then put it to rest with friends admitting to each other that they both do it. It was also just a funny and sweet addition to the adolescent sexual awakening genre, one that has too few voices from the ladies. 

Well Done Maya and Ana. 
(!)(!)(!)(!)(!)

8.30.2021

5 Movies #DirectedByWomen Focused Around A Career



Hello! I'm on a road trip vacation at the moment. It's the 3rd day. I just visited my only friend from college and her wife (I didn't live on campus, so ya know...). We see each other maybe every 5 years or so, but it's always like it's been no time at all. Anyway, they were great and have 2 beautiful cats, so it was pretty amazing. Me and Charlie just walked around a shit ton and are now chilling in an AirBnB watching Karate Kid while we wait to pick up Barnaby (long-time friend and movie partner - the 3rd director of Science Sex and the Ladies) from his flight. He'll be road tripping with us for about 12 days and then we'll drop him at another city to fly home. 

Since I have soem time, I thought I should post something. A little update, I ordered Homosexuality in Perspective from Master's and Johnson because in that 1979 Playboy interview with them that I just reviewed, it seemed like there's some female orgasm stuff in there I was to get straight from the source. That's my vacation book, so hopefully by the time I get done with the trip, I'll be ready to post something about it. 

My awesome online friend also just sent me a link to what seems like a badass Scandinavian book called I Accuse by Mette Ejersen. I ordered that, so that's going to be my next read. 

Okay, so to the movies. These are all movies that involve a person and their career. and particularly how they grow within, outside, or towards these careers.

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, get ready for career driven movies. Prep the food, the drinks, and the blankets - because you are not working on your careere at the moment. You are watching a movie. 

The Movies

1 Cargo - This was directed by Arati Kadav. This is a  2020 Indian movie that Charlie somehow heard about, and we watched it on Netflix. I highly recommend this one. It's a little sci-fi, a little fantast, a little buddy movie, and it's just really fun and sweet. I would tell you what the career int his movie was, but it's kinda hard to explain, and it'd be better for you to just watch it.

 


2 A Woman A Part - This was directed by Elisabeth Subrin. I caught this streaming about a year ago. It's about an actress reassessing her whole deal. It's definitely focused on actor and struggling artist type kinds of issues, so if you're into that, for sure check it out.

 


3 Welcome To Me  - This was directed by Shira Piven. I saw this somewhere streaming probably 5 years after it came out. I don't know how I found this, but it's probably because I watch a Kristen Wiig movie whenever it can and the internet knows this. This movie is part of the reason that I will watch anything she's in. She keeps it interesting with her movie choices. This one was weird and sweet and sometimes unexpected, and I'd recommend it for sure. It also only fits into the career category in a sideways fashion, and when you see it, you'll know why.  

 

4 Late Night - This was directed by Nisha Gantra. I remember specifically when I watched this. It was about this time 2 years ago. Barnaby (see above) was visiting and he, Charlie, and I had just gone to the Iowa State Fair. We actually saw 3 different 2020 presidential candidates that day, because if you weren't aware, ya ain't running for president if your ass ain't at the Iowa State fair the year before the election. That's just the truth. So, we got home and watched this. Although we enjoyed the watch and the commentary during, it's not what I would call a a top notch movie - even though it's got a lot of top actors. It's got some problems if you ask me. But, again, I didn't hate the watch. Oh - and this is squarely a late night talk show career movie, so fits the list. 



5 Pure  - This was directed by Lisa Langseth. Again, caught this streaming somehow. It's a Swedish movie, and ya know, I thought it was pretty great, and career is at the heart of it...and I say definitely check it out. 

8.15.2021

Masters and Johnson Playboy Interview 1979



Masters and Johnson Playboy Interview Nov. 1979
Sticking with the theme of Masters and Johnson interviews that give us some further insight into their research, I am now moving on to their Playboy interview from 1979. That's 13 years after they published their foundational book on the physiology of male and female arousal and orgasm, Human Sexual Response; 11 years after their first interview in Playboy; 9 years after releasing Human Sexual Inadequacy, which was an exciting and well received book about their sex therapy work at the time but has since had a lot of significant holes poked in its 'recovery rates' and extensive biases (intercourse obsessed much? - HERE'S a summary of a book that goes through all the criticisms of that M&J research and therapy)...but 1 year before they started really getting hit hard with those criticisms; and mere months after the release of their most controversial book, Homosexuality in Perspective. That book is controversial because they claimed to affect change in all but 35% of their homosexual patients who expressed a desire to function as heterosexuals. So basically it was conversion therapy, but it is worth noting that M&J only applied conversion therapy to those who asked for it. They also worked with homosexual patients that wanted sexual therapy but within their homosexual relationships. Their conversion therapy success numbers may be a bit like their previous hetero-sex therapy success numbers proved to be - secretive and not at all what they were made out to be. 



Anyway, this interview revolves a lot around that book - what it says and the reception of it. The conversion therapy is just a part of it. M&J also discuss how the homosexuals in their studies have sex and compare that with how the heterosexuals in their study have sex. They describe homosexual sex very often as a thoughtful, educated, communicative process that, well, is pretty great - and in no small part (although they don't say this directly) because necessarily those non-hetero couples are not hyperfocused on penile vaginal intercourse...which is, as much as we'd like to think otherwise, a lesson about sexual interaction we still haven't learned yet as a society. I think Masters and Johnsons actually have some #real-talk insights that are worth hearing.

This interview is also is interesting to me because Masters and Johnson (M&J) seem a bit wilder in this. They both to some extent seem less worried about giving opinions unbacked by their research or speaking about things they haven't published on -even though, as always, they continue to specifically say they are worried about those things and emphasize how very fastidious they are- and the Playboy interviewer takes pains to reiterate those qualities about them both (but Masters specifically). There are some comments M&J make about things like people faking orgasms in their studies and different ways females can orgasm that sometimes contradict things they have already said and also give me some real insight into aspects of their methodology that has up till then been a bit more unclear. (Did they not always verify the female orgasm in their studies with observation of involuntary pelvic muscle contractions? Did Johnson really just talk about back of the neck orgasms??/)  Anyway, they just really do seem more out there in this interview, or maybe more tired or arrogant or something, but either way, I do take pains to note their contradictions.  

