Good Luck To You, Leo Grande: The SSL Review

Share

Tweet

Good Luck To You, Leo Grande

To begin, I do recommend this movie, and it will get a good SSL Review - just FYI. This movie is about Nancy Stokes (Emma Thompson), a late middle aged woman, who hires Leo Grande (Daryl McCormack), a male prostitute, 2 years after her husband dies. She reveals (early in the move - I'm not spoiling anything) that she had never been with anyone sexually but her husband, never had anything but basic missionary intercourse, and never orgasmed. She wants to do some of these things she's never done. Clearly, this is a movie of interest for an SSL Review.

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).

The Orgasm Scene

So, I don't think telling you about her journey towards orgasm will spoil this movie, but if you like to know nothing about a movie before you watch, I suggest you check it out and then read this review...because I do recommend you watch this movie. I will overall try not to reveal too much, though.

Long story short, she does orgasm. She does it by herself with her own hand. She is lying on her back after a variety of sensual and arousing but not orgasmic (for her) sexual acts with Leo. He gets up to get a drink and a sex toy that "usually works" to help aid her in trying to come. We know it's a vibrator because he calls it the little buzzer, and we see the little thing later when he turns around after finding it. It's buzzing in his hand. 

But back to her situations. When he goes to get the buzzer she tells him no need. She thinks she's done. She's laying there all flushed and exhausted-looking from the sex they were having, but then she starts watching his naked body and moves her hand sensually down her chest to rub her vulva area. There's not a lot of detail here - and we can't specifically see what her hand is doing, in fact we don't even get much indications through shoulder movement. It is obvious that she is not doing a penetration, in and out type movement though. It's an on-the-vulva, not an in-the-vagina situation. It's about 11 seconds from when she gets to her vulva to when she comes, and when she comes, I think it’s clear that she does so. However, we don't see the wild vocalization and movement that is so common of orgasm depiction in women (but not men). Instead, it's a head back, intake of air and quick breath out, and then a stillness. There's a quiet intensity and focus that feels very real to me. 

The Good Stuff

If you know this blog, you know I'm incredibly happy with this depiction. Here are the 4 major reasons why - in true overly explainy SSL fashion.

1 No one 'gave' her a first orgasm. I love this because I think it’s incredibly important we see more depictions of women figuring out their own orgasm. We need to normalize this because it's really a must if a woman is to become an active, experienced and knowledgeable party to an orgasm with a partner. Ladies need to be their own first partners, just as men need to be their own first partners (and they tend to be - way more often than women). 

Now, a first faked orgasm or a first I'm-assuming-this-is-when-I'm-supposed-to-orgasm-so-I'm-gonna-go-with-it orgasmy sounding vocalization...well, those I assume are almost always with a partner. However, a first physical orgasm (the rhythmic release of pelvic muscle tension that both males and females and all in between have during orgasm) – those do tend to be home grown just as Nancy's was in this movie. I mean, it's not unheard of for a woman's first physical orgasm to be because someone else was stimulating her, but it's certainly not common (Check out all the women's stories in The Hite Report), and it’s BS that we so often see it that way in all kinds of media from porn to romance novels to TV.

Constantly seeing ladies be ‘given’ that first orgasm is an unrealistic and ultimately harmful way to depict a lady’s first orgasm. It sends the message that women are not in control of their bodies or desire or arousal; that they are a vessel waiting for male sexuality to awaken them; that their orgasm is given instead of taken. 

And as selfish as it sounds, having orgasms is an active process from the orgasmer. A collaborative interaction with a partner could move that experience more towards a sort of 'given' orgasm, but it would, I think, be rare for the receiver to be a completely passive recipient. Plus, if a person does not know what their body needs before working on their orgasm through collaboration with a partner, it would be real unlikely they just happened into the movement and stimulation needed to get themselves there. More likely, they helped get themselves there with some experience and knowledge of how their body needs to move and what needs to be touched in what ways. We expect this active participation in orgasm from men, and we should expect it from women as well. 

Depicting first-orgasm scenarios for ladies thorugh masturbation instead of through the actions of a partner is a solid step in the right directions. Well done, this movie. 

2 The physical actions happening during the orgasm could sensibly and realistically be assumed to cause orgasm in an actual lady. Basically, there’s a hand on the vulva. We didn’t see the detailed movements, but that’s the basic way the majority of women masturbate to orgasm (again check out The Hite Report among almost every other study on how women orgasm). It’s important to see ladies orgasming through stimulation of the outer vulva/clitoral area because that is basically THE way physically recorded female orgasms have happened to date in all of scientific literature. Although there are so many depictions of women orgasming from penetration by a partner, it’s just not something that has ever actually been observed to cause orgasm. For real. 

