What I Might Change About 'Science, Sex, and the Ladies' (the movie) Now All These Years Later

Share

Tweet

Hello my lady-gasm activist friends. As is the theme for my blogging the last few years, I'm more behind than I would like to be. There are tons of articles on everything from the Female Sexual Dysfunction questionnaire that is most commonly used in studies as well as therapy to assess a woman's, ya know sexual dysfunction to female ejaculation related stuff to post gender confirmation surgery functioning to old strange studies to just about everything - anyway, there are tons of those studies I want to summarize (and dish on if need be) in the ol' A Journal Article I Read series (which are all HERE). There's also tons of TV and movie depictions of lady-gasms or lady-gasm talk, or clits or cunnilingus that I need to review (all the TV ones are HERE and the movie ones are HERE), but to be honest, these are a little lower on my priority list, I'm more vibing with the journal articles right now, but I get the urge to review some shit orgasm depictions from time to time too. All that to say I don't have anything super big, but I wanted to post something, and it just happened that something sparked my need to write here a little.

Last night me and Charlie re-watched Science Sex and the Ladies with a good friend last night, and it was fun, but I was thinking about some things. First, I still like it. I think it's weird and what-the-fuck-enough to continue getting laughs into the future. Second, this was shot 13 years ago and released 8 years ago (it was a lot of post production work and mostly just Charlie doing it....it takes time), and there are is content I would do a little different. I still stand behind it 100%, but I've been continuing the activist work from that movie through this blog since 2009. I have more and deeper insight now. I mean shit's still pretty much the same and the problems are still pretty misunderstood in the same way, but there's been some progression, and the way I talk about some things has changes with more knowledge.  

So, below, I just thought I'd quick mention the updates I'd make, I've written about this in different ways before, but it's fresh for me right now and it's nice to pop it up every now and then. 

1 I'd talk about the idea that the 'inner clit' is responsible for orgasms-from-intercourse (or what people might call vaginal orgasm) and shit all over that fake news like I did the g-spot-as-a-vaginal-orgasm-giver fake news. 

The current progressive, sex positive, sexually educated (often very educated) crowd is big on the idea of the 'inner clit' or the 'clitoral bulbs' or 'clitoral legs'. It's the part of the clitoris that is deeper in the body - more than the clitoral glans that pokes out or the clitoral body you can feel under the skin just above the clit (before it bends down and separates into the larger 'inner' structure of the clit). They tout this 'inner clit' as a previously unknown or misunderstood part of female anatomy that is actually what causes orgasms. It is neither previously unknown/misunderstood, nor is it something that causes 'vaginal orgasms.' However, just like the now out-of-vogue-as-vaginal-orgasm-givers -the vaginal canal itself and the g-spot- the inner clit is a new, hip way experts try to explain why a woman might orgasm from nothing more than getting banged. Truth is there is not physical evidence in all of scientific literature of a an orgasm happening from nothing more than the stimulation of a penis/dildo in the vagina (for real - I explain more HERE), but that doesn't stop the sex research/sexpert world from desperately clinging to some piece of anatomy that might, maybe cause this type of orgasm, that actually doesn't seem to exist except for in faked bedroom activities and answers on surveys. 

This was true when the movie came out and is still just as true. It's just that the scapegoat in pop sexperting has moved from the g-spot to the inner clitoris since then, and so it's not really addressed properly in the movie. I would like to have it in there because I worry contemporary watchers might disregard the whole thing because they think we missed the inner legs info. 

Anyway, more specific info about why the inner clit is not some new discovery and not the cause of 'vaginal orgasms' is HERE.

2 I'd have added some info about male multiple orgasms. 

Most of the details about male and female orgasm and physical arousal in the movie are pulled from Master and Johnson's groundbreaking late 60's research. It's still super relevant on the physical detail level, but there are later papers that confirmed and also expanded on Master and Johnson's work. I would add more of that to modernize some of the terminology, etc. Mainly, that would mean there would be some info about physical evidence of males that can orgasm multiple times, similar to some women, until they ejaculate with their final orgasm. I'd tighten up that physiology of orgasm/arousal section with papers and info I've reviewed and read while writing this blog. Oh - here's an article with the male multiple orgasms. 

Alright - that's the big ones. There's of course some scenes we would tighten up too- I mean sometimes things happen by necessity, and we'd have preferred something a little differnt, but overall, I like that crazy movie. 

 

Just Watched the SSL Movie Bloopers

Share

Tweet

Hi and a Happy Thanksgiving to all! I hope you all have some strange alternative plans to enjoy your families, but also not be anywhere physically near them. 

