4.01.2016

Random Male Hite Report #17



Hello, friends. It's time for another Random Hite Report! In 1976, Shere Hite dropped The Hite Report where she compiled detailed survey answers from over 3,000 women about sex, masturbation, orgasms, and relationships. It's insane to me how revolutionary this book still is. Read it, seriously. We really haven't changed that much in 40 years, and it's an incredibly insightful read.

Then in 1981, she dropped The Hite Report on Male Sexuality where over 7,000 men give detailed answers about sex, relationships, and women. It too is revolutionary, and the honesty, vulnerability, and detail in this book is so important and moving. I think everyone should read this too. So, I give you a taste every now and then to entice you to get these books. Seriously, they are both like 1 cent online.



Anyway, what I do is flip to one random page and copy the contents of that page, no more-no less, directly onto this blog. Enjoy.

 The Hite Report on Male Sexuality
Knopf, 1981 pg 18

The following page is in the chapter Relationships Between Boys and Their Fathers. The page is filled with men's answers to the question,"Are you or were you close to your father? In what way? What is/was he like? What do you think of him? Can you talk to your father?" "What was your relationship to him when you were a child? Were you physically close (affectionate)?" The passage is preceded by the following section header:
Almost no men said they had been or were close to their fathers:
    "I loved him very much as a boy - now I am ambivalent about him. He is a weak man, dominated by my mother, dependent. I am very angry with him because he was not a good model for me - he does not know himself and so he taught me to be someone that can't exist - macho."
    "I was not real close to my father. He was a hard-working, honest man who liked to drink a little too much on occasion and had a few affairs in his life."
    "My father is a dominant, controlling man. He accepts responsibility well, but is inept in interpersonal relationships, except on a casual basis. I now have a comfortable relationship with him, but very superficial."
    "We were never close. He was a weekend alcoholic. When he was drunk Mom would hide upstairs, and he would rant and rave. It was terrifying. The rest of the week he was passive. Did his job, came home, and watched TV."
    "We were not close. He is very quiet - distant. I respect his dedication to the family, but i never talk to him about important things."
    "I don't think of him much. I don't think we were suited to be father and son but i wonder if anyone was."
    "My father and I never spent a great deal of time together. He is honest, and loyal, but even now my father and I can go days without saying nothing but good morning and good night to each other."
    "I feel cheated because I had absolutely no love from my father for as long as I can remember. He just tried to buy my love with outrageous presents, like a motorcycle when I was twelve and two more before I even had my driver's license. Then a brand-new car, etc. We never talked or did things together."
    "Dad was always busy. We saw a lot of him on vacations of a month of camping but little else. He would punish us when he got home from work after talking to mom."
    "My father had a bad temper and did not spare the rod. He was hard to get close to and did not show affection to my brother or me. I liked my dad but doubt that I loved him."
    "I don't know a lot about him because he was always travelling, but I feel a lot of warmth towards him and from him. He's dark-haired, doesn't talk much about himself."
    "No-but he seemed like a nice man."
    "I'm not really close to my father. I respect him more than he knows, and I know that he cares about me. But we did very little together. He s strict, and used to have an explosive temper, which has mellowed considerably int he last few years. He grew up in the depression, and refuses to throw anything away because he 'might need it someday.' I love my father, but I can't talk to him about anything but practical or mechanical matters."
    "I was very detached from my father. He was, and is, unable to show any emotion except negative ones, such as anger, cynicism, frustration, etc. He never complimented me or anyone, and never said anything positive to me. I only worked around the house with him as a kind of assistant. He worked a lot on the house, I think as a kind of substitute way of caring for the family and providing for it without ever saying 'I love you' to anyone. I avoided him because he meant more work or criticism. He also worked nights, so I didn't see him as often as others saw their fathers. We were never physically close."

3.28.2016

Ode to the Clit



This will be a quick post because I'm swamped in my day job, and I'm only about 75% done with the journal article review I was hoping to finish by today, but I really want to get something up tonight.

However, just because it's quick doesn't mean you won't enjoy it. It's a music video about the clit. If you haven't already seen it, then this will be a treat. If you have already watched, then please enjoy again.

It's sparkly, weird, and has lots of clit and masturbation love, so it gets a thumbs up from me. Just the simple fact that this is all about the clit is important because we hear so very little about it compared to the vagina penis and balls. We don't hear the word enough, and it's not involved in discussion about female orgasm and sex enough, so the more times it's said, the more people who hear it, the better.

I will, because my whole thing with this blog is to get real detailed about critiquing this stuff, mention that everything in this video about the clit and orgasm is not completely grounded in scientific fact. In the Freud section of this song, there is an insinuation that orgasms caused 'vaginally' or 'inside the hole' are actually caused because the inner clitoris was being stimulated presumably through the vaginal wall (so it's all clitoral!). Problem is, a 'vaginal' orgasm (orgasm caused by stimulation inside the vagina with no additional outer clitoral stimulation) has never been observed or recorded in scientific literature. So, the idea that the inner parts of the clit are responsible for this thing that has never been observed is just a completely unvalidated hypothesis.

I think it's important to mention this because all-orgasms-are-clitoral-orgasms is kind of a popular mantra in lady-gasms talk these past few years. While on the surface it sounds about right, what it is actually doing is lumping the idea of orgasms-from-stimulation-inside-the-vagina into clitorally-stimulated-orgasms because of some hypotheses that the inner clitoral legs get stimulated through the vaginal wall during intercourse, and that's just plain not based in sound science . In fact, I think it hurts the quest for orgasm equality because it continues to normalize the idea that women could easily come from P in V, when in fact that's not the case, and we don't even know if women do orgasm from stimulation inside the vagina....but scientists and sex advisers, and feminists should be debating and investigating this, so I don't love that it gets silenced and whitewashed over by saying all orgasms are clitoral.

All that said, though, I still have lots of love for this video, and I respect any effort to get more respect for the clit and normalization of female masturbation. Plus, it's just fun. Enjoy.


3.23.2016

5 Little Kid Movies #DirectedByWomen



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

It's a bit off-topic from my normal fare, ya know, not usually about lady-gasms or anything like that, but I think it fits the blog because
1. this blog is also about indie movie-making, and
2. this blog is partially about getting the female perspective of sexuality into our media. So, to me, supporting female voices in our media - means we're creating more room for female voices to speak on all types of things, which sometimes will be sex, orgasms and sexuality. You can find all my 5-movie lists HERE.

So, this is my Movies For Little Kids List - for if you have a really little kid -that wants to watch movies.

1 Shrek - This was directed by Andrew Adamson and Vicky Jenson.  I very much enjoyed this movie, which isn't a surprise. It was widely loved when it came out. We took some group of nieces and nephews to see it at the theater back in the day, and I can recall that we all had ourselves some good laughs and the message ain't so bad neither.





2 Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel - This was directed by Betty Thomas, who I now realize has directed quite a bit of movies that I like and that you will now see on future lists. I saw this with 2 of my sister's kids, and I don't remember it specifically. I may have made dinner during part of it, I'm not sure, but I don't remember hating it, and that's pretty good for a young kid's movie.






3 Dr. Dolittle  - This was again directed by Betty Thomas. First off, I really thought that would have been spelled with two O's not one, but whatever. I can't remember a lot from this. Again, I saw it on TV with some nieces and nephews, and I may have been doing other things. I just don't know. But it's got talking animals, I believe, and that's always fun.





4 Brave - This was directed by Mark Andrews, Brenda Chapman, and Steve Purcell. I took 4 nieces and nephews to see this in the theater (the dollar theater, actually, that has since closed down and I'm devastatingly sad about it), and we all enjoyed it. It's a solid pick for the family.





5 Parent Trap - This is directed by Nancy Meyers. It's, of course, a remake of an old Disney movie, just like Dr. Dolittle is, but I like this version. It's definitely a formulaic kids movie, but it's the kind of movie I might watch if it's on while I'm doing other things on a Saturday...in fact, I think that's how I saw it originally.


3.18.2016

Top-Notch Hand Lady-bation Instruction by Vanessa Marin



Type "how to masturbate" into Google, and (in a surprising turn of expectations) don't be afraid of the article that comes up first! It's pretty top-notch actually. It's called "How To Orgasm, Female Style: 8 Steps To Having Orgasms (Without A Vibrator),"  and it's by Vanessa Marin over at Bustle.

Vanessa Marin from her site VMTherapy.com

I guess it's not surprising that it's an article about female masturbation and not male masturbation. Men have plenty of other ways that masturbation methods might become clear to them as they grow into sexual people. For instance:

  1. Porn has a tons of actual male orgasms, sometimes using their own hands or a partner's hands to finish off  - so you can see exactly how it might get done. 
  2. Basic American sex ed is not great for a lot of things, but the vague and limited information given about reproductive sex insinuates the right thing about step 1 to creating dude-gasms (i.e. encompassing the penis with something). 

