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

Share

Tweet

30% of Women Orgasm from Intercourse??? 

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

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

Vaginal Orgasmers

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

Hands-free Intercourse Orgasmsers

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

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

I call hardcore bullshit on that. Besides not having strong evidence to back it up, let us not forget a woman can grind out her own clit stimulation. I highly doubt a clit a couple millimeters further from or closer to her vagina than average would have anything to do with the innate potential. The truth is there is every reason to assume every woman is biologically capable, with time, experience, and a partner that doesn't fuck it up for her, of grinding her clit against her partner or some bedding while she has a penis in her vagina (honestly though, that penis might need to just fucking stay still for a minute while she grinds). 

also, I'd like to reiterate that a partner that doesn't fuck it up is uberimportant because angle, pressure, and freedom of movement are key and need to be figured out on a case by case basis depending on how 2 people fit together. Where her clit is would certainly affect how she angles her hips to get the right grinding pressure on her clit, but there's just no reason to assume it says something about her biologically innate ability to orgasm. The only sticking point here, and it's actually a big one, is that the lady has to figure out this grinding thing on the fly while dealing with all the restrictions of movement keeping a penis up inside her creates. That's likely way more of a challenge than it should be and is likely why the numbers for this are so low...not because some women are biologically incapable of finding a situation that works for grinding her clit into an orgasm. 

Orgasming During Intercourse

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

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

But also, why are we so worried about having a dick in us when we orgasm?

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

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

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

Back to the 30%

Why it's important to understand correctly

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

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

But why even use the number at all

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

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

So to dive into these numbers we have to go through a few levels (listed below). I'll hit on each and how Lloyd's chapter and how I deal with them.

• Understanding what stats are out there that speak to % vaginal orgasm among us ladies
• Understanding the % of women that we can fairly assume orgasm during intercourse given the existing data
• Digging deeper into the study assumptions from which these numbers came
• Critiquing how these numbers are used

Understanding what stats are out there that speak to % vaginal orgasm among us ladies 

There are lots and they give a variety of numbers. Lloyd's all over this. Her review is comprehensive and touches on 32 major studies. The only really big one I know of that she doesn't include is Master's and Johnson's groundbreaking study, but that study was focused on the physiological investigation of orgasm as oppose to getting the % of vaginal orgasmers in a random (or at least somewhat random) population. However, if she had included it, it would not be counter to either Lloyd's argument or mine.  

Understanding  the % of women that we can fairly assume orgasm during intercourse given the existing data

This can only happen, of course, after  taking into account widely understood weaknesses of these many studies and how they negate and/or confirm each other, but also taking them generally at face value because they are all we have so far and any argument that outright ignores these stats would hold no water in a scientific argument. 

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

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

Important studies in Lloyd's review

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

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

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

Biases and problems to consider

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Digging deeper into the study assumptions from which these numbers came

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

Vaginal orgasms are assumed to exist, but, like, do they???

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

One would assume when a women says she orgasms that she knows what an orgasm is, if she's had one, and reports it accurately, but like, is that a smart assumption???

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

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

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

And, have we talked about how grinding orgasms factor into answers about intercourse orgasms?

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

Lloyd and I are interested in different types of intercourse orgasm discernment: An Aside

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

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

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

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

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

Even without digging deeper into these underlying assumptions, Lloyd's numbers are still important

These are things I live/love to pick at. However, although these questions are not something that would have been outside the realm of what Lloyd could have delved into, these questions of the existence of vaginal orgasm or of women's capacity to accurately identify an orgasm much less specifically an orgasm caused only by stimulation to the inside of the vagina are more controversial questions and would have put her lady-gasm evolution argument on shakier ground. 

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

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

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

Critiquing how these numbers are used 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make sure your local sexpert gets it right

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

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

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

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

Lady-gasm Equality: We Need A Revolution Not More Communication in Bed

Share

Tweet

Fuck communication. We need revolution.
I want to flip the perspective a bit today. I've been writing this blog for over a decade and something I hear often, and not just from men but from women too, is that this whole orgasm inequality thing is all about communication.

They might use the opportunity to kinda brag about how much they are dedicated to their lady-partner's orgasm or how so much better at communicating sexually they are than other women, like, "The problem is that women need to speak up about what they want sexually. I always ask for what I want." Or on the flipside, "I am not interested in a sexual experience where it's just about my orgasm, and when women say what they want, then I make sure we have a mutually orgasmic experience." Oh I'm sure you do, you perfectly assertive, incredibly sexually literate woman, and you perfectly kind, orgasm-giving machine of a man.

They also might use it as way to let out their sexual frustration with women, like, "How are we supposed to know what women want if they don't just say it? If a woman was rubbing my balls to try and get me off, I would say, 'hey, ya need to stroke my penis.' I wouldn't sit there and pretend it's good!" In fact Pete Davidson has a whole bit just like that in his most recent stand-up special "Alive From New York."

Most often though, they'll just ignore everything I said and just sum it up with, "Yeah, it's just about communication!" Like they are agreeing with me because they already completely understand everything I just talked about. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID AT ALL MOTHA FUCKERS. I have never, ever said it's all about communication.