I wanted to quickly post a little something before the holidays. I'm currently working on an 'A Journal Article I Read' post summarizing THIS 1998 article that people are always calling the article that finally discovered the full anatomy of the clitoris. It did not do that. People like to say it though. It's alarming to think the clit anatomy wasn't known until 1998, and so it makes a good headline. What it really did, though, was assert that the vestibular bulbs should be named the clitoral bulbs and that they should be thought of as part of a 'clitoral complex.' Not a discovery at all, and frankly, I think it unintentionally did a lot of harm to orgasm equality because it strangely gave people a lot of baseless fire to insinuate that there's something inside ladies' vaginal canal region that penises can stimulate during intercourse to cause orgasm. ...And people do be insinuating that a lot in relation to the "newly discovered" inner parts of the clit, but like I said. BASELESS. Anyway, I'll be getting more into that next time. 

However, that subject and a recent watch of the Science, Sex and the Ladies movie cast and crew bloopers got me and Charlie talking about something I thought would be an alright post. 

First, that subject up there always gets me thinking of the movie simply because the trend of baselessly pinning the cause of the never-actually-physically-recorded-in-all-of-scientific-literature vaginally stimulated orgasm on the 'newly discovered' inner parts of the clit, was really just not in vogue when I finished writing and we started production of the movie in 2009. The G-spot was still the in-vogue way people baselessly explained how the vaginally stimulated orgasm (maybe) happens (if it exists at all...since there's actually not actual proof it does). So, I spent a lot of time showing how ridiculous the G-spot theory was and almost no time talking about how ridiculous the inner clit theory is, which is really the only thing that I would do different in the content. But ya know, it was a different time, and anyway, I'm planning a little supplemental video about that soon (*soon means I've decided it will be done, and it will eventually get done but at a snail's pace). 

That brings me to the other things me and Charlie were talking about that I wanted to write on. It was a different time, man. I say that again, but now it's in relation to how movies were seen. It wasn't that long ago, but when we decided to make Science, Sex and the Ladies, online video content was not what it is today. People weren't considering dropping their whole movie on YouTube or Vimeo. Netflix was still mostly DVDs. We still did have shorts and weird little videos we sent to our mailing list back them, but we had to find a way to host those videos for people to get to and watch, and it was a hot mess. 

If I had this idea today, I would 100% have created the content of Science, Sex and the Ladies in short vignettes for interweb consumption. These little vignettes would still be as bonkers strange, blunt, and full of citations as the movie was,  but they would be much more easily findable, bite-sized pieces that could be viewed together to create the whole argument but also apart to at least get part of the argument out and maybe prompt viewing all of them. 

The reason we made a full length movie was really just because it seemed to be the medium that would best portray the content in the way we wanted - as a complete argument, with citations, while being entertaining and super weird enough that regular ol' people might engage with it (i.e. funny and not a piece of writing or talking heads doc that mostly academics and progressives might find). At the time, there wasn't a place you could just set medium sized videos on the internet. If we'd made a bunch of shorts, where would we even show them? Why? Why not just make a movie? Honestly, we had only made shorts up to that time, so it's not like that wasn't on our mind. SSL was our first full length, and it took us a long ass time to finish it. 

I mean, no actual regrets. Sure I would do things differently now. We learned and grew a lot making it, but I love that crazy ass movie warts and all. It was just pretty interesting to think about how different our mindsets were about how motion picture content could and would be consumed back then. It changes a lot of things and it was only barely 10 years ago.  

Also, watching the bloopers for the first time in probably 6 years was super fun. That cast that stuck by us were gold. I love them all, and even now I get a little tingle in my heart when I see one of them who would never have known another talk to each other on social media. 

Okay, here's the trailer for fun. 

#DirectedByWomen

Share

Tweet

Guess what? Today is a very special day. It is the beginning of Directed by Women, a two week global party to enjoy and celebrate film made by the ladies! Get your friends, get your co-workers, curl up with a favorite pet, attend a party - whatever you got to do, but by golly, by George, watch a movie directed by a woman! You got 2 weeks.

I really like this concept. It's like a million times more accessible than just a film festival, and it's got this fun, light-hearted, community feel that makes it easy to be part of. All you need to do is watch and/or talk. It's as easy as picking a lady-directed movie and sitting on a couch with your nasty pajamas and some microwave popcorn to watch it. It's even as easy as mentioning it to a co-worker. If you want to get real wild, tweet, facebook, instagram, or what-have-you about it (#DirectedByWomen), or invite a few friends over to your house to watch. You don't even have to cook. Make it a pitch-in. Get even crazier and write a blog, set up a small community event for a showing, attend a showing, or tweet out pics of your Directed By Women celebration. There could be nothing easier, really, and you get so see great film! If you are unsure what movies are directed by women check it HERE, or Google that shit, I mean, come on, it ain't that hard. I was also glad to see the catalyst for this was another Hoosier - that's right, there is more than corn in Indiana. Barbara Ann O'Leary from Bloomington (you can read more about her and the concept HERE), got this rolling, and I tip my hat to her.