I will only highlight/summarize parts of this article that are relevant to the lady-gasm type of subjects on which I focus, but I'll include anything that's just straight up interesting as well. It'll still be a long-ass read, though (you know me). 

If not straight up quoting, I'll always be summarizing their words with the best of my ability unless you see a section specifically letting you know it's my thoughts or you see the [ME:] brackets where I will  give my opinions. Enjoy.

insight into the participant study process
  • Masters says they haven't actually observed any subjects since 1970.
  • They described their process of getting people comfortable doing sexual things in the lab. First they would leave them in a room alone to do it. Participants would just leave when they were done. Second, M&J would sit in an adjacent room working with the door open assuring participants they wouldn't enter or observe. Third, they would do the same, but tell participants they would enter in from time to time but to just continue what they are doing. Then if the participants were comfortable, the next time M&J would do their full observations. 
  • There were always at least 2 of them in the room for these. Johnson describes it further: "As the couple became more comfortable, we would introduce the physiologists who monitored the EKG or the polygraph or who ran the cameras for the department of illustration. You must understand that we weren’t there to watch sexual activity as a psychologist, or even a casual observer, might. We were trying to define what occurred in certain parts of the body. If we were measuring, say, lubrication at certain intervals, we might not even stay in the room the whole time. On other occasions, we would sit and stare for an hour at a four-inch-square patch of skin, trying to determine significant color changes."

gay and straight sexual activity - a sort of comparison (but it's not about comparing, of course)
  • Masters says that one of the most striking findings from Homosexuality in Perspective is that homosexuals and heterosexuals demonstrate so little difference in ability to respond to non-coital  sexual stimulation. [Me: coital is a fancy way of saying penile vaginal intercourse].
  • The interviewer notes that the the Time Magazine cover story they pulled from the book was that gays are better in bed. Masters clarifies that it's not about comparing. He says "We have little concern with technique. We are most concerned with attitude, with the ability to communicate. In presenting our findings on homosexuality, we want to show the wealth of variation that is possible, so that it doesn’t become threatening." 
  • Johnson chimes in about the interviewer's further pressing that it seems gay people know better about their partner's needs. She says, "Well, they work at it a little more. They invest more of themselves in sex; therefore, they probably get a little more back. They don’t have more orgasms, mind you. They just seem more involved. But I want to stress that this is not strictly homosexual. The same thing could be learned from heterosexual couples who communicate well." [Me: later studies would in fact indicate that lesbians have more orgasms during partner sex than hetero women (although these were surveys not observation and physical verification of orgasm so take it as you will). However, M&J's studies were specifically filled with people who did have a history of orgasms with their partner, so that probably skewed it.]
  • About "heavy petting" [ME: this feels like a very 1950's phrase to me, and I am not completely sure what all it encompasses - manual genital stimulation for sure, but I also think any other body-hand stuff during sex?] Gay couples, M&J said, tended to take their time and it was a more free-flowing process whereas straight couples created the impression that they were just in it to "get the job done."
  • After discussing that lesbian women tended to kiss or caress before jumping to the genitals (only 1 out of 76 went directly to her partner's genitals at the onset). Masters tells the interviewer that it was truly fascinating to see that when couples do not have good communications, they tended to approach each other like they were masturbating themselves, and that often was not the way the partner preferred.
  • Johnson brings some perspective: "Men, having heard that the clitoris is the first line of stimulation, would often move directly to clitoral fingering. It is rare in our experience, in the lab or in the subjective histories that women have given, that they can tolerate direct, intense stimulation of the clitoral glans. One reason is its acute sensitivity. Manipulation can very rapidly become irritating. The best way I’ve ever heard it described was “too much sensation too soon.” It is the rare woman, in stimulating herself, or given the opportunity to direct the stimulation as she wishes, who will want the clitoral glans directly stimulated. Those we have found in the laboratory who do stimulate the clitoral glans use a lubricant that tends to diminish sensitivity."
  • The the interviewer is all like, 'how could a man know that if he's not told?' and Johnson keeps on, "Let’s return to what Bill said. They do unto others as they have done unto themselves, and that’s not always what a woman can respond to. Quite often the male uses his fingers as he would a penis. If the lesbians used penetration with their fingers, they seldom went beyond the outer third of the vagina, which, in terms of nerve endings, is the most sensitive area. Husbands frequently used their fingers as a substitute penis, even though their wives merely tolerated this approach, especially when approached this way before they were really aroused. One third of the wives we questioned said that they felt deep manual penetration was more exciting to their husbands than to them. Lesbian women, on the other hand, exhibited a general willingness to find out what their partners like and appreciate."
  • Masters notes that the communication was not always verbal. It was often touch or body language [ME: like, ya know, they paid some fucking attention to their partner]. Playboy keeps asking about breast play, and M&J say that lesbians tended to do it a lot longer, give equal time to each breast, and play with more of the breast. They said lesbian women seemed to be focusing on the pleasure of the breasts, whereas Masters noted, "In contrast, men involved in stimulating a woman’s breasts seemed wrapped up in what they were doing and were relatively unaware of their partner’s pleasure, or lack of it." 
  • They also note that most of the gay male couples engaged in breast play, but few hetero couples engaged in breast play on the males. When asked why most women don't do this for men, Johnson says, "For the same reasons a man is reluctant to find out about women from women. I think it’s the cultural message that begins during adolescence: The woman is the object of sex, man is the subject and the predicate. No one, including the man himself, calls attention to man’s breasts or any other part of his anatomy as an erogenous zone. The very idea may embarrass both of them."
  • Masters, after talking a bit about how gay men approach sex (not too different from lesbians), mentions that there was often a teasing to bring arousal levels almost to orgasm and then back down again, this included varied growth and softening of the penile erection. Masters said that hetero men tend to view the penis as a "single-shot, single-caliber entity," assuming that it should get hard and stay hard until the orgasm.
  • When asked about differences in gay and straight approaches to oral sex, Masters said this: "The only real differences stemmed from the way lesbians and heterosexual men performed cunnilingus. The women were more inventive. They started with the breasts, moved to the lower abdomen and thighs and then skirted the vagina before focusing on the clitoris. The more variation they came up with, the higher the level of excitement for the recipient. But again, the most interesting thing was the degree of the stimulator’s own involvement — some of the women performing cunnilingus on their lesbian partners also experienced orgasm during the act. The heterosexual men rarely had devoted significant time to learning or improving their cunnilingual technique. They saw cunnilingus as a means to an end. Men proved themselves sexually in intercourse. In contrast, their wives often expressed the feeling that fellatio was a challenge, a technique that they should become expert in if they were to conduct themselves as sexually effective women." [ME: I mean, shit hasn't changed much, am I right?]