Sadly we ladies are not as lucky. The sex ed insinuation we get - "put something in vagina" - is not step 1 for lady-gasms, and good luck finding a porn actress rubbing her own clit or getting her clit rubbed in a way and for an amount of time that might elicit actual orgasm (however, if you are looking for 'acted' lady-orgasms, porn has you covered).

Okay, So Vanessa Marin is a licensed psychotherapist focusing on sex things, and clearly she writes for Bustle too. What I'd like to say about this lovely lady is that she gives one of the very best lady-bation instruction posts I've seen on the web. Here's some things I love about it:


  • It's got all the best advice you usually see about this: try and work out all your I-shouldn't-masturbate demons, explore the clit/vulva area, don't focus on orgasm at first, make time to practice - you know, that sort of thing. However, it then gets to specific details about how to actually move your fingers on your junk. diagonal? circles around the clit? the ol' 2-finger clit-surround method? It's up to you. Try them all!
  • As one of the first helpful links, it has For Yourself: The Fulfillment of Female Sexuality book by Lonnie Barbach; A groundbreaking book by A fab woman I was lucky enough to interview about 5 years ago. Seriously, if you have not yet orgasmed and want to start that journey, I highly recommend this book.
  • It's focused on the hands. Don't get me wrong. I love a vibrator. We all should, really. Sometimes, though, there are no vibrators to be had. Sometimes, our own hands are all we have available, and we must, I say MUST, be prepared for these times. 
  • It's a fun read, and there's some good gifs. I recommend it highly.


So a very big Thank You to Ms. Vanessa Marin. I have much love and appreciation for anyone who promotes lady-bation. And, for those that do so with particularly realistic and detailed instructions, I have a little something more. This post gets Vanessa right into the Orgasm Equality Allies List.

3.15.2016

House of Cards Season 4: The SSL Review




Well, I just finished House of Cards Season 4 . I love me some House of Cards...and that's even true despite my previously acquired Kevin Spacey aversion. I think he works in that particular role, but that's not why I'm writing this. I'm writing this because there was 1 single SSL reviewable moments in the season, and by golly I'm here to SSL Review it.



As a quick refresher, SSL Reviews only look at scenes containing discussion or depiction of female orgasm or masturbation and focus on the realism and the impact the scene has on the larger cultural conversation about female orgasm and sexuality.

So here we go, and lucky for you, I don't need to give any kind of spoiler away to talk about this one.

Season 4 Episode 7: On The Bathroom Counter

The Description
So a lovely young woman goes into the bathroom where her husband is brushing his teeth*. She is in a sort of nighty slip thing, and she stands behind wrapping her arms around him, and presumably gets to touching on his man-junk. He quickly gets the picture, starts kissing her, and scoops her up onto the bathroom counter. They are facing each other, her sitting and him standing between her legs. Very quickly we see him sorta grab in his crotch area in a way that would lead us to assume he's pulling the D out and putting it in the V.

At this point there is clear intercourse happening, and she is being somewhat vocal about her pleasure - not over the top, but uhhhs as he's pushing up, ya know? Their hands are accounted for at all times. No one is diddling the clit while he's banging her. This goes on for about 4 seconds, and she lets out a final uh and it seems like they start to slow like it's over now. Just after that they are interrupted, and they have to leave the situation.

Intention
To be clear, I'm not positive that her final 'uhhhh' was intended to be a orgasm, but it feels possible enough that I'm allowing this as an SSL Reviewable scene. Frankly, even if it wasn't specifically meant as an orgasm, the sex here, I think, was meant to be the kind that would be orgasmic for her (had it not been interrupted). It was meant to show a mutually pleasurable, connected and sexy situation for these two people. I think that much is pretty clear because this scene was intercut with another couple in a bathroom that was, in my opinion, meant to show the other couple's comparably unsexy and unconnected interaction. This countertop sex was intentionally created to seem like good sex.

How Likely Was That Orgasm, Really?
The problem here is that there didn't seem to be any way that her outer clit area would be stimulated in this situation. There was in and out movement of the hips, but no close grinding of pelvis against pelvis. At best, this lovely lady would have gotten a couple taps of the clit area if his dick went in far enough to get his pelvis close enough in that seated position. But frankly, it didn't look promising. So, even if this was pleasurable to this lady, it likely wasn't orgasmic...

...unless she's a woman who has orgasms just from something stimulating the inside of her vagina.

Funny how almost every women in porn, movies, TV,  and books seems to be able to easily orgasm this way, yet only about 15-30% of women ever even claim to have these types of orgasms at all. And even funnier that these types of orgasms have never been observed or recorded in scientific literature - ever. What does the ubiquitous nature of these depictions say to people about what is normal and expected of women and their orgasms?

My Ranting Rants about Status Quo Sex Scenes and Stuff
Here's the deal. I have great skepticism about whether it is possible at all for females to orgasm from stimulation inside the vagina, but either way, the vast majority of women do not orgasm that way. That's uncontroversial. Yet, time and time again when good, hot sex is depicted, it's a woman getting her vagina banged into an orgasm. We as a culture are used to that whole penis and vagina thing. We are not used to the idea of the clit being as involved in sex as the penis is. So, it leaves us all continuing to associate sex with scenes like this bathroom one. It leaves us all thinking 'sex' is intercourse and intercourse is mutually orgasmic for men and women. It leaves us all feeling like clit stimulation is some sort of extra, or bonus or a thing the poor women who 'need a hand' have to get.

As things are now, depicting clitoral stimulation as part of a sex scene seems odd. It makes a scene a little too graphic, a little too dirty. It makes the woman seem a little too aggressive or the man not man enough. It's also just a little funny and a little too foreign. I mean even in real life situations, it's not included as much as it should be. There are still a lot of women out there having sex without it because, well, for lots of reasons, and there are a lot of men who (wrongly) think all the partners they've ever had just orgasmed from their penis. So it's a bigger problem than just media depiction...These clit-less media depictions suck, but they reflect a reality, and that's hard to argue against.

But I will argue against it, and I will continue to call out unrealistic depictions of female orgasm because it's weird and sad that the female organ of sexual pleasure is left out of sex and no one seems to care. I assure you if men were orgasming in movies without their penises being touched, people would notice. We have a long way to go before women and men feel like the clit is a principal member of the sex team the way a penis is, and scenes like this one in House of Cards don't help. It reinforces the status quo - which is too bad because it could have included something cool, avant-garde, and totally realistic like a hand on the clit or the woman intentionally pressing the clit in a continual grinding position against her partner...or better yet, that dude could have put the vibrating toothbrush he was using to good use - now that's good TV. *Okay, I now realize he was shaving with an electric razor not brushing his teeth with a vibrating toothbrush, so I no longer support him laying that against her clit area...at all.

The Vulva Rating
So, House of Cards Season 4 gets a 2 vulva rating. Why? Because it was status quo. There was nothing backward being insinuated in this season, but it was in no way progressive. I love that all these new TV series are getting more bold and interesting in a variety of ways, but I hate that the lady-gasm depictions are as constant as ever. I said it before and I'll say it again. A little bit of clit could go a long way for changing minds, ya'll.

(!)(!)

3.12.2016

Columbus, OH: I'll see you at the Gateway Film Center!!!



Come See a Real Live Showing of SSL!!!!
Hello my fabulous readership! I want to meet you. All of you!

Well, that is true, but really just those of you that live in the general Ohio area - Columbus, Ohio area to be more precise.

I'm excited to say that Science, Sex and the Ladies was asked to be part of The Gateway Film Center's Documentary Week. It will be playing on Wednesday, April 6th at 7:30pm, and guess who will be there for the ol' Q  and A. That's right, me and my crew. Me, Charlie and Barnaby, the directing trio of SSL, will be answering all your most deeply held questions about the movie and subjects related to the movie.

Seriously though, I really would love to meet people. We'll be staying the night, so we'll probably go have a beer after the show and all that. Hit me up at anc att ancmovies dottt com, tweet me, post something on the AnC FB page if you'll be there or you have a good suggestion about where to get beer afterward or whatever.

Gateway Film Center Documentary Week March 31st  - April 7th 2016

Or Let Others Know About It!
And if you can't be there, or even if you can, or if you know anyone in Columbus, please do a sister a solid and social media this shit, or just tell your Columbus friends directly about it, or however you choose, but please help me spread the word. It would mean a lot.

'Cause It's Gonna Be Awesome!!!!!
I really am excited about this. I love SSL of course. I mean, I made it and all, but I LOVE SSL in a big crowd. It's really fun. I'd almost describe it as raucous when there's a lot of people - tons of laughs and audible reactions from start to finish- that's why after I saw that a couple times, I started saying it has sorta a midnight movie feel, but it doesn't feel that way with just a couple people watching. The movie is weird, man. It's talking about an incredibly awkward subject. Every scene is doused with a small and strange amount of cheese but filled with scientific words, often spoken quite straight and seriously. It takes a minute to get the feel of the movie, I think.