At a time when a post I wrote critiquing a BBC article on female orgasms was getting a bunch of press, a Philosopher of Science dude that I quite liked read it, wrote a post about it on his blog, and basically said that exactly. It pissed me off.  Like...my whole long-ass, point by point take-down of the cultural status quo and deep misunderstanding of how the female orgasm physically happens that the BBC article espoused - and he's like, "Yeah, exactly. We should all communicate more during sex." Fuck you. I didn't say that at all. This dude's living is based off thinking about science and the culture of science through different perspectives, but somehow his brain couldn't comprehend anything I said except that communication is important? I don't know if my post even said anything about communication. It's just what he was comfortable and familiar with I guess. That's how deep this shit is.

So, what I'm saying is that this orgasm equality problem is not about communication, it's so much more than that. Communication in bed is like the last 1% of what needs to be done to correct this. So, let me put things this way, and I'm gonna speak directly to the people with penises, but it's not like people with clits understand this really either.

Imagine it this way, people with penises (but like also everyone else should flip their perspective too)
Penis-bearers,

You have an advantage in partnered sexual situations with clit-bearers. The whole world knows basically how to get you off. Yeah, there's individual preferences, but (and here's the crux of what I'm trying to say) don't confuse your problem of having to tell someone that you personally like shorter strokes and more lube, with a problem of deep seeded incorrect knowledge of your sexual anatomy and orgasm that resides within both you and your partner. 

It's the difference between you having a person's hand on your penis and having to guide them with your hand to show them what you personally like VS. you having a person fully expecting to make you come with their finger in your ass and having to change the course and momentum of the sex act to tell them that, actually, you need extra to come. You need your dick touched. And then, after all that, having to show them how you like it touched - more lube, short strokes, whatever.

But honestly you're starting closer to zero there because they just haven't seen a lot of examples in porn and movies and shit of people touching a penis the way you like yours touched. I mean do they smack it? They see that a lot in porn...

But, no, it's even worse than that. It's also that the act of them sticking their finger in your ass also makes them come - like really good and reliably, and they REALLY LOVE to do it. It, like, feels pretty fucking good to them. Like sometimes it feels so good it's hard to stop or focus on anything else, ya know?

And also...their last boyfriend was able to come that way...so...

Even if they understand men are all different, and it's okay that you need "extra" (and some of them won't really understand and be nice about it, and you've definitely been with a couple of those, but the one now seems cool with it), they still haven't seen a lot of men in movies or porn that can't come from the finger up the ass, so it's a touch foreign on how to proceed.

Honestly, it would be, like, a lot easier for both of you if you just came from ass fingering, wouldn't it?

And what's also worse is that the attempts to be all nice and give you the "extra" are mostly done in combination with them fingering your ass. Like, fingering your ass, with one hand while they stroke your penis with the other. That way they can still come even though it is clearly splitting the focus away from your penis. You wouldn't want them to not come, right? That's probably like mean or something.

And ya know, it's even worse beyond that because you aren't completely sure that you can't come from ass fingering. It feels sooooo good sometimes, especially if you are really aroused. It's like you could almost come that way. Maybe you even did once??

Also, like, it does seem as though so many other dudes were able to figure out or be luckily endowed with the ability to come from ass fingering, you just feel like you should keep at it, and your partner loves it so much, and you love making your partner happy, and it does feel good. Plus, it's really just kind of a bother to ask for penis stimulation. They usually don't know how to do it well anyway, so you have to teach them a lot and when you try they get a little out of the mood and then so do you, and it's really just not that worth it. And a lot of times even if you are able to teach them, it feels like they forget what you taught them the next time.

Sex isn't all about orgasm anyway, right? It's such a shame to focus only on the orgasm. You truly love the emotional connection and the physical touching. Plus, they usually touch your penis some at the beginning to get you in the mood and that's nice too.

And of course, you can always masturbate later, which most people now understand is manual stimulation of the penis for penis-bearers. Yeah, granted that's nothing like ass fingering, whereas for the person fingering, masturbation is just encompassing and rubbing the finger with their hand or mouth or something, so their masturbation is just like ass fingering...but no on seems to notice that discrepancy - including you. It's not something anyone discusses even though it's so obvious.

Then, ya know, it's even worse than that because you might have never touched your penis much or at all until well after you were sexually active with another person. Most of your partnered sexual experience has been asshole stuff though - especially one-night stands. It's just that people are weird about teen boys being sexual and wanting orgasm, and you also never really hear the word penis, so it's not really what you thought about when you thought about 'sex' or how to relieve your horniness as you were growing up.

And you always imagined as a young person that when the right person fingered your asshole, it would be like the most amazing orgasmic shit, and you had a feeling like you kinda needed another person to give you that experience. And you really did try to have that experience. You read articles and sex advice that told you to be mentally and emotionally open to it and not get hung up on things, and get a lot of penile foreplay before so you were aroused before the ass fingering. You really tried to have the orgasmic experience from ass-fingering, but nothing seemed to work. Maybe you're just one of the guys that isn't wired that way. You are just an unlucky one that 'needs extra.' Although, maybe it did happen once, though? It's hard to remember, but there were really good times.