men and women - generalized differences in observed behavior
  • Masturbation? M&J said the differences in masturbation were not between gay and straight but more between genders. Masters says of female masturbation: "Approximately four out of five of the women masturbated while lying on their backs. They were generally less direct in their approach to the clitoris than were men in approaching the penis. Some women touched their breasts, others stroked the lower abdomen or the thighs. Most women tended to touch the glans directly only at the onset of the clitoral stimulation, if at all. But as sexual tensions elevated, they moved from the glans to the stimulation of the clitoral shaft. When they got tired or lost the thread of their response, they slowed the pace. Far more often than men, women deliberately varied the rate and pressure of genital stroking, at times even stopping and starting clitoral manipulation — as though teasing themselves." Johnson added, "Or re-establishing contact with their level of excitement."
  • Master says: "Men moved immediately to the penis. Approximately three out of five masturbated while lying on their backs; the rest did so standing, sitting or lying face down. The force and rapidity of the stroking increased as excitement increased. For the most part, men concentrated on the shaft. At orgasm, most men slowed, or even stopped stroking. In contrast, the women usually kept stroking or massaging through orgasm."
  • And when asked about accounting for the difference, Johnson says: "They not only were accommodating their anatomy, they also were doing what made it individually work for them We are dealing with two different groups — in this case, men and women. Each has grown up with a different level of permission, not only to masturbate but to express themselves sexually. Through subliminal messages or deliberate teachings, most men in our culture are given permission to be sexual, to explore and experiment with their sexuality. This makes possible less guilt-ridden masturbation, or at least a more practical, more pragmatic approach to sexual activity and to masturbation per se."
    • [ME: Johnson often talks about the cultural baggage women have of feeling guilt or worry about their need for sex and about how that can negatively affects their ability to orgasm (as compared to men) at any particular time- indicating that the mind can block arousal even though the body is getting otherwise appropriate sexual stimulation. She goes on to touch on that a bit more in the next questions. I agree, but the thing M&J always seem to ignore is that it's not just the difference in sexual permission and guilt that creates a bit of an "extra hurdle" for women seeking arousal and orgasm. It is also the lack of quality, arousing, orgasmic, sexual experiences offered women over time; for instance having intercourse but with no orgasm (i.e. a sexual encounter does not equal orgasm or pleasure in the same way it does for most men) or seeing mostly female bodies as sexualized instead of male bodies (so hetero women not having the same history of arousal related to the male body as hetero men have with female bodies). Anyway, I think a big criticism of M&J's therapy work is that their understanding of society's sexual gender inequality seems to be mostly limited to 'men are allowed sexual permission and women are not so much.' They, in my opinion, almost never acknowledge the role that gender inequality plays in creating a vast set of sexual situations experienced by women that are either unarousing, unorgasmic, frustrating, physically painful, abusive, or unwanted - in a way they would rarely be for men. These sets of experiences give women a more complicated relationship to arousal, orgasm, and sexual situations. I imagine M&J don't speak much about it because a cultural obsession with intercourse as the end all be all of sex is a huge part of this gender inequality problem and they are super complicit in that...and may not be able to see past it.]
  • Playboy asks about some non committed partners they threw together in the lab (all the homosexual couples in the study were committed partners to match the committed partners in the heterosexual studies), and female orgasm was mentioned. Masters noted that there was double the orgasm failure rate for these newbie couples, and was talking about why. He says, "Intercourse was just mutual-masturbation exercise for the assigned couples. The males were experienced and had good ejaculatory control, so the females usually had time to respond orgasmically —but not always. With each partner concentrating on his or her own needs, there was not much communication or cooperation between strangers. They were not all that involved." 
    • [ME: I want to point out here that M&J are uber-focused on women having orgasms during intercourse, but they never claim that a woman could have orgasms from the penis stimulating the inside of the vagina - in fact, quite the opposite. They are clear in Human Sexual Response that either direct or indirect stimulation to the external clitoral glans area is the reason for female orgasms during intercourse. They go so far as to claim that its possible for the penis, during thrusting, to pull on the labia, which pulls on the clitoral hood, which rubs against the clitoral glans with each thrust - their kinda infamous Rube-Goldberg Explanation. My point is that they always say "during" intercourse, which I believe is a slick way of acknowledging that female orgasm does not arise from intercourse (the penis stimulating the vagina), but also not clearly stating that intercourse itself is shit way to get a woman off. They need to be slick about that, I assume, because giving the impression their studies show intercourse to be lacking as a means for lady-gasms (which is actually the accurate impression one should get from their studies)  is not what people want to hear and probably not what their donors want to hear. Intercourse as a foundation of heterosexual activity is something that society as well as M&J, quite perplexingly, strongly and sometimes irrationally hold to. So, with that said, it also seems like M&J are not blind to the outcomes of their own studies, and that's why, I believe, they are careful to always talk about female orgasm during intercourse not from it. Thus, I do think that "during" opens the door to a lot of possibilities. Lady-gasms could arise from a number of things as long as there's a dick in the vagina while it's happening - vibrator on the clit area during, manual simulation from either partner during, grinding the clit area against the man's pelvis during. The mention of the men's ejaculatory control in the quote above, I don't believe indicates that their dicks made the women come because they could pump it into their vaginas for a long time. From my understanding of M&J's methods, I believe it more likely means that these men could continue the intercourse long enough so that their female partner could create an orgasm for herself while he was still inside her - thus assuring it was a "during" intercourse orgasm even though the woman maybe could have done it much more easily if his dick wasn't inside her.]