It doesn't immediately fall into a genre so you can sorta associate it with the familiar rhythms and styles and humor of that type of movie. SSL is kinda out there on it's own, and you might just not feel sure about how to process it at first. But, man, things take off much quicker in a crowd. I don't know what it is. People always say that humor works better in a crowd because people feed off eachother's laughter, and I think that might be true with SSL. People sorta give each other permission to laugh, because, like I said, I think people aren't sure they're allowed to at first because it's such a serious and deeply personal subject sitting amongst the weird, cheesy, tongue-in-cheek stuff. Anyway, it'll be a good time. I'm excited.

Also, Gateway Film Center is Awesome
1. They programmed us, and let me just say I really really appreciate it. because more than a few places and festivals have straight up said to me something to the effect that their audiences would have a problem with the explicit parts (close-ups of real vulvas for demonstration, specifically), and they would like to program us, but it's too much of a risk. Some festivals contacted us saying we were on hold with hopes they could add in a late or midnight screening to put us in, but none ever could make it happen.

Well Gateway, on the other hand, found us and put us right into the doc week. They didn't see us as a risk. They saw us as a movie that people might like to see, and I love them for that. They are putting interesting and unique movies out there every. damn. day. Which brings me to:

2. They have a lot of kick-ass, bleeding edge movies playing all the time at the Gateway. Like right now they have a series of movies from rising French directors. It's called Young French Cinema, and it's just the beginning of the stuff they have there. I'd love to have a place like that here in Indianapolis (We miss you south side Key Cinema!). Don't get me wrong. I love a blockbuster Hollywood movie fo sho, but the newness, and experimentation, and diversity of viewpoint and style that comes from the truly outside Hollywood pieces is absolutely lovely and refreshing and so very worthwhile.  So, if you do live around Columbus, and you haven't been to the Gateway yet, I highly suggest you take advantage of what they are offering. It's over 3 hours away for me, but I imagine I'll be making a trip from time to time myself.

3.06.2016

8-13 Hz Fluctuations In Rectal Pressure A Good Marker For Female Orgasm?: A Journal Article I Read



8-13 Hz fluctuations in rectal pressure are an objective marker of clitorally-induced orgasm in women. Van Netten JJ1, Georgiadis JR, Nieuwenburg A, Kortekaas R.
Arch Sex Behav. 2008 Apr;37(2):279-85.

This is a 2008 article that is searching for an objective, quantitative marker that matches women's subjective claims about whether or not they orgasmed. They use particular measurements from an anal pressure probe in 23 women during clitorally induced orgasm to say that they indeed have found this marker. In particular, the researchers say that increase of the alpha band (8-13 Hz) of the anal pressure measurements is a physical indication of orgasm.

This is a well-done study. However, their 8-13 Hz marker is actually not perfect. It missed identifying 2 of 31 orgasm claims from women. I would argue that theirs is not necessarily a better marker than the marker identified in the previous studies they reference. I would also argue that these markers might miss some orgasms not because they are bad markers, but because women's claims of orgasm may not be a great starting point for physically investigating orgasm.

Here's the summary. I will add in my thoughts from time to time, but I will specifically say they are my thoughts. Otherwise, everything that is said is taken from the paper.

THE INTRODUCTION
  • Most physiological research about orgasm focused on contractions of the pelvic muscles because reflexive/involuntary contractions of these muscles "is an important feature of orgasm in women."
  • In the past contractions have been measured directly with EMG (the electric activity of those muscles) and also indirectly through measuring the pressure inside body cavities (rectum or vagina) that are affected by those muscles
  • Based on rectal or vaginal pressure, it had been previously found that there were 3 types of orgasm in women.
  1. contractions in a regular (steady) pattern
  2. a regular pattern followed by irregular contractions
  3. lack of regular contractions.
  • This paper sites 2 previous studies to back that up. The first is a study I have written about HERE (Carmichael et al), and that one only found the 1st two types of orgasmic contraction patterns. The second is an older one I have written about HERE (Bohlen et al) and that one found the 1st two and also the 3rd. Basically the 3rd grouping (2 women) is one in which the women claimed orgasm, but their pelvic muscles did not show any sign that a specific thing had happened. As the researchers in that study discuss, this 3rd grouping could be viewed as women who did not physically orgasm. However, they decided that they would base 'orgasm' off the women's claims and not off the physical markers (presence of regular muscle contractions).
  • It points out that in the Carmichael study, subjective experience of orgasm (the women saying they orgasmsed) coincides with the the objective measure of orgasm (the rhythmic pelvic contractions). However, this wasn't the case in the Bohlen study due to the 2 women who claimed orgasm but did not have the regular pelvic contractions. It also (I would say curiously) cited the original 1966 Masters and Johnson study when it said that other studies had not found the same subjective/objective agreement, but it doesn't elaborate. [I'm not sure how they are using that citation. I would be interested to know their reasoning. M&J stated unequivocally that their research showed rhythmic pelvic muscle contractions to be the physical expression of orgasm, and claimed the amount of contractions coincided with the subjective pleasure (although other studies have not found that, including the Carmichael study)]

METHOD

Participants
  • 23 healthy, heterosexual women
  • 21-55 years old
  • recruited with their partners online over a period of 3 years (the equipment involved over those years did not change)
  • 13 had never given birth, 6 had given birth vaginally, and 4 through C-section
  • none had used recreation drugs or had history of physical, mental or sexual disorder

Procedure
  • The women lay on their backs in a brain scanner (PET) and their anal pressure was measured via a probe in their anus. Their partners stood next to the women and stimulated their clitoris to orgasm. The partners were used in this way because it did not induce artifacts in the rectal pressure and because clitoral stimulation is "the most effective means of inducing orgasm in women (Lloyd 2005)"
  • The women didn't report important differences between their normal orgasms and these laboratory ones
  • Measurements were performed for 2 minutes in the following sequence with an 8 minute rest in between each measurement:
  1. Passive non-sexual resting state [as a reference so they could compare individuals with different resting states against each other]
  2. Imitating an orgasm while the clitoris is stimulated [meaning "to voluntarily contract muscles in the rectal vicinity (abdominal, hip, thigh, and perineal muscles) in a rhythmic fashion while their clitoris was being stimulated by their partner. This task served as a control for motor output during orgasm, because we expected the same muscles to contract, but with discernible frequency characteristics")]
  3. Imitating an orgasm while the clitoris is stimulated
  4. Stimulation of the clitoris ["the partners provided clitoral stimulation, but the women were asked not to make any movements and not to have an orgasm"]
  5. Stimulation of the clitoris
  6. Stimulation of the clitoris, trying to reach orgasm ["the partners provided clitoral stimulation with the aim of inducing orgasm. After each of these measurements, women either reported that they had not reached orgasm ("failed orgasm attempt") or that they had ("orgasm"). Failed orgasm attempts were also used as a control for the motor output during orgasm."]
  7. Stimulation of the clitoris, trying to reach orgasm
  8. Stimulation of the clitoris, trying to reach orgasm
  • "Orgasm attempts with ambiguous subjective reports were excluded from the analysis."
  • Partners started stimulation of the clit before beginning of the measurements so that the women would be already excited when the measurement started
  • "Because of the technical requirements for the PET measurements, participants were asked to attempt to reach orgasm in a specified 40-second interval. For all measurements, only data of this interval were analyzed."

Data Analysis
So from here it gets more confusing because it gets pretty technical about measuring rectal pressure and discerning the different frequency bands of that pressure. I am not exactly familiar with this kind of science, so I'm not going to get real specific. I'll do the best I can to give you the gist of their work using simple words ('cause that's all I understand). If anyone knows this well and wants to correct me, please do.
  • The pressure measurements were broken down into frequency bands: delta (.5-4 Hz), theta (4-8 Hz), alpha (8-13 Hz) and beta (13-25 Hz).
  • In each of those categories, the resting measurements of each of the women were used to normalize, but the normalized data did not have a normal distribution over all the participants and tasks, so some math was done to better compare the data among tasks and women (Kruskal-Wallis test, post-hoc Wilcoxen rank sum test, and a Bonferroni correction...for those who want to know).
  • So, using the women's claims of whether they came or not as the gold standard, the scientists started crunching the numbers to see which measurements most accurately predicted a woman's claim of "orgasm" vs. "failed orgasm attempt." They were basically trying to find a 1-stop-shop objective measurement that when measured would match (or match best) with a woman subjectively saying she orgasmed and when it was not measured would match (or best match) with a woman either having a failed orgasm attempt or doing some other non orgasm thing like pretending to orgasm.