And you know, it was always about the ass hole when it came to sex, for your whole life. Almost everything you saw. You've definitely heard some men need penis stimulation, but really that never registered much until later when you were an adult and honestly it's hard to figure out how to incorporate it now.

It's, like, some bullshit man - how insanely stupid it is to flip what happens to clits onto penises
Yeah, I know ladies don't come from rubbing their fingers, but I think it's a pretty good comparison to dicks going into vaginas.

Dicks get all the fun and orgasms. What we think of as basic sex (i.e. intercourse) looks like how they masturbate.

Vaginas get a ton of attention and all kinds of things stuck in them with the expectation that it will cause orgasm in that vagina-having person, but it actually won't (Seriously. Like SERIOUSLY).

Clits get ignored. The word is rarely said compared to penis and vagina - even in things like sex ed and even progressive sex advice. I mean, lots of actual women and men don't know where it is. It's rarely a focus in sexual media. Yet, the clit and the surrounding outer vulva tissue are what needs to be stimulated in order to orgasm - just as much as the penis is for males.

And no, ya'll, the "legs" of the clit that go down into the body don't get stimulated to orgasm through the walls of the vagina from penis banging. There's no actual physical evidence of this ever happening. It's just some BS that allows people to kinda vaguely "know" that the clitoris (specifically the external parts of the clit that can be stimulated externally) is the organ for female orgasm but still not question the expectation that at least some women, ya know the really sexually open and/or lucky women, should orgasm from vaginal penetration alone. The clitoral legs idea that is popular now is like the incorrect idea of an orgasm-giving G-spot, they are both stories that help smooth over how incredibly inconsistent the cultural understanding of female orgasm is compared to what the actual physical evidence of female orgasm tells us.

That finger thing would be cool though, right? I'd be sticking my finger up all the dude's asses for real, and sucking my finger a lot too, but not in that order.

But my point is, when it comes to clit-bearers quest for better sex and more orgasms, I don't want to hear shit anymore like, "It's just about communication." Or "Women need to just say what they want." If the playing field were equal it would all be about communications, and yes, I'm all for more of it and for women saying what they want in a sexual encounter.

But don't try and tell me that's the issue we're facing, because it most definitely is not.  We're facing a deep, all encompassing misunderstanding of female sexual response, female orgasm, and female anatomy that affects all aspects of how clit-bearers are understood sexually by our partners, how we understand ourselves, the expectations we have of sexual encounters and how we engage in them, what we see of people like ourselves and our partners in the media, and how much or little sexual satisfaction and orgasm we are willing to withstand.

We can communicate all we want, but until the clit is truly understood as the organ of female sexual pleasure, as deeply as the penis is understood as the organ of male sexual pleasure, and until we as a culture truly understand that intercourse is not a sensible way for a female to come - and I mean like understand it at such a level that it is in our blood and our history and our art and jokes and interactions - then nothing substantive will change for the lady-gasm. Clits will continue to be at a disadvantage to penises in a sexual situation. But this is a tall order. We need a complete flipping of our cultural understanding of how sex works. We need an Orgasm Equality Revolution.

Some Stuff I wanted to Write While On a Layover

Share

Tweet

Hey my friends out there in the world. I know it's been about 2 weeks, but I'm still here, and I'm still working on SSL Reviews, and Journal Article Summaries, and all that. It's just way slower at the moment. I've been hoping for probably about 2 years now that things would begin to fall in such a way that I feel fine prioritizing writing in this blog, but things haven't. It will though eventually. It's kinda like life, ya know? You and the stuff around you changes. You change with it. You prioritize how you spend your time accordingly. Sometimes you don't spend a lot of time with your friends or call your family as much as you'd like. Sometimes you don't sleep enough. But...if things are important to you, you get back to it eventually. That's how I feel about this blog. I'll keep trying for a weekly post, but I'm not going to sweat it. I love this shit, and I'll move through all the posts I want to do as I can. One day, I'll get back to spending several hours a week on this. I look forward to that.

So, I have some time at the moment, but not enough to get into anything deep. I'm on a layover in an airport. My left eye is red as fuck (from lack of sleep and dryness, I think??), and I forgot to pack eyedrops. I just ate some really good dark chocolate, sea salt graham crackers. I just want to write something to get it up on the blog so people know I'm alive and still thinking about how to catch the Orgasm Equality Revolution on fire (maybe we could call it the clitolution? or the More-Clit-Less-Vag Revolution? or maybe the What-You-Think-You-Know-About-Sex-Is-So-Fucking-Wrong Revolution? - none of those are good. I'm open for more ideas. Write me).