'Great American Formula for Sex' - "A kiss on the lips, a hand on the breasts and a dive for the pelvis." - Masters
Masters: "Some 80 percent of the men made love in the missionary position. They mounted the female as soon as they had an erection and as soon as they thought the partner was ready. Usually, they decided that she was ready when she was obviously lubricated.

Playboy: "Is that incorrect?" 
[ME: Yes, mothafucker, it is incorrect. As soon as a lady shows physical arousal, ya do intercourse on her? The most shittiest sex act for ladygasms there is? The man gets a nice warm encompassing hole to fully stimulate his organ of orgasm, but her organ of orgasm (the clit) just hangs out in the wind while a dude pumps an orgasm out in her vagina? Yeah, that is incorrect because it sucks, ya ass.

Johnson: "Well, in theory, you might say it is true. Vaginal lubrication for the woman is essentially a counterpart of erection in the male. Ah, but it doesn’t stop there. I’m really going to tread in water I
normally try to avoid, because we generally represent only on a same-sex basis — but I’m going to suggest the very real possibility that a man with an erection is not always a man who is ready for intercourse. Is that reasonable?"

Playboy: "Certainly."

Johnson: "OK, so that’s the point being made here. The woman may demonstrate physiological or
anatomical readiness. But it’s a mistake to assume that because she is physically prepared, she has also arrived at the point of emotional or even spiritual receptivity." 
[ME: or that she even wants to get banged instead of doing something focused on her clit. I mean, she might wants to, like the man she's with, have a sweet orgasm without having the extra hurdle of working around a penis pumping into her - but I digress
"So often the man makes this assumption, penetrates and immediately sets the pattern of thrusting. She is even further distracted by the task of accommodating to the depth, frequency and the force of the man’s thrusting action before she ever establishes awareness of her own responsiveness. Although she ultimately may be orgasmic, her level of subjective involvement may remain low and her sense of satisfaction minimal. There is a high risk of hostility toward the partner developing in such a situation." 
[ME: Johnson is being very measured here, but in my mind, I'm hearing her say, 'when women are having sex all the time where they just get mounted as soon as they get wet, then she probably won't orgasm most if not any of the time, and sex is gonna start feeling really sucky, and she's gonna wanna tell you to go straight to hell next time you bring it up, but she might do it out of guilt and she will eventually resent the fuck out of you.' Johnson, methinks, is describing many a marriage out there -even to this day 40 some years later.]

Masters: "The man sets the thrusting pattern in almost every act of intercourse we observed where the
woman was supine." [ME: aka  - on her back]

Johnson: "There’s a drumbeat out there that continues to beat a single message: The male is the sex expert. As a woman, you must always follow his lead or you will destroy him. Add, 'Intercourse is the be-all and end-all of sexual expression' and you have the number-one basis for sexual boredom and disappointment in a relationship." 
[ME: Again, this is the weird part about M&J, and particularly J - I feel like they so clearly know that intercourse is not the ideal way to set a woman up for orgasm during sexual activity. Yet, they spend so much of their research, and therapy work in particular, talking about how to make sure women can orgasm during it. In one way, I think maybe they are just old fashioned and biased and can't get away from the overarching feeling that intercourse is important and women were meant to orgasm during it. On the other hand, I wonder if they know that sex for women is better when intercourse is merely a side dish at best (see below), but feel that because the society is so deeply stuck on it, and so often people want help in getting women orgasms during it, that focusing on how women can orgasm while there is a penis inside her is more valuable than trying to flip all of sexual culture on its head. I also do feel that they are careful about not seeming too radical given that their research work is edgy and largely funded by grants.]

Playboy: "One of the sacred tenets of marriage manuals is that if you engage in enough foreplay, everything will be all right in the end. Did you find that to be so?"

Masters: "I don’t even like the term foreplay. It sounds like something less than important or meaningful. Dividing sexual response into stages is a necessity for the scientific observer, but sex partners who do the same thing make the human experience a goal-oriented performance. In so doing, a woman’s capacity for spontaneous responsivity especially is victimized."

Playboy: "How?"

Masters: "We found that when we requested a woman and a man in the lab to engage in, let’s say, genital touching or cunnilingus, the woman tended to lubricate freely, in direct proportion to the amount of stimulation she was receiving. However, when on another occasion we asked the same couple to engage in intercourse and, as part of the total process, the man engaged in the same activities — genital touching or cunnilingus — the woman frequently did not lubricate as freely, in direct proportion to the amount of stimulation she was receiving." 
[ME: Again, this shit is what I'm talking about. 1. Despite their otherwise intercourse-obsessiveness, I do think M&J see the problems with intercourse and female orgasm. 2. for real though - that observation is super interesting and to me feels completely sensible and predictable because that type of reaction relates back to a woman's previous experiences. When she knows intercourse is happening, she also (likely) knows from experience that the pleasure and/or orgasm will be spotty at best, and her body reacts accordingly to that mediocre future laying ahead of her. If she knows intercourse is off the table, her past experiences of non intercourse sex are quite possibly way more filled with pleasure and/or orgasm and her body, again, responds accordingly to the much more exciting future laying in front of her]

Johnson: "Because she or they interpreted the request as specifically oriented to the goal of
orgasmic attainment and the other pleasurable activities became merely 'foreplay.'” 

Playboy: "You seem to be saying that if you want to see a woman live up to her natural potential, don’t have intercourse. Do everything but."

Johnson: "No, just don’t have intercourse to the exclusion of undemanding, enjoyable intimacy." 
[Me: I'd like to think that what Johnson really wanted to say there was, 'Yes.']

From there they all vaguely discuss how to structure a sex life with a woman where intercourse isn't the main topic; an evening where it's off the table, many evenings of exploration, or just always explore and improvise without a determined goal. Then Playboy asks...

Playboy: "Is it possible that the homosexual couples you observed — because they were not under any
pressure to have intercourse — were better able to enjoy themselves?"