RESULTS
  • "Of the 23 women, 17 achieved 1 or more orgasms. A total of 31 orgasms and 33 failed orgasm attempts were included for analysis."
  • "Visual inspection of the pressure vs. time graphs showed that patterns of rectal pressure during orgasm were very variable between participants."
  • "further examination suggested that, in many cases, the orgasm measurements contained more high frequency components than measurements of other tasks."
  • "Typical examples are given in Figure 1. In this figure, raw data (left panels) and power spectral density (right panels) of rectal pressure are shown. The lines at .5, 4, 8, and 13 Hz indicate the different frequency bands. Note the difference in alpha and beta power between 'orgasm' and 'failed orgasm attempt.'"
Figure 1 8-13 Hz fluctuations in rectal pressure are an objective marker of clitorally-induced orgasm in women
  • No significant differences were found between both control tasks;  failed attempts at orgasm and imitation of orgasm.
  • A significant difference was found between the control tasks and orgasm in the 8-13 Hz range ("alpha power").
  • "Based on this, the orgasm detection algorithm applied alpha power to classify orgasm attempts as successful or failed."
  • All orgasm attempts where the "alpha power" was over 3 times higher than non-sexual rest were classified as "orgasm" and all attempts with less were classified as "failed orgasm attempts," This maximized the overlap between the prediction of orgasm and women's claims of orgasm.
  • 69% (44/64) of orgasm attempts were identified correctly as either failed or successful
  • 94% (29/31) of orgasms were correctly recognized as orgasms

DISCUSSION
  • "The aim of this study was to identify an objective physiological correlate of orgasm in women. In particular, we hypothesized that the involuntary perineal muscular contractions that accompany orgasm could be distinguished by their frequency characteristics."
  • The power in both the 8-13 (alpha) and 13-25 (beta), but especially the 8-13 Hz frequency bands were significantly greater during orgasm than all other tasks.
  • "Imitation of orgasm and failed orgasm attempts also involved , often forceful, contraction of striated perineal musculature," but the power in the alpha and beta bands were significantly lower in those tasks than during orgasm.
  • The researchers said they were unable to determine which muscles contributed to the signal but that according to the literature, the following muscles contract during orgasm and could be responsible for the fast fluctuation in rectal pressure: parts of the levator ani muscle, the anal sphincter, and the uterus.
  • A limit of this study was that because of the PET scanning, the participants had to orgasm within designated 40-second intervals. Although, as was noted before, they didn't report that these lab orgasms were any different than their normal ones. There was also a benefit to the 40-second requirement because approximately half of all orgasm attempts were failed, which gave a lot of control tasks to compare against.
  • "Orgasms in our study were all clitorally-induced. This method was chosen because it induces no artifact in rectal pressure and is the most effective means of inducing orgasm (Lloyd, 2005). Because of this reason, rectal pressure fluctuations can not be measured during orgasms achieved through intra-vaginal stimulation. Studying the question whether orgasms achieved that way will give the same result is therefore not possible. However, we think that there will be no difference in rectal pressure fluctuations during orgasm when the orgasm is achieved via a different way. The assumption that there is a different typology of clitoral vs. vaginal orgasms can not be supported in the literature, because there is a striking lack of reliable physiological data for this typology (Mah & Binik, 2001)."
  • "Orgasm-associated rectal pressure patterns are highly variable between individuals (Carmichael et al., 1994) and we could qualitatively confirm this for our participants."
  • These researchers ignored the variability and included all reported orgasms in their analysis. "Despite this indiscriminate approach" they still found the significantly higher power in the alpha band being characteristic of orgasm, and they believe, "This clearly demonstrates the robustness of this approach."
  • This research into rectal pressure might be useful, with further research of course, in helping women who are unable to orgasm, maybe through biofeedback, where a woman and her partner can see when the alpha power is rising to increase body awareness.
  • The researchers point out that their observations of rectal pressure starting at the onset of orgasm match the literature. They note that the fluctuations are not simply related to high arousal and point out that the participants in their personal debriefings said there was a big difference between their imitation of orgasm and their failed orgasm attempts because they were highly aroused during the failed attempt but not during the imitations. Yet, no differences were found in the rectal pressure fluctuation between the two. So, they conclude their study revealed an orgasm specific physiologic quality.
  • "Taken together, our findings indicate that 8-13 Hz fluctuations in rectal pressure constitute an objective and quantitative marker of orgasm in women that is sensitive and yet robust to interindividual variability and temporal dilution."

MY THOUGHT
So the interesting part about this study is that it's not looking at the overall muscle contractions (the number, strength, and interval) as a marker for orgasm because, I believe, the researchers in this study see it as failing to match what they call the "elusive subjective orgasm experience" in women (i.e. sometimes women say they orgasm even when that marker is not exhibited). Those contractions, however, through a variety of recording/observation methods, have been indicated as marker of orgasm since back in 1966 when Masters and Johnson did their groundbreaking study on the physiology of male and female orgasm and arousal. And, judging from the research so far, most women and men do exhibit this unique physical marker at orgasm.

However, the researchers in this study often reference the Bohlen study, in which 2 of the 11 women claimed orgasm but did not exhibit the distinctive contraction pattern of orgasm. So, I think they were taking the Bohlen study as proof that the distinctive pelvic muscular contractions could not possibly be the physiologic marker of orgasm and thus were looking towards finding a marker that would include all woman's subjective claims of orgasm - including women like the 2 from the Bohlen study.

Now, this study still focuses on the pelvic muscle contractions at orgasm, but instead of contraction intervals, number, or overall strength, it looks at the frequency characteristics of the contractions, and that's where it finds that the strength of the contractions in the 8-13 Hz alpha band is a fairly reliable marker for orgasm. The thing is, though, the 8-13 Hz increase seems to coincide with the distinctive contractions in the example they give (figure 1 above), but does it in every case? What if there were women like the 2 in the Bohlen study? Would their orgasms be identified with the 8-13 Hz method even if it wasn't identified with the regular contraction interval method? This wasn't discussed.

Which brings me to the fact that this study didn't show that the  8-13 Hz method is the orgasm marker either. Only 69% (44/64) of orgasm attempts could be identified correctly as either failed or successful in this model, and there were 2 out of  31 claims of orgasms that could not be physically recognized as orgasms. The study doesn't go into detail about what made the 2 orgasm claims physically unidentifiable as orgasms, but might it be the same problem the Bohlen study faced? Were there no distinctive pelvic contractions in those? The researchers had the data to tell us this, but didn't.

Maybe, much like the long-standing use of regular pelvic muscle contractions as a marker, the 8-13 Hz method fails to a degree because study of orgasm begins with women's use of the word instead of physical data. I mean, I'm not saying we need to disregard women's own admission about whether they orgasmed or not, but why base physical investigations on that instead of just including that as another element to help increase understanding.  Maybe the word 'orgasm' is just so loaded and confusing and varied in our culture, especially for women, that it's use shouldn't necessarily be trusted in scientific investigation.

What if those women in the Bohlen study (and maybe even some in this study) just said they had an orgasm even though they physically didn't? Or (since I know researchers are probably incredibly wary about asserting that they know better than a woman about whether she orgasmed or not), maybe these women had some other type of physical thing that can be described as an 'orgasm' but exhibits itself in a different and yet unknown physical way than the whole pelvic muscle contraction and/or 8-13 Hz thing. Either way, I think the phenomenon of claiming orgasm and having the discernible contractions vs. the phenomenon of claiming orgasm and not having those contractions each deserves some specific and separate investigation instead of being lumped in together simply because we use the same word to describe them.

So to me, lumping this less understood phenomenon in which women don't exhibit this discernible physical marker when they claim orgasm into the data seems incredibly messy and problematic. Maybe there needs to be studies that simply investigate what is happening physically, see where it does and does not match to when people say they orgasm, and point out further studies that need to be done to understand more clearly what is happening physically in the minority of cases where claim of orgasm is not paired with a discernible physical marker - because as of now, we just don't know.

All in all, I liked this study. It was well done, but I think it falls prey to the larger problem in female orgasm studies...It uses women's claims of orgasm as the gold standard and approaches the analysis as if each woman were surely experiencing the same physical things as every other woman when she claims orgasm.

Find more of these Lady-gasm Journal Reviews HERE

3.03.2016

Love Season 1: The SSL Review



There is a new Netflix original series out now. It's called Love and I am going to SSL Review this bitch. For those not in the know, an SSL Review is a critique specifically of  depictions and discussion of female orgasm and female masturbation focusing on the realism (like, would that movement realistically cause an orgasm?) and what these depictions and discussions add to the larger cultural discussion and understanding of lady-gasms. It's rated on a 0 to 5 vulva rating (although I did give hysteria a -1 vulva rating once in my earlier more negative days). You can see all the SSL movie reviews HERE.