Here's stuff I'm feeling good about right now

• I'm halfway through a post about the book Come As You Are: The Surprising New Science That Will Transform Your Sex Life. Here's the basics. Highly recommend for those of us (I'm assuming every woman reading this) that has felt or does feel like their desire is problematic or broken. It's kind of like a self-help book for desire issues - great thought exercises to help you understand that you and your body are actually acting completely sensibly to the world around them. HOWEVER - it's complete shit when it comes to acknowledging that regular lack of orgasm during sexual interactions where the partner is not lacking orgasm can be a serious element to desire loss. Also, it's completely bonkers in (and purports to but does not have science to back up) how it discusses and defines orgasms (like, come on, sucking toes has never been shown to cause an actual physiological orgasm and saying so is irresponsible). Luckily, the orgasm part is not that much of the content and there really are important things in this book...just ignore anything she says about orgasm.
• I have a lovely lady that  reads the blog. We talk online and she's passionate about this topic. She's quite a researcher sending me awesome articles and excerpts, and she's helping to keep me motivated right now. Dude, she's awesome, and I so love that she wrote me. I LOVE hearing from readers anyway - like, it straight makes my week when it happens - and then the fact that she's so engaged and helpful and smart is just the best of icing on top.
• I have never watched the Kardashians before. It just happened that way, but I've seen a shit ton recently and there's some solid masturbation mentions. I appreciate that.
• I have a really good system for noting media that can be SSL Reviewed (discusses or depicts female orgasm, female masturbation or the clit) now. I consume a lot of media, and in the past sometimes I would see something and then I completely forget it or I don't catch all the things in a TV series. Doesn't happen anymore...which means I have a huge ass queue of movies and TV that I need to do, but I'd rather that than miss something.
• I'm rereading Human Sexual Response. I talk about it and use it all the time, but it's been about 6 years since I read and took notes on it. I thought it would refresh me and also i might have a new perspective on stuff in it given things I've read and discussed since then. I'd like to do a book review on it after I'm done. I'll be on a lot of planes, so I think I'll have time to read it too.

Okay the planes boarding. Talk to you soon.

Giving Up Blowjobs For The Good Of Womankind

Share

Tweet

Writer Alison Stevenson is a bad bitch who should walk around with her hands pumping victoriously in the air most of the time. She did some truth-telling in a July 2016 article about how little she (and many women) orgasm during sexual encounters - particularly compared to men, and she said no more, my friends. No. More.

"If men expect to get an orgasm out of a hookup—without having to give anything in return—then I would adopt that approach, too."

Suck It, BJ's!
In an absolutely fabulous article from March 2015, she announced that she had stopped giving blowjobs, and in this new and equally fabulous 2016 article, she gives us a follow-up about why she's still not sucking dick. She, very rightly, decided that she had given too many goddamn blowjobs to boys that did not return the favor, and she's over it. She also rightly pointed out how the wrong-but-all-too-common assumption that women should just orgasm when a penis moves inside their vaginas (vaginae for you scholarly types) is the root of this problem. The reality is most women don't orgasm that way. The majority of women straight up do not orgasm from vaginal penetration (and I would argue it's even less than we are currently willing to admit).

"Penetration is great, but no matter how long, curved, or fat your dick is, it's not going to happen for me. That's true for plenty of other women, too—it's clit or bust. In other words, if a guy and I have sex, but I don't suck his dick, he can still come. If we have sex and he doesn't eat me out, I can't."

Tell Me Again How Orgasmic Sex Is...
I respect the hell out of what this women has done (and Tracey Moore at Jezebel does too) because the truth is women are set up to fail in sexual encounters in a way that men are not. None of us, boys or girls, were taught that the clit must be stimulated to orgasm. To drive that home, we were also taught that the most important and supposedly awesome part of a sexual encounter is intercourse - something which naturally involves the vagina and penis but not the clit. Fully involving the clit to the point of orgasm during a 'basic sex act' is not the norm. To involve the clit usually means that there are 'extras' given; extra effort, extra communication, extra sexual acts, extra willingness to do things a little differently. So the male orgasm is par for the course. The female orgasm is extra. It's some bullshit. Whether people realize it or not, the status quo sex act is male-gasm friendly but not female-gasm friendly.

Now, as Ms. Stevenson says in her original 2015 article, her lack of cunnilingus (and thus orgasm) in the past is part her fault too because she didn't used to ask,

"Look, I know that my years of being denied oral sex is my fault too. I was a different person then. I never asked for what I wanted, because I worried it would make me seem less attractive. It's something a lot of women feel, that it's more important to fulfill a man's desires over our own. You know, in order to "keep him." Even the most headstrong, self-reliant, progressive women fall victim to this line of thinking. I have finally been able to fully shed myself of my meekness when it comes to sex and I know now that I can not only demand what I want but also deny what I don't want: blowjobs."

I love that she takes some responsibility in this. She's clearly a sensible, thoughtful person, and I think it's true that a woman must become more proactive about asking in order to get her orgasm.