So, why do I care, you ask. Well, I am a woman director (that's just a cheap plug for Science, Sex and the Ladies), but also this event is about female voices in our media, about a perspective from the ladies being an equal and valued part of the cultural conversation. That's what this blog and our movie is all about. We focus particularly on only one aspect of that female perspective, the one surrounding orgasm, but none the less it, like all the other parts of the female perspective, needs to be heard, and it's not going to happen unless we get more women creating and shaping the things that entertain and inform us.

So, in honor of Directed By Women, I will be posting every day till it's over. They may be short little posts, but I will make sure I get off my ass and do at least that because I think this is important.

The Babadook: The SSL Review

Share

Tweet

The Babadook - I'm not really into horror. I'll get that outta the way up front. It's not that I haven't seen good horror or horror that is crazy enough for a good laugh. It's just that I'm usually simply not so interested in or excited to watch it, and honestly I would never have watched this except that Barnaby and Charlie decided to watch it after an AnC meeting. They aren't really into horror either, so I was surprised, but Barnaby had seen it, and Charlie had heard it was good (it had gotten a lot of press after it was in Sundance 2014), so I was in.

Why am I writing about The Babadook in this blog? Well, lucky me - the movie was not only a lovely work, but it also had some sweet, sweet lady-bation which makes it SSL Reviewable, which means I get to write about it. SSL Reviews are the only movie review I do, and a movie can only be SSL reviewed if it includes depiction or discussion of female masturbation or female sexual release. These reviews are only about those discussions and depictions - not about the actual movie. Usually I do  give my two cents on other parts of the movie just because I can, but I don't have to. SSL Reviews and what I would write for an overall review don't have to have anything to do with each other. One could be great and the other horrible.

In this case, I am happy to say both would be fantastic. The depiction of female masturbation was realistic and added nothing harmful or misleading into the cultural conversation about female sexuality and lady-gasms, and the movie itself was lovely, well-made, fresh, thought-provoking, and generally a great watch. I highly recommend it. It's on Netflix now, so get to it.

Okay - so the one scene (and there was only 1 reviewable scene) was towards the earlier part of the movie (about 14:40). The mother was up late. Her son's always waking her up in the middle of the night with nightmares. She's kinda frazzled. She seems tired, but also like she can't sleep. She's watching bullshit late night TV, sitting with her little dog in her lap, and then she sees an old black and white movie (it's probably famous, I just don't have a bunch of old movie knowledge in my head) where a dude kisses this woman. Maybe that turns her on, or probably more accurately reminds her that sex exists and she could go get herself a little satisfaction, because she turns the movie off and heads upstairs to pull her vibrator out of a wicker box. She gets under the covers, pulls her panties off from under her night gown, lays back with her legs seeming to be mostly straight out and we hear the vibrator start. Everything is under the covers of course, but it does not look like she's trying to shove anything up her vagina.  It just look like she's gently moving it around on her outer vulva area. It cuts to her son scared and awake in bed, then back to her. She's breathing more audibly and her body has a touch more movement, like she's writhing slightly against the vibrator. It cuts back to the awake, scared boy, then back to her. This time her breathing and movement is a little more quick and intense. It seems like she is just on the brink of coming, but her son screams and jumps into her bed stopping her in her tracks. That, my friends is the real horror - damn kids keeping you from having any fun. (Seriously though, I think this movie really does have a fresh voice in regard to parenthood. It is many other things too, but I think that aspect was particularly good.)

 Checking for monsters before bed in The Babadook

Anyway, the insinuations about what was happening during masturbation - that the outer vulvar/clitoral areas were being vibed - was realistic and although she didn't actually get to orgasm, she got close and what she was doing to her body to get there was absolutely a thing women can do to get themselves to orgasm. Her movement and vocalizations were in no way over-the-top or unrealistically pornified.  It was just a lady trying to get herself off the way a lady might try to get herself off - a top of the line lady-bation depiction in a top of the line movie. Bravo - Writer/Director Jennifer Kent and masturbating actor  Essie Davis!

This movie gets a full 5 vulva rating!
(!)(!)(!)(!)(!)

(Can I just say that when I went to Netflix on my phone to check the scene again, I just clicked on a place in the timeline where I thought it might be, and I landed at exactly the part that she's walking upstairs for the vibrator. That is an SSL miracle!)

An Educational Video Meets A Midnight Movie - Finally, We've Given You a Box for Science, Sex and the Ladies!

Share

Tweet

We have another Review - at Rogue Cinema. Check it out HERE. Thanks to Misty Layne for taking the time to watch and write about it. It's a good review, but I'll be honest. It says something we hear about this movie more than I'd like - "I'm not sure who the audience for this documentary is." I've heard it before, and it always feels like an unnecessary questions to me. I always want to say something like - Did you like it? Then you are the audience. However, I have learned since making this movie, that it does matter to people. Categorizing a movie, and thus categorizing the audience who might watch the movie, makes a big difference, and we probably should have done a better job filling in the details for what box people should fit SSL into with our marketing. We should be telling them, so they don't have to spend any precious time worrying about it. So, I'll address that a little - in my own way, here.