Love was created by Judd Apatow, Paul Rust, and Leslie Arfin. Paul Rust gets writing credit and also stars as Gus in it. Leslie also gets writing credit. Judd Apatow gets writing credit too, and you might know him as writer/director of things like Freaks and Geeks (which I've never seen but I know people love), 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up (both of which I've been meaning to SSL Review...and unfortunately I'm pretty sure they would get lower vuvla ratings), and director of Amy Schumer's Trainwreck (which got a sparkling 5 vulva rating). So, Apatow has been in the very sexual romantic comedy business for years. His work is well loved and popular, and he's influential in the business.



I guess to me that makes it all the more important to critique the stuff he puts out in relation to female orgasm. Things that are funny are influential. They could change ideas on this topic because 'funny' has a way of sneakily infiltrating past our bias and walls. On the other hand, 'funny' can also just strongly and like-ably reinforce old bullshit ideas.

Sadly, the SSL review for Love will be on the low end of the spectrum. I'm not doing this just to dog on him or anyone else. Honestly a low vulva rating doesn't mean something is intentionally or unusually bad. More often than not it just means it's status quo. It's just that status quo lady-gasm knowledge is generally heavily skewed at best and incomprehensibly wrong at worst. It revolves around penetration of the vagina, but (and I know this seems crazy given the way lady-gasms are largely spoken about and depicted) there has never been an orgasm caused through stimulation inside the vagina ever recorded or observed in scientific literature. I am not lying about this, and it's not like there were no experiments out there that could have shown this. There have been. There are no known g-spot, inner clitoral (stimulated through the vaginal wall), cervical, or vaginal wall orgasms on the books. There just isn't. There's a shit ton of orgasms caused through stimulation of the outer vulva/clit area on the books though.

This very strange disconnect between what is scientifically understood about female orgasm, and what people hear and see about the female orgasm in our media, from our friends, and even from scientists themselves talking freely, is large, and it both reflects and fuels a large cultural misunderstanding about females and sexuality. (Want more overview of these ideas? go HERE. Want to see how even BBC Science gets this shit way wrong? go HERE. Want to see a weird-ass, heavily researched movie about his? Go HERE).

I doubt ol' Judd nor any of the other writers and directors I SSL Review will ever read this, but I'd like to think that if they did they would understand that I am only critiquing out of love. I can't blame anyone for depicting lady-gasm in ridiculous ways because everyone does it. It's what people know. I hope, though, that my critiques might be ones they had never heard before, and maybe they could possibly see things from a different perspective...and then maybe, if my wildest dreams come true, they would consider the things in this SSL Review next time they are creating ladygasm stuff. It's just a hope, because like I said, people like Judd Apatow who are influential and funny could do more for opening eyes to orgasm equality in one line than I have done in my whole life.

THE SSL REVIEW

Now remember I'm not, like, reviewing this show. I'm reviewing only scenes where female orgasm or masturbation were depicted or discussed. That means just a sex scene with no orgasm doesn't technically count...unless I feel like it's important for some reason. I might need to pull on the show as a whole to get context, but I'll try to keep this simple and try not to give anything important away if you haven't seen it. I will go over all the SSL Reviewable scenes and then I'll give the overview and the coveted...Vulva Rating.

Cross-Cut Sex Intro Scene (Episode 1)
At the beginning of the first episode, both Gus (the main male character) and Mickey (the main female character) are having sex with their significant others. It sorta cuts back and forth between them.

Mickey's Table Bang
Mickey is bent over a table getting fucked really hard from behind. Her hands are sprawled out in front of her and his are on her hips. Nothing is touching her clit area. She is screaming things like, "Yes! Yes!," and responding with, "Yes you are!" to something he says that I can't discern (I am a warrior???)

Anyway, she seems to be coming in a classic, aggressively vocal, kinda pornish way. It seems to me that it's a scene meant to show how sexual and wild she is, and basically she's depicted as coming from just straight up banging. His dick up her junk from behind, going in and out is making her cum like a crazy woman. It's that. damn. good.

So, this is a common depiction, but it's so very unlikely that a woman could orgasm without anything touching her clitoral/vulva area. Even in the most uncontroversial of statistics only 15 - 30% of women even claim that this happens to them ever, but on top of that it's never been observed in scientific literature and it's not crazy to wonder whether our mushy language and the pressure and misinformation heaped upon women might cause some of those 15-30% say they orgasm this way when they physically do not. So if this type of orgasm happens at all, it's likely even a lower % than even that. Yet still, for some reason, this is like the #1 way we see women orgasm on the screen.

Gus's Missionary
Gus is fucking his girlfriend missionary in bed. The covers are up to their waists, and his body is leaned down close to hers, so in all reality, there could be some clit/vulva against his pelvis touching that's going on during the penetration, but it's not particularly grindy, and her body doesn't seem to be particularly engaged in a way that would indicate she's grinding up on him or holding his pelvis close to hers so she gets that stimulation. It's not really in-out bangy either. It looks really comfy and normal - which I think is what they mean it to look like. Then he asks her a sweet relationship thing to which she agrees and they both get a little more aggressive and urgent. However, there is no clear cum at the end of that. It's more like both of them are getting really close, but it cuts before it actually happens. So, if I want to be real technical, it wasn't even an orgasm, so I can't SSL review it...but it is so close to one, I at least want to mention it.

Like I said, she could be getting outer clitoral stimulation in this position, so I'm not going to say this is unrealistic, but I will say that it is just another scene that has a dude fucking a girl until she comes (at least we assume she finishes). It's not helping the problem,

To be fair, ladies can get a hands free orgasm during penetration - by grinding that clit during it - which this gal might be doing, but the truth is, it isn't something one should expect to just happen simply because two people are fucking and all those parts are in close proximity to each other (if it were that easy the 70-85% of women who say they don't orgasm hands free during intercourse would have probably stumbled across this lucky meshing of parts during at least a few of the hundreds of times they've fucked in their lifetime). I think it's safe to expect that some type of concerted effort from her and cooperation from him is needed for her to really get the clit stimulation she needs, and that their mutual involvement with and acknowledgement of her clit would be at least a little apparent in a realistic scene. But maybe that's me being picky. She did get all concentrate-y in her face and seemed to sorta counter buck with him once she got more excited, and I do appreciate that she wasn't just laying there making orgasm sounds, but in the end it just looked like she got more aroused when he said what he said to her, but was still just a gal getting a good status quo dicking into lady-gasmville.

The Mickey and Dude's Mom Scene
This is a little after the the crosscutting. It's a different sexual event all together, but it's still Mickey with the same guy. They're on the bed missionary. She is on her back and he is propped up on his arms, pretty fully outstretched so he's up at a pretty good angle. There is a clear rocking of her body in the direction one's body would go if a dick's getting rammed in and out of it. There is also a quick shot of of him from behind and so we see his naked ass moving above her. It's a true in and out situation, and from both that angle and the one of their upper bodies, it doesn't look at all like his pelvis is close to hers - he's too upright. She's also not seeming to be moving her body up against him. She very much looks like his movements are jarring her around as opposed to her doing any significant moving. Also, her hands are definitely on his back not her own clit. So, my point is, this is another scene of a gal getting balled into orgasm. But, technically she doesn't orgasm.
Dude: "Oh shit"
Mickey: "What? What's wrong?"
Dude: "We just gotta go quicker"
Mickey "Why?, what the fuck?" (Her face and body language completely changes to not aroused at all here, but the dude  is still fucking her exactly the same, but a little faster)Dude: "My mom's here."
Mickey: "What the fuck? Why's your mom here?"
Dude: "Just go quicker. Come with me, come with me" "
Mickey: "No, I can't just do that."
Dude: "Ahhhh, ahhhh" (that's him coming)
Clearly she doesn't come here, but she talks about it, and the insinuation is that if he wasn't trying to rush her so he can go out and meet his mom, then she would have come....from him banging her in her vagina with no clit stimulation.

Masturbation Talk! (Episode 3)
She's watching an exercise video with her roommate. It has a lot of muscly guys in it. The roommate says it looks like a good one  and maybe they could do it, and Mickey says something like, "No, but I'll masturbate to it later."  You know I can't be mad at that. Anytime a woman talks about masturbating, and it's not ridiculed, I give big props. The more normal masturbation seems for women, the better!

Mickey Quicky
Mickey is having sex with a dude for the first time. He is standing. She is face to face with him, her legs (at least 1 leg) around his waist. He seems to be supporting her weight. She's on the dick, and her body is moving sorta up and down on it. The have the following convo.
Dude: "Say something about my dick"
Mickey: "Your dick feels so good. Yes." (Breathy)Dude: "It does right? It does feel good, right"
She sorta pushes them forward so they fall onto the bed behind him still with the stuff inside the stuff. He's on his back, and she's straddling him leaned completely forward. There's sort of animosity talk between them while she is, well, fucking him. Since she's leaned forward, and we can't see much past the waist, it seems like she could be rubbing her vulva forward and back continuously against his body while it's going in and out, if ya know what I mean. Then, though, she starts to get towards orgasm, and instead of moving along his body, she starts bouncing up and down more excitedly until she comes. It's in a way that she's sitting more up, and her clit area would likely lose contact with his pelvis. Then he says.
Dude: "You came."
Mickey: "yeah"
Dude: "Well, I haven't yet, so..."
Mickey: "fine"
She does the exact same movements she was doing when she came, and it got him off in a few seconds. I'll give this some leeway because she was on top, controlling the movement and at first she looked like she could be getting some stim on that clit, so those are all good.  I was sad , though, when she went into the classic bouncy up-down thing where it seems to be all about the dick stimulating the inside of the vagina.