Men Just Get Orgasms, Women Need To Ask...For Extra
That said, can I also say WTF? Yes, she never asked, but can we take a minute and wonder why she has to ask in the first place? Why women must put so much work into getting their orgasm when men simply do not? Why men don't just automatically work the clit like women just automatically work the penis? Why we as a society fully understand and accept that men need their penises stimulated to orgasm, but are so clueless about what makes a woman orgasm that the default thing to do in sex with a woman is ram stuff up her vagina (seriously, contrary to popular belief, getting a woman off is actually not that difficult but trying to do it by stimulating the vagina instead of the clit sure makes it seem difficult, doesn't it?).

The frustration that led Ms. Stevenson to her no BJ decision is much bigger than boys aren't trying hard enough. Yes, that might often be the case, but the truth is we're dumb about lady-gasms. We shouldn't be because they're actually not that complicated at all, but yet we are, and since we're dumb about them and they seem so wierd and mystical and fickle, the female orgasm just gets ignored.
So...

• Men and often women don't know how to make them happen
• The way sex is depicted and joked about and taught either doesn't include or misrepresents the physical needs for lady-gasm
• The normal ways we go about sex don't leave room for it 
• We don't prioritize them
• Women often don't feel we deserve them (I mean they're so hard to get and your partner has to put extras in to get you there!)

All that adds up to males orgasming and ladies having to 'ask'.

Rock The Hell On Alison Stevenson!
This woman looked at her sex life and made a decision to put priority on her own orgasm over her male partners'. It's such a revolutionary thing to do because it throws a wrench in the age old sexual status quo and makes a bold statement that flies in the face of people (and I really think this is most people) who don't want to acknowledge how skewed towards male pleasure our sexual culture is. What she did is not easy. It takes self knowledge and courage, and it's inspiring.

So, for all that I am adding Alison Stevenson to the Orgasm Equality Heroes List. Her article and her sentiments fit into something I see as an exciting movement where women are acknowledging that status quo, run of the mill, normal sex is actually pretty bad sex for the ladies. What I mean is that the normal flow of sex, the normal expectations of sex, and the normal skills used in sex are just A LOT better for the male orgasm than for the female. Let me say it another way. When it comes to men, sex is like pizza - even bad sex is kinda okay because they come. For women, though, most sex is unorgasmic, some of it is downright gross, rapey, mean, utterly boring, or painful, and then only really extraordinary sex is even good or orgasmic at all.

This is important because as a culture there is still this entrenched feeling that the simple act of intercourse is a mutually orgasmic experience for both the male and female. It is hard to convince people that we should be going about sex differently because what could be wrong with the way it is? So, we need women speaking out and telling us about their actual experiences. How we go about sex and the expectations we have about sex and orgasm could be so much better. We need to hear more and more women getting real about this and pointing out the unequal playing field.

Bravo, Alison Stevenson! Every time one woman speaks out it makes it that much easier for another, and if we get enough we might have a full-on Orgasm Equality Revolution on our hands!

(and you really should read both her BJ articles - 2015 and 2016. She's also quite funny. Check out her Tumblr)

Annamarie Jagose Getting to the Bottom of this Whole Orgasm Gap Thing

Share

Tweet

A friend tipped me off to this article called "Some Notes On The Female Orgasm in 2015," by Annamarie Jagose, a scholar and author. She spat the ever-lovin' truth, and I'm putting her directly into the Orgasm Equality Allies list (with the full knowledge that she may view the term 'orgasm equality' differently than I do). Plus I'm creating a new category within the list ("stuff focusing on the deeper societal causes of orgasm inequality") to put her article under.  Dr. Jagose went right to the kernel of this issue like no-one I've seen yet, and I'm very excited that she did.

Annamarie Jagose Picture from Random House Books

So that brings me to what Dr. Jagose was saying. Very basically, she was saying that all the pop discussion and worry and outcry about the 'orgasms gap' is not new. People were talking about it back in the early 1900's. It is a continual, constant problem that originates because lady-gasms and intercourse are not very compatible, and it will continue to be a problem until our culture loosens its deep allegiance to the dream of intercourse as a mutually orgasmic sexual experience.

Fuck to the yeah on that assessment.

She also gets a little deeper in her explanation. She points out that  the statistics (and the discussion surrounding those statistics) about things like; how much less women orgasm vs. men, how unlikely women are to have orgasms from intercourse, and how women NEED clitoral stimulation in order to come - are actually not that helpful in the end. Why? Because for fuck sake, we've known these stats for decades - centuries even, and yet somehow, we just plain don't seem to care enough to do anything about it.

She rightly points out that the truly interesting thing here is not the old-ass news about the sad state of lady-gasms and their lack of existence in so many hetero sexual encounters (particularly intercourse). The REALLY interesting thing here is WHY THE FUCK ARE WE STILL HAVING THIS CONVERSATION LIKE IT'S NEW? What is it about our culture that makes us (and I'm talking men, women, sexperts, sociologists, medical scientists - the whole gamut) hell-bent on dismissing, marginalizing, and straight up ignoring the truth about how disconnected our cultural expectations of hetero-sex are from the realities of how women actually orgasm.