 I always knew the movie was hard to categorize. It's a non-fiction movie, but documentary doesn't quite describe it. It's really off-beat with lots of cheese, but not quite the kind of cheese people are used to seeing in their documentaries - the wink and nod to the innocence of the 50's with some cheesy b-roll of a black and white educational film reel featuring shiny happy housewives doing something that seems quaint and silly or with men in suits talking directly to the camera.

those silly ol' 50's housewives! What were those 50's people thinking?! 

Crazy ol' educational video narrators! So ridiculous, huh?!

You know what i mean, right? - the kind of b-roll featured in all kinds of docs, but especially Micheal Moore docs and all the other docs styled like Micheal Moore docs. Anyway, it's not that SSL doesn't have some 50's Housewives and dudes in suits talking directly to the camera. We definitely do. It's just that ours is not random B-roll, thrown in here and there. It's our actual movie. We are not just laughing at such silly stylings. We use those styles...but kinda different. And we're definitely not laughing at the idea of how things used to be...in fact, we're pointing out that thinking things have changed much is the real thing we should be laughing about.

That silly ol' dichotomy between "wife-types" and "whore-types" - too bad that dichotomy didn't actually stay in the 50's! 

That crazy ol' SSL narrator talking about the 60's/70's sexual revolution not actually being much of a sexual revolution for the female orgasm!

So, I think the cheese in SSL is an unexpected type of cheese. It's not familiar in the documentary genre. It's also just less like the familiar cheese of say, the Simpsons, and tends more towards something much stranger like Tim and Eric Awesome Show  - Great Job!

Who doesn't enjoy the cheese of Troy McClure?

Tim and Eric, on the other hand, can get a little weird for some tastes

This is during a musical number called "Petite Feet" which involves..well just google it.

It's not exactly Tim and Eric styling either though. Yes, we have some rainbow unicorns and other weird, cheesy shit, but we certainly don't take anything as far as they do, and the the big difference is the movie itself is not played as a joke in the way cheesy, weird stuff like Tim and Eric or midnight movies are. Science, Sex and the Ladies is a serious movie. The actual information that is being presented is an accurate, cited, well thought-out, and often densely packed argument. It's just there's this very not-serious element in the visual presentation. So, there's a particular mix of the serious and the silly that clearly doesn't fit a mold.

Science, Sex and the Ladies making a point about sprirtual/emotional/non-orgasmic physical pleasure being great and maybe even climactic, but yet still different than an orgasm

The Funbunch! in SSL talking about "Why Ladies Don't Masturbate as Much?"

The other thing that I think worries people with the categorization is that it's kinda sex-ed like, so people immediately start thinking it's for young people. I get that sex ed is something we think of as a teen sort of thing, and I get that adults always tend to think they are already educated, so it wouldn't occur to them that something sex edish is meant for them too. However, the main point in SSL is that we all need to be re-educated. Our whole sexual culture is misinformed about the basics of female sexual release. That means, with all likelihood and to some degree, you are miseducated, I am miseducated, and the expert we read about sexual matters from is too. We all are. So the movie is aimed at sexual researchers, sexual education experts, and grown-ass married people who've had lots of sex and relationships as much, if not more than, it's aimed at teens. So, it includes some sex ed, but it really isn't aimed at kids...this is also very, very confusing to people.

So, let me now lay out how this movie should be categorized. Science, Sex, and the Ladies is an educational video mixed with a midnight movie. I fully realize that these two genres maybe aren't supposed to be mixed, and the description might not create a satisfactory enough box, but it is at least satisfactory to me...for the moment at least.

Because one cannot decide on an audience for a movie until the movie is appropriately categorized, we can now get back to that question. "Who is the audience for this movie?"  At first glance this genre mix doesn't help us answer that question in an easily understandable way. Who watches educational videos? Kids. Who watches midnight movies? Cynical adults who tend toward blue comedy. They simply don't mix! 

I see it differently though. An education video is for anyone who wants to learn something....so that's hopefully most people. Plus, as I described above, SSL is meant to re-educate everyone who has been immersed in our current sexual culture - which is, again, most people. I take a lighter view of the midnight movie crowd too. Yes, there is lots of sex and violence and really weird shit and ironic watching, but I think all those things come together because they make a fun experience. The way I see it, midnight movies are for anyone who likes going to the movies and simply having a fun, somewhat raucous, communal experience. To me that's exactly the mix that is SSL - it's a movie that is fun as shit to watch - the more people you watch with, the more fun it is. It creates a communal feeling in the audience - like everyone just went on a weird-ass journey together, but it's more than just fun midnight movie fluff. It is informative and thoughtful, and leaves the viewer with more knowledge and understanding of the world than when they came in. 