That she came, and he didn't was a plus though because, honestly, when it comes to intercourse the motions that get a woman off might not be as great for a man and certainly vice versa, so simultaneous orgasm isn't as common a thing as it seems in the ol' movies. All in all though it ended up being another scene where a woman takes the dick train to orgasm. The whole thing was kinda realistic, but to me it was like if a dude was pumpin' in a lady and getting close to coming, but then when he got real close, he pulled far out and just wiggled his hips so the tip of his dick dragged back and forth across her stomach. If he came that way, I mean...I guess?...but it's weird, right? We can see that weirdness when it comes to how men would likely orgasm, but we just don't have the cultural tools yet to see that same kind of weirdness when it comes to how women orgasm in media.

Vibe Masturbating (Episode 5)
Mickey's masturbating because she's bored and trying not to drink, so after a montage of her trying to get into doing all kinds of other things around the house, we see her laying on her bed. She's on her back, with overalls and she has one hand in there. There is a buzz sound, and there's a cord coming out. It's clearly her using a vibrator on her outer vulva area, so it's realistic and I do so love it. In the end she doesn't finish because she's just too distracted to focus on anything (her cat licking itself particularly distracted her) but again, I love anything with a lady masturbating. Bravo.

Why All the Vibrator Hate? (Episode 7)
Mickey's straddling Gus on the chair, and she's really moving those hips. I'd almost say she could be grinding, but her body's not pressed particularly close to him. Then she asks him to wait a minute and says, "ow." He asks if she's okay, and she says she's cool, just a little sore from earlier (they also had sex earlier in the day  - strictly penetration of course)), then asks if they can move to the bed.

So it cuts, and they are laying on their sides facing each other (fun note: the sheet is pressed down in between them very neatly so, I assume, the two actors are not actually touching bodies). Then she says, "Would you mind if I use my vibrator?"

He is taken aback and kinda stutters out, "Oh,...no, that's cool. Yeah. Yeah, go ahead." So she gets a big ol' Magic Wand style vibrator with a cord out of her nightstand drawer, plugs it in, and gets back into bed. She turns it on and places it in the vulva area and then turns toward him for more kissing. Then she starts turning away and getting pretty close to orgasming with the ol' vibrator. At some point as she was turning, he must have stuck it in because he seems to be doing her from behind. He says to her, "Is this okay?" and she says, "Yeah," and then she starts to orgasm.

As she does this, poor ol' Gus gets all forlorn looking. He kinda stops fucking her as she's coming and just sorta looks around like he's so darn sad this is happening. And it is a travesty, isn't it? I mean when a girl chooses not to come from your dick banging inside her, it's probably because she doesn't like you anymore, and you're not good at sex, right?

Love, annoyingly show poor, poor Gus lose his lover to a vibrator :(

This scene is so annoying to me. I hope this isn't true, but it really seems like the use of the vibrator is meant to show that she just isn't that into him anymore, and that's some bullshit. Women need clit stimulation to come. Period. Him being all weird when she asks is some bullshit too. I mean he didn't say no or anything, but it was clear that he was really surprised and not in a good way - more in a let down way, like when you find out you didn't get a job kind of way. And then the show sorta supported his reaction, because as she's coming it goes to a dramatic close-up of his face all sad and let down and shit, and then it cuts to some melancholy indie rock credits music.

It's like we're all supposed to feel the disconnect this damn vibrator has brought on. Now, maybe its the turning away we're supposed to focus on, but honestly, have you ever tried to work one of those big-ass magic wands between you and a dude trying to fuck you? That is some cumbersome stuff, Turning away was a good option. He's getting some sweet tang encompassing his junk, and she's getting hard core vibe. Everyone should be happy.

I get that the awkwardness and complications that happened in their relationship just before this sex does play into this scene, but even if the intention to mock the use of a vibrator was not there, it happened anyway because we see the use of vibrators or hands on women's clits so rarely that when they are used, the connotation is impactful, and the connotation here was that it separated them and saddened him.

Witch Sex (Episode 8)
Gus is having sex with a woman, who I guess we're all supposed to see a little fake and a little stupid, but super cute. It's a quick scene, and he's on his back on the bed. She's riding him cowgirl style, torso straight up and down.  No hands, vibrators or pelvises ('cause her body is so upright) are touching anywhere near her clit area, and she is saying wierd kinda creepy stuff that she means to be sexy.

She's rolling her hips super sexy on his dick, but he looks a little freaked out. Her voice and the way she changes it when she talks to him seems like she's super faking the sexy, but she is clearly way into the whole thing. Like, she's totally all in. Right before it cuts, she leans her head back and starts to orgasm.

To me, it feels like a scene meant to show a fake woman in bed, and my assumption is that she was meant to seem like she was faking an orgasm. However, I also think it could be seen as a crazy bitch being crazy and coming from the crazy shit she does. I just don't know if the orgasm part would consciously register as fake to everyone.  I think it's still a scene in which a woman (crazy or fake as she may be) rides a dick to orgasm.

Conclusion
Love, in the end, was a show that heavily reinforced all the misconception about female orgasm and stagnant status quo ideas of sex that I would like to break through. The sex in this show was always intercourse. There was no oral or handies or dry humping, and all the women seemed to be fine and completely orgasmic with just the ol' in and out. I will give it props for showing a lady who likes masturbation and depicting the masturbation in a realistic way (no-one was doing it by ramming a dildo up their junk :), but when masturbation was brought into a couple situation, it was not looked upon kindly. So to me this show continues the long-standing tradition of equating sex with intercourse, of assuming women just come when dudes fuck them with their penises, and my very favorite tradition of all - stigmatizing the inclusion of clitoral stimulation (vibe or hand) during intercourse (even though external clitoral stimulation is literally what women need in order to orgasm).

It's sad because there is so much untapped humor to be had in the realities of female orgasm that could surprise people with hilarious and progressive depictions. Seriously, it's so untapped. Check with Amy Schumer if you want some ideas.

This movie, I'm sad to say gets 1 vuvla (because ladies masturbating always get at least 1).
(!)

2.28.2016

25% of Ladies Not Getting Intercourse-gasms: Michael Castleman Slingin' Mad Stats for Orgasm Equality!






Mr. Michael Castleman over at Psychology Today posted an article in 2009 called "The Most Important Sexual Statistic: Intercourse Is Not The Key To Most Woman's Sexual Satisfaction," and dag burn it, it was a good one - simple and on point.

Meet Michael Castleman - Orgasm Equality Ally!

The statistic was this:
"Only 25 percent of women are consistently orgasmic during vaginal intercourse" 
He took this from a book I could not recommend more, Elisabeth Lloyd's The Case of the Female Orgasm. I wrote a little about it HERE. It's great in many ways, but the statistic Castleman pulled from this book is important because it's not just from one little study. It's from all the studies. It is a statistic that arises from the best of places - an assessment of all the statistics available about lady-gasms and intercourse put together. So, it's a solid stat, and Castleman clearly saw that and clearly saw how incredibly important the stat is.

The gist of the article was as true and direct: Most women don't orgasm during intercourse. Most women need clitoral stimulation. How you have sex should take that into consideration.

I am highlighting this article not just because he said the clit is important. There is plenty of sex advice out there touting the importance of the clit, but most of them speak about it as simply another option, like the use of a sex toy or playing with a dude's balls might be discussed. It's as if 'remembering the clit' is icing on the sex cake. Very few articles, however, take the bolder stance that this article has taken - that the clit stuff is the sex cake for us ladies; that intercourse always gets depicted as the cake, but it simply is not. He says lovely and extraordinary Orgasm Equality Revolution things like:
"But they key to most women's erotic pleasure comes not from the penis and intercourse, but from direct clitoral stimulation, using the fingers, palm, tongue, or sex toys."
and
"Finally, because so few women are consistently orgasmic during intercourse, it's fine to have sex without intercourse."
Yes and yes. We need more people- especially more men saying these things and saying them boldy because even though there is really nothing about this article that is scientifically controversial, simply speaking about this topic is still super sensitive and contentious. I hear from time to time, from people who hang in more sexually liberal circles that this is all old news, but the truth is it's not. It's very much still revolutionary to even hint that intercourse isn't great for women's orgasms. When I write about this stuff, I speak about there being a real possibility that orgasm from stimulation inside the vagina isn't even possible This article is much more forgiving and only said something that is well known among sexual educators and really people in general - that most women need clitoral stimulation to orgasm and that this fact should really affect how we have sex. But there is such a cultural allegiance to intercourse as the end-all-be-all of heterosexual sex that it's still unusual to even hear that said in a bold way.