She's so on point with that. In fact, it was kinda like a a sign from some kind of god or something to me because the topic of her article had been heavily on my mind for the past couple days. I'd been mulling over how to write more strongly about it, and I had just this Sunday written an article inspired by seeing Dr. Ruth on an old Johnny Carson episode that touched on the same topic. It had struck me how close what Dr. Ruth was saying over 30 years ago is to what sexperts say today....and yet nothing has changed in the orgasm gap - which is insane to me. The sad truth is that even if we know that intercourse is not great for lady-gasms and that clit stimulation is needed, and although it logically makes sense that having sex the way most hetero people have sex is definitely going to keep this orgasm gap alive and well, in the end as a culture we just kinda want to ignore it. It's pretty mind-boggling actually.

I'm interested to read Annamarie Jagose's book Orgasmology because I'd like to hear more on her point of view about why this is still happening, because she will certainly come at this from a different perspective. I will say from a practical standpoint and also from a kind of personal experience standpoint, part of the problem this issue continues to stay stagnant is that it doesn't gain you much love to speak so boldly about how scarily twisted our society is about lady-gasms, so even people who want to talk about it, don't. In fact, when you really try to address the weird societal core of this orgasm equality problem, you tend to either get emotionally fueled blowback or more commonly you just plain get ignored and marginalized - and what really sucks is that, at least for me, it has often come hardest from people in the feminist, sex-positive, and progressive communities - people I expected to be allies. Which, I guess, just highlights Jagose's point about how deep the problem really is. That said, though, I've also experienced a lot of individuals who really connect to it, and I really feel people are becoming ripe to hear it - we just need more people saying it and more adamantly... like Jagose is doing.

Annamarie Jagose, you speaking about this is bold and brave, and the direct hit you make to the core of this problem is absolutely revolutionary and bad ass. Keep on with it. Speak that truth!

P.S. I do still love the term 'orgasm equality' but I totally get the point Dr. Jagose was making when she said that calling for 'orgasm equality' is often a vacant attempt to create a solution for a problem without acknowledging what that problem really is. I would put forth that, branded correctly, an Orgasm Equality Movement could and should dig deeper and create the kind of hard conversations and reflection that chip at the deeper societal need to believe hetero sexual intercourse is the mutually orgasmic epitome of sexual interaction.  Viva La Orgasm Equality Revolution!

Colin Aulds, An Article, The Honest Liars, and Orgasm Equality!

Share

Tweet

I'm writing this today because a guy named Colin Aulds, one of the Honest Liars, wrote a fab Orgasm Equality article in Weekly Gravy called, "How To Make Her Come...Before She Goes (Forever)," and I want to give him props for it, send you that way (Go check it out!!!!), give a little history, and tell you why I was so excited about it on an Orgasm Equality Movement level. I'm gonna be all long-winded about this though, so let me start.

First - Haven't heard of the Honest Liars? Haven't been to their site or listened to their podcast? That's your loss 'cause these dudes are getting into some issue that need digged into. They investigate radical honesty - being deeply honest with yourself so that you can engage in more healthy and honest relationships (They say all this better than me probably btw). They point out how hard that is to do because there are very few models for this kind of honesty out there in the world. We just don't grow up with it. They also make no bones about the fact that bringing that kind of honesty into your life can be painful and hard and could even break up relationships - but it is worth it.

I think they are way on point with that message, and I also think it has everything to do with Orgasm Equality. The culture surrounding female orgasm is so non-honest about the realities of the female body and the female experience that we men and women don't even know what honest looks like. It's just not modeled for us. So, getting to a more honest place when it comes to lady-gasms, with ourselves and in our sexual relationships, can be painful - but it's worth it.

So, my point is that their work and my work are meant to be good friends.

I met Colin when I (well let me first just admit that I regularly google my name and also 'science sex and the ladies'...like a lot. But in my defense, I would never find articles and stuff about SSL if I didn't. So, I googled 'science sex and the ladies' and saw the something called The Honest Liars Podcast had mentioned the movie. Obviously, I dropped all my actual work and listened immediately. I loved it. I loved it because these guys, Colin Aulds and Adam Talbot, were talking really thoughtfully and openly. They had read an Alternet article that came out about SSL. One of them (I think Adam) had then checked out my movie, and they also had invited a female friend to add her point of view.

Anyway, listening to them was awesome because I LOOOOVE hearing people talk about these ideas, but also because these dudes were really trying to grapple with some of the more controversial aspects. It was super refreshing to hear. Plus, I particularly liked that at times they mentioned the possible filmmaker of the movie that might be listening, and I actually was. That's just kinda funny to me.

So, I immediately wanted to contact them, and because I'm me and because they seemed truly open to discussion, in the email I corrected some of the things they had said about the science presented in the movie. I also gave my two cents about some statements Colin had made about feeling like (and I'm paraphrasing) that there shouldn't be any problems if a man and a woman just came together and communicated well. You know me. I have all kinds of things to say about there not being a level playing field, and that it's much more complicated than that, etc. etc.