Masters: "Certainly. They give more of themselves to these activities — masturbation, fellatio, cunnilingus— because it is the only thing they have. Even when we told heterosexual women that cunnilingus was the point of the evening, they were so unused to it as a pleasurable end in itself that they initially did not get particularly involved."

Playboy: "Do you have any explanation as to why heterosexuals seemed so unimaginative? For example, 'the kiss on the lips, hand on the breast, dive for the pelvis' may be boring — but we have
it on good authority that 'a kiss on the lips, a hand on the breast, a dive for the pelvis, plus a piece of ice' can be astonishing." 
[ME: Listen this dude that's interviewing is a real piece of work. What is he even sayin here? A piece of ice? Is he a Cosmo sex advice column come to life?]

Masters: "I think heterosexual couples have too many social protocols that they feel they should follow. I’m sure there are many homosexual protocols as well, but they certainly aren’t depicted by the general media as heterosexual guidelines are. So, as I see it, if you don’t have a scenario, you tend to improvise more." 
[ME: And...I think 'social protocols' mostly means thinking sex isn't sex unless there is intercourse, and everything else is a lead up to it. That shit is deep in us and needs to GO.]

Then the interviewer is all like, but aren't gays following a script because one is the man and the other is the woman? And M&J, are like, "No. Not at all."

controversy about conversion therapy in Homosexuality in Perspective
  • At this point M&J are asked about the controversy from this book in the gay community (conversion therapy and the belief that homosexuality is largely environmental). M&J defend themselves by saying they never treated it as a disease and only helped people who wanted it. [Me: As of now, I've never actually read Homosexuality in Perspective, so I don't have much to go on. If you're interested, though, there's probably great criticisms of the therapy in this book out there.]
  • Masters reveals that they had originally thought they would release a report about the physiology of homosexual arousal and orgasm along with a report on heterosexual physiology of arousal and orgasm, but they discovered that there simply was not a physiological difference between hetero and homosexual bodily response, and so it could all be contained in Human Sexual Response without breaking it into 2 reports.
  • The questions turn to the selection of participants, and Masters notes that "All of the subjects had to be able to respond to self-stimulation, mutual stimulation and either fellatio or cunnilingus. In addition, the heterosexual subjects had to be able to respond effectively during intercourse."
  • When asked if ability to respond was measured by capacity for orgasm, Masters say, "Yes, although we certainly acknowledge that sexual proficiency is not synonymous with orgasmic responsiveness. Sexual gratification, sexual maturity and sexual interest are phenomena that must be considered somewhat apart from orgasmic attainment — or orgasmic failure — alone. But our ability to document orgasm as a precise, definable physiological event made it a useful form of measurement."

more on intercourse
Playboy: "How did your subjects perform during intercourse?"

Masters: "Couples failed to achieve orgasm only three percent of the time. And that small failure rate was still four times greater than the failure rate for masturbation, fellatio/cunnilingus or partner manipulation." 

Playboy: "But isn’t that an astonishingly successful rate? It has been suggested that your study is biased in favor of sexual superstars, as if you were writing a book on running after interviewing the top five finishers in the Boston Marathon."

Masters: "I think that’s very fair criticism, but if you want to know what happens, you generally will have to work with those it happens to. We have been studying people who were selected for functional ability in a laboratory setting. We haven’t the vaguest idea of what happens at night, in the dark, under the covers, in the privacy of people’s homes."

Johnson: "There is another reason for studying functional people. To ask an individual who has any
history of sexual problems to perform in a lab would be unthinkable. The pressure and potential for
trauma could be enormous."

Playboy: "Even the superstars, however, did not do as well during intercourse as they did when
experiencing the other forms of stimulation — masturbation, manipulation or oral sex. Does that suggest that intercourse is vastly overrated as a form of pleasure?"

Masters: "If you think about it, the three types of stimulation you just mentioned occur in a my-turn/your-turn situation, whether practiced by homosexuals or by heterosexuals. In masturbation, one is setting one’s own pace, and one is obviously acutely aware of one’s own needs and levels of response. Preferred techniques of stimulation are used as desired. When one is being manipulated by a partner, it’s still a my-turn/your-turn situation, which, with good communication, can work very well. The same thing is true for fellatio/cunnilingus. One partner can focus his or her entire attention on the other and get some sense of what works — through good communication, same-sex empathy or because of familiarity with your response pattern. But in intercourse, we have two people trying to function simultaneously. Inevitably, that is more difficult. There is more opportunity for failure when two people are involved in routine sexual interaction than when responding on a my-turn/your-turn basis. The catch is that the culture says that intercourse is the be-all and end-all of sexual expression." 
[ME: What he's also forgetting to mention is that the act of intercourse, in and of itself, is enough to give the kind of stimulation that could easily get a penis off. The penis is encompassed by definition during intercourse and that is the type of stimulation males give themselves while masturbating. It is not, however, in and of itself an act that gives females the type of stimulation they need to orgasm - the type of simulation they need during masturbation. The penis gets stimulation. The vaginal canal gets stimulation, but the vaginal canal is not the organ of orgasm for females. The clitoral glans area is, and that is not a necessary part of intercourse. It might happen, and probably only if it is intentionally added...and only in a way that also continues to allow they penis to stay in the vagina, so it's limited and that's important to remember, and frankly it's crazy that M&J do not say that outright all the time...because it's undoubtedly true and clearly M&J  have some understanding of that idea.]

Playboy: "Aren’t those forms of stimulation subject to the charge of “servicing” one’s partner rather than finding sex mutually pleasurable?" 
[ME: mothafucker please, if allowing your innards to be rammed into with little to no opportunity for your own pleasure organ to be stimulated isn't a 'service' - I don't know what is. The (unfortunately deeply common but incredibly incorrect) idea that intercourse is the utmost of mutually pleasurable sex acts - that it is anywhere near as orgasmic for the female as it is for the male - is at the root of so many cultural and individual sexual problems.]