So there you go. If I must give you a particular "type" of audience for Science, Sex and the Ladies, it is people who would go to a screening of The Room, or Rocky Horror, or Grindhouse, but would also rent informative docs like The Corporation or Bigger, Faster, Stronger  (Although, honestly, my real answer is a completely and utterly unacceptable one - I think this movie is for everyone).

Our Latest Review at IndyRed.com

Share

Tweet

Well, we finally did it. We missed out on a perfect score because we're just too damn gross. Science, Sex, and the Ladies got ourselves another review over at Indy Red. It's a really cool indie movie review site from out of Ontario. The review made us blush a little bit, but it seems our movie made the reviewer blush a bit too. Here's how the reviewer summed it up.

As I wrote above, from a technical view this should score a five! However, I don't feel right about scoring Science Sex and the Ladies a perfect score when I know in my heart that a large number of viewers wouldn't make it through the first 15 minutes. But let me add that for any unsure people who may want to watch... do yourself a favor and push through the uncomfortable parts. A real Gem awaits if you do.

We thought it was a pretty nice review. The truth is we, and in particular Charlie, spent a shit-ton of time making sure that the technical quality of the movie was up to par. The parts like final sound and score that we couldn't assure quality with, we raised money for (Thanks again you fabuloso Kickstarter Backers!). So, having someone say they were impressed with it meant a lot to us. We also love to hear that people thought it was funny and entertaining and thought-provoking. But man, Charlie spent a shit-ton of hours in front of a monitor rotoscoping and creating backgrounds and all that tedious crap. Our thought was that if the quality of the picture and sound wasn't great, then no matter what the content, it would be disregarded. The strange part is that when the technical qualities of a movie are up to par, they become unnoticeable. They don't distract. They simply become the invisible medium for the creative part. People already expect that level of quality because it's what they are used to in Hollywood movies (well most). Things like bad sound just aren't tolerated, but for a movie as small as ours - getting to that point was no easy task, and a lot of indie movies this size, and even larger, don't reach it. So I guess I'm just saying that it's cool to have someone point out that our hard work paid off. We like praise.

Back to my point. Our movie just has too damn much vulva up front...or maybe it was our example porn? I'm not sure, but it does take people out of their comfort zone a bit - and that's intentional. Everything is in there for a reason. If something needed to be shown to  make a point, we showed that shit. The fake vulva and penis on a platter in the first scene is weird as hell, but we like to think it adds a bit of humor and anatomical correctness to the dinner table demonstration. That's just how this movie rolls, and actually the reviewer seemed to get that,

The only real complaint I have are the overly graphic areas of this film. What's funny is that the graphic parts also help make the film what it is! I also know that my feelings regarding these sections were more out of personal embarrassment... than anything really shown on screen. I am, after all an adult. Could it be that my personal feelings regarding the subject matter were half of what this movie was about? Maybe.

What's actually pretty funny is that I have really never gotten feedback - face to face or anonymous -that the graphic parts were bad or inappropriate within the movie. I do get a lot of feedback where someone say they don't mind it and they get it, but they worry that other people (maybe even most people) will have a problem with it. It's like everyone underestimates the ability for other people to handle this movie. I used to worry that we might have made a movie that is just too much for people, but the more people who see it and talk to me about it, the more I know that people are largely fine with the graphic parts. They might be a little uncomfortable, but they can reason away their own feelings. Now I just need to prove to people that other people will be okay with it too.

Anyway, we were over the moon about our 4 star rating at Indy Red, and a big thanks to the person over there that took the time to watch it and give it a thoughtful review! They get a 4 vulva rating from me (!)(!)(!)(!)

Here's the Full Review. Check it out. http://www.indyred.com/science-sex-and-the-ladies-review.html

Kate's Take Gave SSL a 2014 Honorable Mention!

Share

Tweet

Hello! It seems Science, Sex and the Ladies got a shout out on the blog Kate's Take as an Honorable mention for their top 5 Best Films of 2014! It's a podcast where Kate Chaplin, an Indie Indy producer, writer, and director, "chooses a film that has shaped her life and dissects it to find meaning and universality in that film's message." Kate was at our Indianapolis premiere, and by golly, she liked it! She found it to be super science-y and informational, but hysterically funny too. She even pointed out that although SSL gets into pretty uncomfortable detail, it does it in an approachable and funny "fluffy bunny" kind of way so it really felt like it was educational and fine. She (thank you, Kate) hopes it explodes in a great way this year. We're with you on that :)

This particular episode was a a special one and a bit different given that it was about top movies instead of about 1 particular movie...and let me comment on that a sec. I actually really like this podcast's normal platform of talking about 1 particular movie in a long form podcast. I think that's just not a common thing. It's actually a fairly new monthly podcast, and I had listened to, what for some reason I didn't realize was, the first episode about the 1998 Robin Williams and Cuba Gooding Jr. movie, What Dreams May Come. I like the interaction between Kate and her co-host Wil, but what I really like is more in depth discussion about movies. It is very personal, but movies are very personal, and very much dependent on the circumstances of the time/culture and person watching. That movie actually had a somewhat depthy-ish affect on me too - not quite in the same way as Kate, but it was was really fun and interesting to hear those two talk about it. Obviously, this isn't for those who want to not get any spoilers, but it is for people who really like to talk about movies - what they mean, how they look, how they and their topic fit into the scape of other films.