To my great excitement, they emailed me back and were super receptive to discussing stuff. We ended up doing a Skype interview for their podcast on the 4th of July that became a 3 part series. Um, I REALLY liked doing that podcast. It was fun and they were really thoughtful and interesting and I think we had some top notch discussion. Podcasts are awesome because I feel like it's a way to get feedback and challenges on the spot so we can really talk out the minutia and subtlety in a way that is often too hard to do in writing.

Now we're back to Colin's article. Okay, so since then Colin has kept in contact with me from time to time, giving me a heads up when he sees something I might be interested in. Then in January, he wrote the article in question. I read it, and I was like, 'hell yeah!' It made me feel like Orgasm Equality had won over this man - and that made me feel really hopeful because this man, I think (and I hope I'm not stereotyping you too much, Colin), is a sorta alpha guy who was openly skeptical about a couple of my assertions going in. Now, when I say alpha - don't get me wrong. He's not some dumb meat head or anything. He's a smart, thoughtful, open guy. It's just he seems like he's also a guy's guy - he gets along with other dudes easily and probably spent a lot of his youth doing traditionally dude things with other dudes. He's the kind of person people always think this movie is not for, but to me - he's exactly the type of person it's for...a person who is skeptical, sure, but open and willing to ask hard questions in order to get the answers that make sense to them. And then when he is on board, that alpha part is a huge asset because he, with all that alpha-ness has the potential to influence lots of others.

Seriously, this podcast was fun as shit. It was like everything I ever hoped would happen while I'm talking with people about this. They asked me straight forward, skeptical questions about it. And we talked about it. I'm not in this for people to just smile and nod and then leave believing whatever it is they want to believe when they came in. The things I assert about lady-gasms and about the reality of sexual encounters between women and men are not, like, obvious.  So, honestly, if you don't question me or have some thought about it, I feel like something isn't right - like you don't care or you don't get the gravity of what we're saying, or you don't believe me and you want to just stop talking about it and move on. Maybe that's not true all the time, but it feels true. I want to get grilled. I want to get down to the nitty gritty. That's were the magic happens. That's where things start getting more clear - and that's what felt so cool about this podcast.

I'm super happy I met Colin and Adam. Honestly they had no reason to listen to me going in. The strongest assertions SSL makes fly in the face of pretty much everything society has been telling us about female sexuality since we popped outta the womb, and their experiences, like most dude's, probably tended to not jive with what I was saying anyway. But man, when I read what Colin had written in his article I felt like he had really gotten behind aspects of the Orgasm Equality argument that he had really questioned coming into our discussion - and that is crazy cool.

It means we can talk this stuff out, it means alpha dudes are our allies (He's already in the the Orgasm Equality Allies list as part of Honest Liars, but I added Colin and Adam's actual names into their entry), and it means there is a lot of hope for us ladies, our 'gasms, and our sexual encounters.

Big ups to you Colin, Adam and the Honest Liars!

Eva Longoria, Her Vibrators, and Her Orgasm Equality Awesomeness

Share 

Tweet

This post is an Orgasm Equality shout-out to Eva Longoria, the actress who caught her stardom playing Gabrielle on Desperate Housewives. She has candidly and apologetically said in interviews that she didn't orgasm until 26 - with the help of a vibrator. She's's also boldy touted the importance of women knowing our own bodies before before ever expecting a man to.

It's not common for any woman to speak out so genuinely about her own personal experience with orgasming, especially when she is admitting that orgasming was elusive to her for a good chunk of her adult life. Now, make that person a beautiful, famous actress known for her role as a rather sexy lady, and I'd say that takes some low hangin' lips. Her frankness on the subject helps illuminate  the distinction between a woman's sexuality and her sexiness, which is too often lost in a culture that repeatedly assumes sexy is sexual.

The very real truth that women are simply not orgasming as much as men, that this affects our lives, and that we all have struggles to differing degrees with this orgasm gap is just not talked about, so that Ms. Longoria did it is important, brave, and frankly just pretty awesome and bad ass. She speaks the truth not only to reporters, but to her friends, and that's about as much of an Orgasm Equality Soldier as I could expect any person to be.

I think she's probably just a genuine person keeping things real, and likely not saying these things with any sort of specific revolutionary aim, but that's kind of the beauty isn't it? It makes me feel like we're coming to  point 1. where we have powerful women who feel more free to speak candidly, 2. where their voices can be heard, 3. where the current culture and their backgrounds have led them to question their experiences of (less) orgasms (than they want and deserve), and 4. where they're investigating solutions and sharing them with other women. That's kind of the goal. We just need even more women hearing and sharing.

Anyway, I loves me some Eva Longoria and her frank, thoughtful words to women about their orgasms. Here are a couple quotes:

In this article at The Daily Mail, Longoria tells Rebecca Hardy:

"I spoke about vibrators and Brazilians in an article about women finding their sexuality. I didn't have my first orgasm until I was 26. That was with a vibrator. And yes, I said that every woman should try a Brazilian wax once. The sex they have afterwards will make them keep coming back. Taken out of context it looks as if I'm running around talking about vibrators. But I hate censoring myself and dancing around things."