Masters: "Well, the answer to that is yes. But intercourse can be mere service, too. It is still true in this
country, let alone in the rest of the world. Intercourse is a service. There are infinitely more times that the female is used for service than the female and male are together as full partners in intercourse. That is true wherever you have a double-standard society. And that’s most of the world."

anal sex
Playboy: "Perhaps the one notion that most heterosexuals have about gays centers on anal sex. It is generally assumed that it is the gay equivalent to intercourse. Did you observe that behavior in the lab?"

Masters: "For the homosexual men we were working with, it wasn’t the primary means of sexual release, although anal sex was frequently experienced."

Playboy: "But you studied it, didn’t you?"

Masters: 'With a few subjects: five homosexual and seven heterosexual couples."

Playboy: "What did you find?"

Masters: "We asked each of the homosexual and heterosexual couples to engage in anal intercourse on two occasions. We noticed an interesting physiological response. Upon initial penetration, there was
discomfort, for some partners approximately half the time, but then the sphincter would relax. After full
penetration was obtained, there was no further evidence of discomfort. Once thrusting began, the sphincter would reverse its relaxation pattern and constrict tightly around the shaft of the penis."

Playboy: "Did the partners find anal intercourse pleasurable?"

Masters: "The female recipients reached orgasmic levels of sexual excitation on 11 of 14 occasions; there were three instances of multiorgasmic experience. The male recipients did not respond in a similar fashion. In ten episodes, there were only two instances of male orgasm, and in both of those instances, the men were masturbating while they were mounted rectally." 
[ME: Maybe this is my bias, but I'm skeptical as hell, or at least I would like to know more. Since he said the men were masturbating, he's insinuating the women definitely were not. How were they recording/observing the orgasms? This finding of anal sex lady-gasms wasn't in Human Sexual Response, their foundational work on the physiology of arousal and orgasm, and the mechanism of a penis stimulating the inside of the anus is not a mechanism that seems likely to engage the external clitoral glans on its own - which is something M&J say needs to happen for female orgasm. It also seems to indicate that there is a specific difference in male and female sexual response - since none of the men and almost all of the women did orgasm from anal stimulation alone - and a major foundation of M&J's research in Human Sexual Response was that males and females were more the same than different when it came to sexual response. This seems like a HUGE revelation about female orgasm, and they seem so casual about it. That makes me wonder. Is it possible M&J were just taking the women's word for it? Or did they actually record and measure the involuntary rhythmic contractions of orgasm in these women during anal sex? I'd like to think they did, but I also think if they did discover something so new and interesting, they would be careful to talk about how they made this revelation. Like I said, I'd like to know more. I'm skeptical.]

Playboy: "That finding runs against the common myth — it reverses the stereotype that anal sex is the sole right of gays. Women enjoy it, too?"

Johnson: "Some women enjoy it." 
[ME: I feel like I can imagine her saying this, and she's kinda skeptical as well and emphasizing the word 'some']

lady-gasms (mostly Johnson's bonkers discussion of lady-gasms)
Playboy: "Let’s take this opportunity to review the basics. You stated that during intercourse, the clitoris receives indirect stimulation. There are many women who say that may be true for others but not for them. What do you say?"

Johnson: "The clitoris does not require direct stimulation or contact. The total body is a potentially erotic 'organ.' It is very possible to choose a completely asexual part of the anatomy and develop it as the source of sexual stimulation to orgasm. There can be back-of-the-neck orgasms, bottom-of-the-foot
orgasms and palm-of-the-hand orgasms."

Playboy: "Our readers may be acquainted with that last kind." 
[ME: hilarious masturbation joke, dude.]

Johnson: "I grew up in the country, where little kids learn that it’s very sexy to play with the palm of a
hand. It has to do with nerve endings, in terms of the sensuous susceptibility of certain parts of the
anatomy over others. Similarly, the clitoris is a unique organ, insofar as we know it has no other purpose than receiving or transmitting sexual pleasure. It is certainly very responsive to stimulation, and it is possible for a woman to develop that response to a level of dependency, because she knows it works and she doesn’t know that anything else works. Those women who have not responded in intercourse after having developed real orgasmic effectiveness by stimulation of the clitoris, either by self or by partner —but who expected direct transposition of this successful response pattern to intercourse — can be very disappointed or disillusioned about their presumed 'inadequacy.'” 
[ME: Sorry? Is doing sexy things to your palm some kind of country child thing that I've never heard of or is she spouting of some bonkers assertions?]

Playboy: "Let’s get this straight. First, there was the debate about clitoral versus vaginal orgasms. Your notion is that all orgasms are clitoral orgasms, or rather, all orgasms are total-body orgasms. All this can get a little confusing." 
[ME: Okay - I'm actually with this dude on this one. I feel like M&J had a clear message that all orgasms were clitoral when they were talking about their actual observations and research in the early years. They were quite clear and specific about it (and M&J were not talking about the 'inner clitoral legs' as causing orgasms through vaginal penetration which is unsubstantiated but so popular to talk about now. M&J understood the immense size of the inner clitoris, but are speaking of the externally accessible clit. I got a whole post on the current misunderstandings about the 'inner clit if you want to read more). Now here Johnson is spouting confusing things without also backing those statements up (like whatever she just said about total body, back of the neck and palm of the hand orgasms). I have never seen their research indicating they observed 'back of the neck' orgasms.  Why would they just throw that out there. It seems truly bonkers]

Johnson: "Freud postulated that if a woman could not be stimulated to orgasm by intercourse, she was sexually immature. He carried it rather far. This is not to indict Freudian concepts in general. His
incredible genius was getting answers one women at a time when it was highly inappropriate for women to express themselves sexually. Freud also was a man whose interpretations must have had a lot to do with his personal life. To make matters more difficult, his perceptions and his theories have often been taken out of context by those who treasure a single concept and defend it as the only way —the Word." 
[ME: so she didn't respond to his confusion at all and just talked about Freud.]

Playboy: "We just read an abstract from the Third International Congress of Medical Sexology in which a sexologist claims there are clitoral, vaginal and uterine orgasms."