Anyway, my point is, Kate's Take is a good, thoughtful listen for people who like movies.Check it out...I mean they liked SSL, they must be high quality, right? :)

Sandstone - The SSL Review

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Science, Sex and The Ladies available now on IndieFlix

Share

Tweet

Guess what?
We are super excited that Science Sex and the Ladies is now available streaming on IndieFlix! Founded by Filmmakers, IndieFlix is part champion, part curator. Its a subscription streaming service much like Netflix or Hulu but with only the best of Indie Fare.  Its normally 5 bucks a month or 50 for the year but if you want to support SSL join thru our affiliate links (coupons and discounts baby) and save money at the same time.

1 Month free trial followed by $5/month recurring. Cancel anytime http://indieflix.com/ac/M2_350901/

$35 Annual Membership (that's $15 off ya'll)
http://indieflix.com/ac/A2_350901/

Go watch some sweet indie movies!

Nymphomaniac Volumes 1 and 2: The SSL Review

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Proxy - The SSL Review

Share

Tweet

We were chillin' this Labor day weekend, and decided to watch a little Indy indie movie. We saw this director's (Zack Parker) prior movie Scalene after Charlie met the director briefly at the local Indiana Filmmakers Network event, and so when we saw his new one on Netflix, we cued that shit up - cause why go outside on Labor Day, am I right?

Anyway, the movie is called Proxy. It's a thriller with strange-o plot twists, and wouldn't ya know it? There was a scene that was SSL reviewable (favorably), and so here we are. This should be pretty quick, actually. The SSL Review only pertains to depictions or discussion of female masturbation or sexual release. Nothing else matters.

Turns out some lady sneaks a peak on another lady masturbating. It's not some freaky, voyeuristic sexual stuff or anything. Neither lady should have been where she was, and they intersected - simple as that. There was no orgasm at the end of the masturbation. She stopped before it could happen. From the context of the situation, I assume it was because she was upset/sad/angry and just couldn't get her mind right. I'm happy to say, though, that the motions she was using were realistic and clit-centric, which is all I ask. It's not much, really. I mean if women by and large masturbate by stimulating their clitoral/vulva area, then by golly, that's how it should be mostly portrayed in our media (The Hite Report is a great resource for stats about how women masturbate). In this particular situation, the woman was on her back, legs spread and using her hand in a circular motion (a bit roughly for my taste) on her vulva area. There was no silliness with vaginal canal stimulation/penetration types of pornish masturbation or anything - just your simple clit jigglin'.

Oh - and there was also a scene where a woman is banged P-in-V style, standing up, from behind. There was clearly no stimulation happening to the vulva/clit area, not from his nor her hands and not from anything else. There was certainly a penis in that vagina, but the clit was out there on its own, with nothing to stimulate that poor little glans of nerve endings into an orgasm. Unfortunately, in porn and romance novels and definitely movies and TV too, that scenario of PinV banging, minus clit stimulation,  is one that is often depicted as eliciting a lady-gasm, but not in Proxy, I'm happy to say.

There may have been other more character based reasons that she was shown to look disinterested and very non orgasmic in this sex scene, but I'd like to think it's also because her organ of sexual pleasure was not being stimulated and there would simply be no sensible reason to depict her coming. Now, I know this scene was not strictly a depiction of sexual release, but I think it's important to include it in the SSL Review anyway. I make the rules here, people, and I think realistic depiction of not orgasming during a sexual act need to be pointed out also.

So, I'm going to give this one 4 out of 5 vulvas. It's a good rating. There was realistic masturbation movements and a realistic depiction of not orgasming from getting banged. Yay Hoosiers! And Yay Richmond (cause you're an Indiana town and your streets are in this movie)!

(!) (!) (!) (!) 

Ice Saints - The SSL Review

Share

Tweet

Well, if you were hoping for another indie movie SSL review, then you're in luck because I got 10 tickets to the Indianapolis International Film Fest during their Kickstarter campaign, and the movies I'm seeing keep having something in them about female orgasm. If a movie discusses or depicts female orgasm or masturbation, you know I gots to get at SSL reviewing it, right? So here we are. (And just to be clear - an SSL Review is purely about the ladygasm stuff - not the movie as a whole.)