Thank you Mr. Michael Castleman! I have placed you in my my ever-growing list of Orgasm Equality Allies for speaking about female orgasm in a more realistic and bold way. It's not the norm and it takes a little bit of bravery and thoughtfulness to do so. My hat off to you.



2.25.2016

5 Movies #DirectedByWomen To Watch With Slightly Older Kids



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

It's a bit off-topic from my normal fare, ya know, not usually about lady-gasms or anything like that, but I think it fits the blog because
1. this blog is also about indie movie-making, and
2. this blog is partially about getting the female perspective of sexuality into our media. So, to me, supporting female voices in our media - means we're creating more room for female voices to speak on all types of things, which sometimes will be sex, orgasms and sexuality. You can find all my 5-movie lists HERE.

So, this is my Movies To Watch With Slightly Older Kids List - for if you want to watch something you actually want to watch, but with the kids.

1 Persepolis - This was directed by Vincent Paronnaud and  Marjane Satrapi, who I now see has directed other films that I haven't seen, but should check out because I like Persepolis so much. I saw it back when it was moving through theaters, and It was just a really well-executed work, and it's be pretty interesting to watch with some young folk.




2 Ramona and Beezus - This was directed by Elizabeth Allen Rosenbaum (Elizabeth Allen), and if I remember correctly Charlie and I went to see this in the theater with no nieces and nephews in tow because we just love us some Ramona Quimby, and I know many of you out there probably love you some too. It did not meet Ramona Quimby perfection in my mind, but who knows what overly ridiculous expectations I had anyway. In the end I thought it was sweet, and kind, and funny, and it was a nice tribute to those books. I suggest a watch.




3 Speed Racer - This was directed by Andy Wachowski and Lana Wachowski . I do love that duo, and I love this movie. I don't think it got the credit it deserves, but if you want some style and fun in your PG movie, check this out.




4 How To Make an American Quilt - This was directed by Jocelyn Moorehouse. I have to say it's been a long time since I've seen this, but I remember liking it. Generations of ladies shootin' the shit generally leads to good things, in my opinion. It's also PG-13 and full of that classic Winona angst so set them teens down with some popcorn and get to watchin'. (okay - now that I've seen the trailer, there is definitely some PG-13 steaminess going on in this, so if you aren't too squeamish, it actually looks like this explores some ideas about love that maybe would be good starting points for convo with a teen...but that's me - maybe you'd rather put on some steamy-less stuff and move on with your night)




5 Little Man Tate - This was directed by none other than ol' Jody Foster - who also stars in it. It was made in 1991, so I was about 11, and I believe I saw this on a videotape rented from our nearby Marsh Supermarket, so it's been a good long while. However, for whatever reason, this movie has always stuck with me somehow as a film that was quite moving (to an 11 year old, yes, but none the less). Anyway, hopefully your kids will like it too.


2.21.2016

Anomalisa: The SSL Review



I went to see the  movie Anomalisa recently. It's a new claymation movie from Charlie Kaufman, and low n' behold it had one SSL Reviewable scene - a long scene involving a one night stand that lasted from the entrance into the hotel room to the end of the sex with no time lapse in between. It is an integral scene to the movie, and I will be SSL reviewing it for your reading pleasure. SSL Reviews are exclusively about the depiction and discussion of female orgasm and masturbation in a movie; particularly focusing on the realism and what these depictions and discussions add to the cultural conversation about lady-gasms and female sexuality.You can find all the SSL Reviews HERE.



The Intro...It's Complicated 
You see, the female in this scene gets a dick moved inside of her for 30 seconds and vocalizes an orgasm simultaneously with the dude who's up in it. The truth is vaginal stimulation does not orgasms make, and if I don't see any sign of external clitoral stimulation, as is the case in this this scene, then I'm calling bullshit. (Seriously, though, the science is with me on this...I explain more HERE and HERE).

As you might imagine, I have strong and particular feelings about this scene, but discussing it is tricky. On the surface this scene is two strangers interacting in a physically orgasmic experience. However, if one were to think about this any deeper and with thought to realism, what we are actually seeing is a man having a physical orgasm and a woman who, for whatever reason, probably only vocalizes an orgasm. What is seeming to happen on the surface, and what is actually happening are two very different things, and in both real life and in this movie's depiction of real life, that difference goes largely unnoticed in a way that seems crazy if the gender roles were reversed.

We would question an orgasm like this if it were gender reversed
Imagine a scene in which a naked woman grinds her clit against a naked man's upper thigh until she comes, and the naked man vocalizes with her as if he is coming too. His penis isn't really being touched, except maybe it brushes against her body here and there, yet he comes when she comes? At least a few people writing about it would be all like, "what was up with him pretending to come - I don't think his dick was even touching." That he came,  yet it didn't physically seem like he should have would be an aspect of the viewer's  understanding of the story and the characters and their relationship to each other. Like, was he just straight up faking to make her feel good, or was he so full of emotion that he had some kind of emoto-gasm, or does he not know what an orgasm is except that it happens when the woman has her orgasm....or did the filmmakers just not write a very realistic scene? We don't ask these questions of a scene like the one that exists in Anomalisa because although it's as physically silly as the one I just described, it's also so typical of what we see that the silliness becomes invisible. It's a strange situation, but it makes me see the critical praise of this scene (for instance "the most heartfelt sex scene in 2015") as slightly annoying and a little bit of a disturbing confirmation of how twisted our culture's view of sex and female orgasm is.

Surface realism vs. actual realism
The thing is, on one level I see this scene as completely realistic; an accurate account of something that might easily happen, as if there was a camera in the room when a hook-up like this actually went down in real life. On the other hand I see this scene as a completely narrow and surface look at what was really going on and what this type of sexual interaction would actually mean. The actions in this scene are not realistically things that would make her orgasm, and it seems silly to me to assume that her vocalizations were clearly the result of a physical orgasm. Isn't it very possible she faked that orgasm, and if she did, doesn't that change the meaning of this scene? It's not an out of bounds possibility at all. One night stands are notoriously non-orgasmic for women, and women fake orgasms all the time for lots of different reasons. I may be wrong, but within the context of the movie, that possibility didn't seem to be considered, and that indicates to me a larger cultural problem with our understanding of the female orgasm.

On that note, I think it's time to describe the scene to you. There are spoilers - lots of them. It's chock full of spoilers actually, so just be warned. Sorry about that, but I need to include context to write about this, so here you go. Get ready for detailed descriptions of claymation sex.

The Big 'Ol Sex Scene
First off, from my understanding of every article I have read, the creators took great pains to make this scene realistic. They were acutely aware that claymation sex could be ridiculous (like in Team America), and they didn't want that. They wanted the bodies to look realistic and the scene to feel realistic, and they intentionally made it to unwaveringly last from beginning to end with no time skips. It was meant to be intimate in that way.

Some Background
The man is Michael. He is famous, rich, older, educated, British and everyone looks and sounds the same to him. Lisa is young, Midwestern, not well-educated or rich or successful, and she is in his same hotel to see him speak, because she LOVES him and his book. Her voice, he finds, is the only one he hears that doesn't sound like everyone else's (a big part of the movie is that everyone else he sees has the same basic face and the same voice). He is completely infatuated with her for this reason, seeks her out, finds her with a friend, takes them both out for drinks at the hotel bar, and then asks her (in front of the friend) to come back to her room, which she shyly and nervously does.

She reveals that she doesn't ever get this kind of attention, that guys always like her friend over her, and that she has a small scar on her face that she is utterly ashamed of. She also reveals that she hasn't had sex in 8 years and even then it was with her fat, 60 year old boss that just pursued her because he figured she'd do it.

The Kissin'
They end up with him sitting on the edge of the bed and her sitting on the desk chair facing him. Michael keeps telling her how lovely and amazing and unique she is and keeps telling her to talk and sing, which she does. After she sings a rendition of Girls Just Wanna Have Fun, he gets emotional about her voice. He goes over to kiss her on the lips and then sits back down. She is surprised, says thank you and asks if he'll kiss her again.

He does. He gets up, takes her drink to set on the desk, pulls her to her feet and kisses her for a moment. Then he takes her hands and steps over to the end of the bed where they kiss sitting side by side for a moment and then they lean back so they are laying and kissing side by side. After about 2 seconds, she sits up abruptly, and says "I haven't been with anyone for 8 years."

She has her arms crossed and she seems quite nervous to me. He replies. "Let's just lie together and you can tell me about your day." She softens a bit and says, "Yes, okay."  She relaxes, and they are laying on their backs next to each other. She quickly becomes her giddy boisterous self again, talking about her day and even singing Girls Just Wanna to Have Fun in Italian.