Here's a piece of the Q&A from this cosmopolitan interview with Jennifer Graham"

C: You've been quoted as saying that you didn't have your first orgasm until you used a vibrator. Do you think it's important for women to experiment with their own bodies?  

E :Yes, because you get better at sex when you know your own body. How are you going to expect a man to know your body when you don't know what pleases you? It's really important to have a healthy sexuality and to be open about it. It's not a taboo. It's normal. By the way, after my vibrator quote was published, I literally got boxes and boxes of vibrators and pocket rockets [free from sex-toy companies]. So I was constantly giving them away. Even before that, I would give them as gifts to girlfriends for their birthdays, and they'd be so excited.

Gemma Askham - Writing Orgasm Equality for Women's Magazines Like A Boss!!!!

Share

Tweet

Women's magazine sex writers get a lot of jokes thrown their way - they bring to mind things like Cosmo sex positions that involve throwing doughnuts around an erect penis and then eating said doughnut.

It ain't no joke to me, though. Women's magazine sex writers are important, and what they write means something. Women are starved for sensible, accurate, realistic, non-frivolous information about our own orgasms. So, when a popular women's magazine publishes information about sex and female orgasm we ingest it even if it's bad. Their words impact women and our understanding of ourselves - they just do.

What that says to me is that when it comes to preaching orgasm equality, sex writers at women's magazines have incredible power to make change and sway the status quo, and what I really want to talk about is the cold hard fact that there really is some good, progressive-as-shit writing out there in this genre. And further, I would like to talk about how important good quality lady-gasm writing must have been to these writers for them to get that shit published. That kind of writing is not the norm, and so the very fact that it gets published means that they had to be a little pushy and a little brave, and their editors had to be a little brave too.

In fact, I have talked to a few of these women over the course of writing this blog, and I know that good writing on this subject isn't usually what the decision-makers are comfortable with. Every little tidbit of true progressiveness is hard fought, and I respect the hell out of these ladies for doing it. They are paving roads. You can meet some of them in my Orgasm Equality Hero's list, and today I'm going to introduce you to one more.

Gemma Askham is a freelance writer. She was a feature editor at British Glamour, and she's written for all kinds of magazines including Elle, Cosmopolitan, GQ, Glamour, Cleo, etc., etc. Anyway, my point here is that she writes for women's magazines, and she sometimes writes in them about sex...and she cares about doing it right. In fact, she is doing it right because she's pushing to be more realistic, more accurate, and more progressive. I think she's kick ass on the Orgasm Equality front, and I know of at least 2 articles she's written that will prove it.

Article 1
In Bedroom Equality, (a pdf of a differently titled print version HERE) a rather appropriate title if I might say so, she talks about the bullshit of so much sex ending when the man comes, about the abundance of crappy, unrealistic sex in porn, and about how too few women masturbate. Most importantly, though, she tells us that women need to start believing we deserve our share of orgasms.

My 2 favorite quotes in this article:

of orgasm..."But when a third more Australian men than women admit to masturbating, what are we telling the world about our right to having one."

"We fight to overturn Australia's 18.8 per cent gender pay gap, yet we're laying back and just letting our 26 per cent gender gap happen. In sex, women aren't only coming second; frequently we aren't coming at all. This isn't the equivalent of being paid less, it's the equivalent of no pay at all."

Hells. yeah. Let's get this fight a goin'!

Article 2
Beating the Orgasm Gap in Australia's Cleo Magazine (pdf HERE) is chock full of orgasm equality and good advice.  She speaks the truth about the clit and its rightful place as the organ of female sexual pleasure. Granted, I may have a few quotes in this one, so I might be biased, but I LOVE that she was so bold about really, specifically pointing out that vaginas do not orgasms make (as far as science has found so far). That's not at all common to see, and I can only imagine it's not super easy for editors to swallow. It's brave, and I am overjoyed she's done it.

However, that's not the only great stuff. There's some wicked insightful thoughts about what our culture has to do with this, what parts we play in it, and what we can do about this orgasm gap. You'll find quotes from the awesome Tumblr, How To Make Me Come (really - check it out if you haven't). Also from Dr. Lisa Wade, author of Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions, Dr. Vivienne Cass author of The Elusive Orgasm, and Elizabeth Armstrong, author of this big ol' survey having to do with orgasm and relationships. ,

You'll also find some sensible and kinda cool starter masturbation activities from Carlyle Jansen, author of Sex Yourself: The Woman's Guide to Mastering Masturbation And Achieving Powerful Orgasms.

Now, that's the kind of sex writing we should be seeing in magazines aimed at us, ladies, amiright?

Gemma kickin' ass and takin' names
Gemma is pushing her medium forward. She speaks to large audiences, and her progressive writing is just the kind of thing that could really give Orgasm Equality a sizable nudge in the right direction. My hat is off to you, Ms. Askham. Welcome to my List of Orgasm Equality Heroes!

I believe there is more to come (ha - come) from Gemma Askham. Keep up to date with her HERE at her site.