This time the movie is Ice Saints. Ryan Balas, the director and his then girlfriend (now wife) Deirdre Herlihy. created a documentary-ish movie about the year of their engagement, their wedding, and their honeymoon.Outside of the wedding footage, which was obviously taped by someone else, most of the couple's conversations seemed to be taped by the the couple - ya know, kinda setting it up on a table or something and then having a normal everyday conversation. So, it has a stagy element, but I think the conversations are meant to be indicative of actual spontaneous personal conversations the couple might have.

Ice Saints - Dir. Ryan Balas

There is one SSL reviewable part and then another part that doesn't quite fit SSL Review criteria, but I found it to be important to the discussion. I'll describe the two scenes first, then I'll get to commenting.

So Deirdre is naked, sitting on the floor against a bed or something, and the camera seems to be set on a dresser maybe and is pointed at her. Ryan walks in from behind her (he's in boxers, but no worries, he gets naked later, so it's square), hands her a drink and sits next to her, and the following conversation happens (these were transcribed in the dark, so the words might not be exact quotes, but it's pretty close).

Ryan: I'm sorry you didn't orgasm.
Deirdre: It's okay.
Ryan: You always sound so disappointed,...
Deirdre: I just don't like it when it's so squeaky....

Then they (mostly he) goes on to say things about who cares whether the neighbors hear them and that they should get a better bed, (I believe they have a futon) so that it doesn't squeak like that, etc.

Okay, so that's one. Here's the not quite SSL Review eligible, but related part.

They are at the kitchen table. She's wrapped in a towel, working on her computer. He's naked sitting next to her - and he starts the following conversation.

Ryan: I think you should go off birth control. (pause) I really do. You know what Rachel said. She didn't have any sexual urges, and then she went off birth control, and it all came back.
Deirdre: I don't know...maybe (or something like that)

Alright, now I don't usually have the luxury of hearing director's intentions with their depiction/discussions, but there happen to be a Q&A session with Ryan and Deirdre afterward, so I asked them why they chose to include those two parts given they were the only spoken parts about their sex life. (They asked for awkward questions, okay). Anyway, they both seemed really cool and the basic answer was that they thought things like mediocre sex or a woman not getting an orgasm was something that was real, and not depicted too often. That wasn't exactly how they said it, but I felt the gist was that they wanted to put stuff in their movie about relationships that were not puffed up or over exaggerated, that felt real to them, and that to some extent seemed to them to be under appreciated in other media.

That is kinda what I imagined was going on in their brains, and I really appreciate their openness about it. I actually could not agree more. Sex can be all kinds of things within a relationship. It's not always super hot and great. It can be just fine or even bad. That's normal as shit. We're gonna zero in on the not-orgasming thing though. That too is normal as shit, like way normal...like way more normal than we as a society ever admit, and I love that they included it.

Their situation can be placed right along side the general population. Women in general are simply not orgasming during partnered sex as much as men in general are. This is not often discussed, but it feels like a given. It's viewed as an inevitable reality...cause...women are more finicky and orgasms are harder for us ladies, right?

Well if you read my blog at all, you know the answer is actually no, and that the problem lies not in the make-up of females, but in the deeply rooted way we  teach, depict, and engage in sexual activity. It's not inevitable biology. It's cultural, and all us ladies are in the same boat. That's why it's so refreshing to see something that normalizes the experience of no-orgasm sex and doesn't depict some bullshit fake porn-gasm sex. I mean, come on. we have plenty of that already.

That brings me to the getting off birth control to gain more sex-drive part. I think this indicates an interesting and incredibly common, almost ubiquitous phenomenon. Women in long-term relationships, quite good and quite sexual ones even, begin to lose libido quicker than men. It's the old joke about marriage meaning the the end of sex thing, but it's a joke because there's truth to it.

Women in general have way, way more problems with loss of libido, and we as a society so often go to hormonal or emotional problems as the culprit. Maybe though, just maybe, it's that we ladies are having more sexual experiences that end without an orgasm. Whereas most men think forward towards a sexual experience with a woman and can draw on their past experiences to know that the event will be all the many things sex might be....but also almost surely end in an orgasm, that's just not as sure a thing for ladies. Every non-orgasmic experience we have informs us about what to expect from future ones, and frankly, sex without orgasm might not be something any woman or man would get too excited about. So, in this way, sex quickly becomes a different experience for men and women. If men went into sex with a good or even a fair chance they wouldn't orgasm, then they might find sleep a better option too. I mean, there are other reason to get nasty with your partner, but let's not ignore the allure and addictive nature of a good ol orgasm.