I will say I'm not surprised they did the physical masturbation realistically. In general movie and TV depictions of female masturbation does tend to be realistic - with outer clitoral/vulva stimulation, so the realism in Nancy's masturbation technique isn’t particularly surprising or revolutionary, but it’s still nice. Honestly, it’s orgasm with a partner where media depictions fuck up. Besides a sprinkling of cunnilingus scenes, which I'm all for and are usually not bonkers ridiculous, partner lady-gasm depictions generally fall back into showing penetration making ladies come - just your basic not-clit-touching in and out. It is a rare situation where you see active stimulation of the clit during penetration, which is a damn shame because it's a quite sensible way for a lady to come with a partner. I always point that out because, man, I’d love to see more of that clit stim during a banging in my media. 

Also, I don't think this is an unrealistic depiction in this situation, but I should speak to how fast it is from the time she starts stimulating herself to the orgasm - we're talking around 11 seconds. I realize in TV and movies, time-to-orgasm is always a bit quick just because they aren't usually trying to waste a bunch of time showing the process. 11 seconds is quick though - but only if you are going from zero to orgasm in that time - from absolutely unaroused to popping off. This is because the building blocks of orgasm are in creating that physical arousal in the body, the pelvic muscle tension and blood congestion that the orgasm physically releases. One needs a little time for that, but only a few minutes, really. Averages in studies usually come out somewhere between 3 and 10 minutes. In Human Sexual Response, Masters and Johnson found that men and women masturbate to orgasm in around the same time - women averaged a bit longer but only a minute or two. Subsequent studies found similar results including this study that didn't find any significant difference in duration of self-stimulation between men and woman.

So, I'm saying she realistically only needed a few minutes to get from zero to orgasm. However, she was not at zero. She had just had a lot of sexual things, including cunnilingus, happen to her. She could very likely be almost to the edge of arousal, ready to drop off into orgasm. She was also flushed on her neck and chest when she moved that hand down. I'm assuming that was an intentional make-up choice on the set because for more light skinned people, a visible-to-the-naked-eye 'sex-flush' often occurs on the neck and chest. It would indicate heavy arousal. Point is, with all that was happening in this scenario, 11 seconds of direct clitoral stimulation doesn't seem too short a time for her to get to orgasm from where she was starting.  

Anyway, all that to say that someone watching this move and trying to figure out how they themselves might make themselves actually come, would not be led in a incorrect direction (as they would with a penetration orgasm depiction), and I appreciate that.

3 She didn't scream and shout and moan and move around all wild and sexy like. She just came. Watch dudes in porn. They are almost always actually coming. They, mostly, don't scream and shout and moan and move around a bunch when it happens. They tend to concentrate and get quiet, focused, intense, and deeper into the movement that was getting them there. That's what this woman did. It's realistic, and as a culture, we need to normalize that this is a way a woman's orgasm can look. We see so much wild faking from women, it skews women and their partner's expectations.

4 It shone a positive light on a vibrator helping a lady come. Leo got up to get her a vibrator to help her come, when she figured it out herself. That's a sexually experienced man not only being fine with a woman using a sex toy, but also encouraging it. It's a man saying, 'hey, if you wanna come, a sex toy is a good option'. Vibrators are, in fact, great options alone and in partner sex for lady-gasms. Yet, there is still a sense out there that it means the man has failed or it's a distraction from the couple sex. That's a bunch of bullshit, and the more vibrator use is normalized, as it is in this movie, the better.

The Vulva Rating

This was not only a realistic and much needed depiction of how an actual woman might realistically physically experience her first orgasm, it was also a thoughtful depiction of the emotional, cultural, and experiential roadblock that women face as they explore an orgasm and an authentic sexuality. 

If I had any critique of this movie's discussion/depiction of lady-gasm, it would be that it maybe didn't speak to the expansive cultural issues with lady-gasm that are not unique to Nancy's situation. Specifically, I would have been overjoyed if there was a nod to how very (and unfortunately) common it is that a woman might not have come ever from partner sex, and how the lack of clitoral/vulva simulation in common sex acts (for instance most penetrative sex on its own) is a huge reason for that -  given that the clitoral/vulva stimulation is no less important to the female orgasm than penile stimulation is to the male orgasm. It's not really a criticism, though. Good Luck To You , Leo Grande tells a story about lady-gasm that is rare in media and important, and one can't expect everything from everything. It did what it meant to do well. I'm just saying that if the experienced male prostitute had mentioned that her situation is not actually that uncommon in his experience, and that it might have a bit to do with the fact that her clit was never part of the sex equation...well, that would be nice too. 

Altogether, for all the reasons I spoke about above. This gets a full 5 vulva rating.

(!)(!)(!)(!)(!)