Johnson: "Oh, Saint Christopher! The amount of garbage in this field, and the number of people without credibility! Of course, the uterus responds with orgasm — if the woman responding has a uterus. Every other part of her system responds in some fashion as well. The variables are in degree of involvement and intensity and in subjective perception. There aren’t a dozen people in this field who know what they are talking about in terms of the nature of human sexual response. No. Make that 24." 
[ME: Okay, but she still didn't address his confusion. She spouted off about all these different types of orgasms - palm, neck, etc.. Then the interviewer was like, I'm confused, I thought you all said there were just clitoral. Then she was like, Freud didn't get it right. Then he was like, some people say there are vaginal, clitoral and uterine orgasms, and she goes off like that's a crazy statement...but her back of the neck orgasms weren't??]

Masters: "You’re stretching it." 
[ME: I love it. I bet they talk such shit about other sex researchers and writers. I wish I could have been a fly on the wall in their office.]

Johnson: "There are many people out there in the world who have made their own sexual self-discoveries who have infinitely better sexual insights than so many people who presumably are researching the subject."

Playboy: "We’ve heard of doctors who claim that they can cure an inorgasmic woman by surgically
realigning the clitoris. Is there any basis to that claim?"

Johnson: "Don’t ask me!"

Playboy: "We’re asking you."

Johnson: "I have such a violent response to that that I don’t even want to publicize it. For God’s sake, this is where I become a radical feminist in every sense of the word. By the way, I’m aware of the strategy of ignoring something inconsequential until it dies a natural death, but I find it difficult to invoke with this issue. That a man determines what is wrong with female anatomical design and a few silly women say “It’s so wonderful” sets us back 50 years. My husband will not criticize other doctors, but as a woman, I cannot sit still and give you a benign smile when you ask me that question. If someone, as an individual, wants surgical modification of anatomy that is neither malformed nor diseased, fine. But for someone to promote a male-oriented, male-originated concept of what women can or cannot do without this surgical intervention — it’s taking gross advantage of the layperson’s vulnerability." 
[ME: Get at it, Virginia! I mean, she's right. Clits work. They cause orgasm when the right stimulation is applied. They just don't work at causing orgasms very often during intercourse, which is where the surgical realignment of the clit comes from - moving it closer to the vaginal hole so she can orgasm during intercourse (it doesn't work btw). It's like surgically messing with your tongue because you can't taste things when you rub them on your chin. It's not malfunctioning, you're just not using it right.]

Playboy: "In Human Sexual Response, you suggest that women are potentially multi orgasmic. Yet
according to The Hite Report, as many as 70 percent of the women in America are unable to reach
orgasm during intercourse. How do you respond to such findings?"

Johnson: "Such reports are very mixed blessings. There are a lot of simple truths that can be distorted by poor interpretation of such reports. They do not reveal the capacity or potential for woman’s sexual
response. They only reveal the prevailing condition of generations of women taught to deny their sexual
feelings and needs or to pretend they didn’t exist. That is the disservice of such reports. On a more
positive side, they do let a woman know she is not alone in her inability to reach orgasm with intercourse. Unfortunately, they strike a note of discouragement at the same time by failing to indicate
the realistic expectations she can have for reconditioning a pattern of inorgasmia with intercourse. I’m especially concerned for the woman who might ultimately have discovered this for herself had she not accepted the discouraging interpretations as fact." 
[ME: See, I'm almost with her on this. Yes, there is often a distortion between what women do and what the potential is (clits work - you just have to use them well), and yes lots of women don't orgasm with intercourse - and it's good to know you're not alone. However, then she starts talking about how women could basically figure out how to orgasm during intercourse. I mean yes it's possible for women to orgasm during intercourse (rub the clit against something while you're getting fucked), but why do women need to learn to orgasm during a situation that is by nature really hard to orgasm in??? Why can't we just not obsess about intercourse so much. M&J's sex therapy practice is so pathetically focused on making sure women in couples can orgasm while the dude is inside her instead of simply focusing on how each person orgasms and then helping them mold their sexual activity to each partner's needs. M&J can't seem to stop forcing women's orgasms into the societal box of intercourse even though, I swear, they know better.]

Playboy: "There are some women who experience something that they aren’t certain is an orgasm. How do you treat that situation in therapy?"

Johnson: "It’s possible that a woman is orgasmic and doesn’t know it, but I don’t think you can make this judgment for or against such an occurrence unless you have a good definitive history from her about what she thinks orgasm is. One way to further evaluate what she thinks it is is to find out how she came to think about it. Did she read about orgasm? Did somebody tell her? From where did she draw her conclusions? I usually move away from direct questioning at that point and suggest that we talk about her sexual feelings and how they began. We start with the early memory of genital feelings, physical feelings. Then we move in general terms to the circumstances under which they occurred, and then I try to establish her sense of intensity of feelings. Then I try to place these things in an update of her present relationship or present opportunities to respond to some kind of sexual stimulation. Then I want to find out in that whole course of history-taking the kinds of things that she considers stimulating and exciting, romanticized or technical or mechanical or whatever. I want to know where she’s at, what her own base lines are to the extent that she can be disarmed into discovering them for herself. Then with that matrix of knowing how she thinks of herself — sensually in other settings at other times —we go into the circumstance she’s describing: “I don’t know whether I’m orgasmic or not.” Finally, we can kind of measure one against the other.

Playboy: "You sound like you’re describing the ideal fantasy evening." 
[ME: Am I the only one that thinks this dude is giving a creeper vibe?]

Johnson: "In the past 20 years, we’ve observed several women who were able to reach orgasm through
fantasy alone — utilizing none of the other components." 
[ME: Yet they don't describe these fantasy-only orgasms in either Human Sexual Response (they specifically say they haven't observed this in this book) or Human Sexual Inadequacy. Why? Wouldn't that be a cool revelation to report?...Also, I don't really think the dude was asking her about fantasy orgasms. I think he was just saying that getting a woman's sexual history was a fantasy evening of his, right? or am I reading that wrong?]

Playboy: "OK, given these ingredients, how would you suggest that a couple deal personally with the
problem of the nonorgasmic female?"