So, to me this movie reflected something very real about the experience of a long-term, hetero, sexual relationship, something that most people in that position can relate to. What really kinda excited me though was that it also included two aspects of the female experience that are rarely considered as two pieces of one puzzle. I have no reason to believe the director put them together as a way to connect the lack of orgasm among females with the ridiculously large amount of women dealing with low sex drive. He was just putting common sexual realities in there, and maybe that's the thing. Most people aren't brave enough to talk about these things, but if we were, we'd discover something important. We'd discover that we're all dealing with the same issues and it's not because of our hormones, our emotional turmoil, or our personal problem. We'd find that there is a lady-gasm revolution hiding in plain site. And don't worry gentlemen - this isn't a war. We'd be fighting side by side on this one ;)

I always think that the first step toward orgasm equality is to for people to start relaying sexual experience honestly, and this is certainly a step Ice Saints intentionally took. I'm gonna have to give it a full 5 out of 5 vulva rating.

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


.

Fort Tilden - The SSL Review

Share

Tweet

Well, let’s just say it’s been a whirlwind of a week, but among it all, I did get to check out some movies at the Indianapolis International Film Fest. As luck would have it, one of them was SSLreview-worthy, which simply means that it discussed or depicted female orgasm or masturbation. The movie was called Fort Tilden directed by Sarah-Violet Bliss and Charles Rogers, and as you might expect, it’s an indie film currently doing its thing through the festival circuit.

The two main characters are post college, Brooklynite women (but like fancy Brooklyn not regular ol’ Brooklyn – There is a name for the neighborhood in the movie. I forget it, but it would probably make sense to you if you were from  NYC).  Basically they are supposed to be those spoiled, dumb, urban, millennial girl characters. They’re roommates, and the basic plot is that they are trying to get to the beach to meet a couple dudes they’re hoping to mack on, but things keep happening on the way there.

The SSL reviewable comment happened very close to the end. I’ll try to be general as not to spoil anything, so here goes. One of the ladies takes a clearly reluctant dude from his beach towel into cold water and tries to seduce him.  She’s being pretty aggressive and really, really giving this seduction the ol’ college try.  She’s trying to touch his junk under water, but he’s cold and seriously uncomfortable with her advances, but she continues on and says, “My first orgasm was in the water,” trying to be all sexy baby. He’s all awkward and wanting to get the hell out of dodge and says, “That sounds complicated.” And then she comes back with a seductive-style, “Not really. I’ve just always been able to come so easily.”

That’s the SSL Reviewable line. I’m going to look too much into that one little line, but that’s an SSL review. I breakdown these depictions and discussions and look at what it reflects from our culture and also what it might be adding back into our collective cultural knowledge and attitude. Honestly, I think this is kinda neutral. It's not progressive nor is it regressive or idiotic. It’s mostly just reflective of our culture’s current relationship to women’s orgasmic abilities, which is why I think it’s an interesting one to consider.

The movie previously established that she is a ridiculous, snotty, selfish, manipulative person. That, along with her somewhat desperate attempts to woo this guy, indicate that her admission of orgasm ease was just some bullshit she was saying because she thought it would be sexy.

So, I mean yes, her statement was just a simple line in a movie to help make a character seem like she’s working way too hard to seduce a man. However, if one breaks down the assumptions and collective cultural knowledge that makes that statement do what it was meant to do, that’s where it gets interesting. The following things need to be pretty obvious to an audience member.

1 Women aren't known for orgasming easily. The fact that she even said what she said reminds us that female orgasm is not viewed as reliable. You wouldn't hear that coming seductively out of a man’s mouth. Am I right? Everyone knows men can come easily; no one even has to verbalize that.

Given, however, that women during masturbation actually can orgasm as quickly, easily, and reliably as men can, it’s also another of many indications that our society has the wrong idea about lady-gasms. (Seriously, we as a culture need to get our shit straight about the basics of female orgasm.) 

2 Women who do orgasm easily are desirable to men. Our culture does associate an amply orgasmic woman with sexiness; just look at any female in porn, romance novels or any number of fictional women like the over-sexed, orgasm-loudly-and-at-the-drop-of-a-hat Samantha from Sex and the City.

3 If a gal really, really wanted to impress and seduce a guy, it's not unheard of that she would maybe fib a tiny bit about her orgasm prowess or put on a little more of a gasm-show during the nasty.

I don't know. For me, this character's (and thus the writer's) use of orgasm ability as a way to seem sexy, says something about the roles women play in sexual interactions in order to be what they are expected to be, what they would like to be, or what they think a man would most like. And it also points out how socially accepted those points above are. There is a lot to be discussed on this topic, but for now, just roll all this around in your head for a bit. Would a man ever try to impress a woman by saying he can orgasm easily?. Why does it make sense for a woman to try and impress someone this way - particularly when there is no good evidence to assume different women have different natural abilities to orgasm and that women orgasm as easily as men when we masturbate. Just think a touch on that.

As I said above, this movie is more reflective of our culture's current situation with women and our abilities to orgasm. It doesn't add much in a positive or negative way to orgasm knowledge and orgasm equality. I am going to give this a quite neutral review - 3 out of 5 Vulvas

(!)(!)(!)