Masters: "Seek professional help if trying together has reached an apparent stalemate. Your best friend or your partner may be your worst therapist. In the past few years, we’ve been getting a lot of
cases of sexual aversion. This is a reaction to sexual activity, or more often to the anticipation of sexual
activity of phobic proportion. It may manifest itself as an incredible level of anxiety, dread or revulsion — even as vomiting, diarrhea, palpitation or even momentary loss of consciousness.

Playboy: "What are the causes of such violent aversion?" 
[ME: probably a lifetime of terrible orgasmsless sex and a dude that's obsessed with making you like it or more specifically making you come using his dick which isn't ever going to work- or you know, something like that.]

Johnson: "Many things. With some frequency, we are encountering women who develop sexual aversion when their partner decides to teach them how to have an orgasm during intercourse. Mind you, I am talking of a woman who has had no background of sexual disinterest or dysfunction but who enters a relationship where she and her partner become interested in her orgasmic response. She has not been consistently orgasmic or with the desired frequency, and her partner feels that she could — or should — be doing better. They start working on this and sooner or later their efforts become just that— work. Not infrequently, the male partner considers her response to be the measure of his own sexual effectiveness. The removal of the pleasure aspect eventually leaves her simply afraid, to the point at which she has become nauseated or otherwise aversive at the mere thought of sex."


faking
Masters: "Sexual fakery is an escape hatch, a pattern of behavior that offers the illusion of
self-protection. The heterosexual woman who fakes an orgasm would be an instance of sexual fakery. Another example is the homosexual man who is impotent, and therefore always plays the role of the stimulator and insists that he has no interest in receiving pleasure. Usually, this sexual fakery is identified. In the long range, it is rarely anything but deleterious to the individual who practices it."

Playboy: "How does a homosexual woman practice sexual fakery?"

Masters: "In the same way the heterosexual woman does, pretending orgasm. We gave an example in the text of a woman who had engaged in homosexual behavior for ten or twelve years without achieving orgasmic release. Her partners began to complain that it took such a long time for her to respond, so finally she started faking an orgasm."

Playboy: "Does that make it more difficult for her to reach a genuine climax?"

Masters: "It can. A woman who pretends an orgasm generally tends to do so to remove herself as quickly as possible from the sexual interaction because she presumes there’s nothing in it for her. From then on, her chances of ultimately achieving orgasm are significantly diminished, for lack of opportunity and perhaps because she ceases to become involved sensually."

Playboy: "Have you read the foreword to Kurt Vbnnegut Jr.’s Mother Night, in which he warns:
'We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be'?"

Masters: "That’s a good understanding of the problem. People who are sexual fakers begin to identify
with the image they project. It makes it quite difficult to get to the root of the problem. Once they admit the fakery not only to the therapist but to their committed partner, if one exists, the therapist is well along the road toward helping them. But not until then."

Playboy: "Did any of your subjects try to fake an orgasm in the lab?"

Masters: "On occasion, but it was very easy to tell. The polygraph needle always gave them away." 
[ME: This is a super interesting question and response because one of the most egregious problems in female orgasm research is that most often the researchers don't verify the orgasms that the subjects claim to have had through detection of the involuntary pelvic muscle contractions that occur during orgasm. The truth is M&J are too secretive sometimes about their exact methodology, but they do make it clear that they identify orgasm in females by filming the vaginal opening muscles close up or sometimes using a specialty camera inside a clear dildo they call Cyclops to see the muscular contraction inside the vagina. Now scientists that do verify orgasms use new technology like anal probes that measure the muscular contractions. However, here Masters says there were those that tried to fake, but they could always tell by the 'polygraph needle.' Curious because that indicates in these cases they weren't checking for orgasm through what their previous research describes as the indicator of orgasm - the involuntary pelvic muscle contractions. Instead he said 'polygraph needle,' which could mean 1 of 2 things and neither of them seem valid as orgasm verifications to me. 1. Polygraph as in lie detector - as in they asked the person about it during a lie detector test. Lie detectors are notoriously incorrect, and you can't really be lying if you really believed you orgamsed...and I truly believe a lot of women that 'fake' during intercourse don't feel like fakers. They believe that what is going on is an orgasm even if it is just intense arousal or a mentally intense sensation. 2. Polygraph to Masters could simply mean detection of heartrate, breathing, blood pressure or skin conductivity, or all of the above. Those are things M&J also recorded in their research, and they are good indicators of physiological arousal, but not of orgasm. M&J in their research (and in no other research I'm aware of since) cannot identify through those measurements the difference between high arousal and orgasm. One needs to identify the muscle contractions to identify when high arousal moves into orgasm. I don't think Masters is a guy that is imprecise with his words, and I also know from M&J's own words that not all the tests were done for every sex act in the lab. Some were focused on skin changes, other blood pressure, others the muscular contractions or ejaculation. So this really makes me think that M&J may have done some experimentation that did not observe the pelvic muscle reactions to verify orgasm correctly, yet they took the women's word for whether they had an orgasm or not...probably if they felt like the breathing, BP, HR, etc. i.e. the 'polygraph needle' indicated they got to high arousal. That would mean they only called BS on the women that didn't get very aroused and claimed orgasm. That is a huge problem in my mind because females faking orgasm is a real thing that happens and there's no reason to think a women that gets highly aroused couldn't still fake (or really believe) an orgasm. That kind of scientific oversight can greatly skew results.]

trying not to seem too radical
Playboy: "Earlier, you mentioned that a critic had said that love was never mentioned in Human Sexual Response. Neither, perhaps more surprisingly, was oral sex. Why?"

Masters: "We didn’t study oral sex in the original research project because we didn’t have the courage.
We were running scared in terms of opportunity to finish the work. We had gambled our professional careers undertaking the investigation of human sexual physiology. Had we been stopped by the university authorities before we had something significant to talk about — where would we have gone from there?
[ME: I like to think this is the same reason they focus so strongly on the need for women to be able to orgasm during intercourse...because they don't want to be seen as too radical]

Playboy: "Reduced to a life of private practice?"

Masters: "At best; I might well have been thrown off the listing of a specialist society, even taken off the A.M.A. rolls or brought up for censure before the licensing board for moral misconduct. Those things could have happened."