Here they are just after she lays back. I found this HERE

The Pushy Kissin'
After about 45 seconds he turns towards her up on an elbow, and not 30 seconds later he's all kissin' up on her. She doesn't really react to it at all, and he tells her to keep talking, which she does - without any acknowledgement of his kisses on her face and neck, or his hands on her waist. No moans or body movement towards him. She keeps her hands well inside her personal space and doesn't touch him. She is simply moving forward in her one woman conversation. I would say she is pretty clearly ignoring his advances for a full 100 seconds until he moves and kisses her on the mouth.

Here Michael's startin' to get all up in her space while she ignores him. I found this HERE.

Again, she doesn't really retaliate with her body language, and still really avoids touching, grabbing, and turning towards him as he quickly unbuttons her shirt, and takes off his jacket, and moves his hand down over the crotch area of her skirt. She giggles and moves his hand away. She says it tickles, and he apologizes, saying he won't touch her there, but she says, "no, it's okay," and that he can touch her there. She even moves his hand back there.

She finally, at this point, turns her head to kiss him, but then it gets a little creepy. He asks her if she talks during sex. She says she doesn't know but she could do either - she's very matter of fact and a little worried in the I-hope-I'm-doing-this-right kind of way. He's says he'd like it, or she could maybe do a little moaning. She's all like, "I could do that," and then she lets out a wierd, creepy moan, which he likes. (On a side note: Telling a woman directly that you want her to moan is a great way to clue her in that you want her to vocalize her appreciation of you whether she's really into it or not...maybe she'll assume faking an orgasm while you come would be pleasing too, amiright???). Immediately he's pulling her skirt up and putting his hands up to her crotch. He asks if that feels okay to which she apologetically says, "Yes, sorry. I'm just a little shy," to which he's all like, "it's fine," but continues to get more on top of her. In the process, though, he leans on her hair. She says something like, "Ow my hair," and they both apologize.

The point here is that to me, this whole scene looks like he's getting aroused and wanting to get it on, but she seems absolutely not aroused, and kinda half-heartedly moving along with things hoping to please him, and maybe even throwing out small stalls like saying she's ticklish or shy.

Rounding Third
Lisa then says, "maybe if we can just turn a little bit, like this," which ends him up on top of her. He asks her if that's better, and she says, "much." Then he immediately starts to go down on her.

Lisa: worried "oh...oh..."

Michael: "What, you don't want to do that?"

Lisa: "No, I'm just...I'm kinda shy about that too."

Michael: "Don't be shy. It'll be good. I really want to."

Lisa: "OK. OK, go ahead."

She lays back. He pulls her skirt up, takes the panties off, and starts eating. We can't see any actual lady junk, but we see a POV of his face in between her legs. He looks to be putting his mouth on the vulva part. It looks realistic enough as a way to eat a lady into orgasm.

After 12 seconds he says, "You've been quiet. Is it no good?"

She leans up and says, "No, it's fine, it's good. It's, um, just a little bit more gentle maybe at first, maybe."

"sorry"

"It's okay," she says back nervously.

In an SSL reviewable way, I like what's going on here. I like her advice to him. You really do need to warm that clit up first for sure. Plus I simply like that there is discussion about what she likes. However, there is the slight insinuation in this exchange that if a woman isn't sounding like a porn star, then she's not enjoying it. Maybe she was quiet because it was good and she was concentrating on that sweet, sweet tongue. That's me getting picky, though, so I'll drop that. I appreciate that he asked and took the advice - can't be mad at that.

So, Lisa lays back and closes her eyes.

Michael: "Better?"

Lisa: "Yes" She says yes in a very sexual way. This is maybe the first time it feels to me like Lisa is really getting aroused.

35 seconds later (these times I'm giving are not random things I made up. I time this shit) she starts to vocalize like an orgasm is on the way. She even grabs his hand. but then to my great dismay, she says, "can you come up here please?"

This time, he puts up no fight the way he did when she said she was shy earlier. He doesn't say, 'I want to make you come with my mouth.' No, this time he gets right up and obliges her by taking off his clothes and putting his penis in her.

An Aside To Lisa About Getting That Puss Ate Out
Listen, when a man on a one night stand (or anytime really) goes down on you and verbally tells you he wants to do it. Let him. If it's just a bluff, call it. If he's just cool, cool - he'll enjoy doing it. Let him eat you the hell out until you come hard against his lips. Enjoy that shit. You deserve it, and honestly it doesn't happen often enough to intentionally cut it short just before the orgasm. Chances are not in your favor for being able to climax during the impending intercourse. You might have just lost your orgasm chance. Even if you felt you could come while he was up in it...maybe you can rub the clit against him or something...still why? You can find any man, any time to stick his dick in you, but getting the mouth business is a special thing. Oh Anomalisa, I can only assume you didn't want to bother him too much, didn't want to take too long, maybe felt too nervous and wanted to get to pleasing him. Maybe, like so many of us, you really only know the oral stuff as foreplay, so when you started getting real excited, it seemed like a sign to move to the next step - the main course. I mean this whole thing wouldn't be complete unless he pumped in you, right? Oh well, next one night stand keep that dude down there for as long as you need.

The 'Ol In And Out
Anyway, Michael gets up there. They are both making gentle sexy sounds like they are clearly aroused. They scoot to the top of the bed taking off their clothes and throwing back the covers. After 55 seconds of negotiating all the clothes and bedding, they are both naked, and he gets in between her legs, missionary style and puts the dick in. For 31 seconds they have intercourse. The sex wasn't all hard poundy, but it was definitely in and out stuff, not grindy stuff. Their hands where on eachother's backs not on her clit, and her body was pretty motionless under his. She wasn't bucking up against him or grinding into him. After those oh-so-heavenly 31 seconds, they both begin orgasming simultaneously - lasting about 18 seconds.

The Overview
That's it. An incredibly self-conscious, sexually inexperienced woman who doesn't seem to be particularly aroused gets 45 seconds total of mouth on vulva (with some of that 45 seconds taken up by talking about being more gentle), then, when she's close to orgasming, she pulls him up and they non-sexually arrange and take off clothes for 50 seconds. Then he puts his dick in and out of her for 31 seconds and they both orgasm. I think that's pretty sensible right? Oh and without going into the details about why and all that, Michael was an ass to her the next morning. He went 180 on her.

I'm Just Saying It Was A Little Coercive, Okay.
But let me circle back and talk about another aspect of this scene that struck me. It's not specifically related to orgasm, but I think it is a little, and it's relevant to this conversation. I'm gonna call this sex a little coercive, but in the most normal and acceptable of ways. I'm not calling claymation rape here - not by far - but I'm calling out something...bad sex?...ill mannered sex?...thoughtless sex?

Honestly, nothing Michael did seemed out of the ordinary, but man, if this is normal, we need to change our normal. Hang with me here. I know this is a touchy subject. To begin, I want to be clear that mine is not the only way to view this scene, and judging from the reviews and discussion of the movie and the scene so far, my way is not common. I get that this scene might just seem like a shy girl needing a little coaxing before she's ready - it's a common narrative. I get that this scene could be viewed as a very tender and kind depiction of a suffering man who found a momentary spark in another person. He looked past that shy, insecure woman's outer flaws and pushed her gently past her comfort zone to enjoy life (sex) in a way she didn't think a girl like her was allowed. Even if he did end up being not so great to her in the end, they shared something very human and lovely. So, yeah, I get it, and I think that's closer to how most critics are taking it.

However, it could also be viewed as a strangely accurate and poignant, yet probably unintentional, reflection of how the cultural norms and common sexual scripts leave little room for the female orgasm, deemphasize the importance of non verbal clues, and put men and their sexual needs with the upper hand in sexual negotiations: a scene meant to be ordinary in an effort to humanize it, but in it's ordinariness and unwavering, start-to-finish format ended up highlighting how messed up our ordinary sex script really is.

Sexual Negotiation
In the end, that's what sex is - a negotiation between two people. In a one night stand in particular it is an incredibly delicate negotiation with tons of unknowns. I think in a better world the norm would be that each person is hyper sensitive to the other person's non-verbal clues, to err on the side of respecting boundaries, and to pay attention to power dynamics and how that might affect the negotiation. Unfortunately, I don't think that's the norm in our world, and I don't think it was in Michael and Lisa's world either.  Michael, I would argue, was not taking Lisa's cues...at least the one's he didn't want to take. He did notice she wasn't making vocalizations (and we know how much Michael wants and needs to hear her unique voice) during his cunnilingus, and he did take her 'ask' for him to "come up here" as a sign to immediately get naked and put his dick in her.

Granted, Michael was never forceful, but the huge power imbalance that existed between these two would allow for gentle coaxing to say a whole lot. He failed to care that his situation created a power dynamic that put Lisa in a bad negotiating position, and didn't hesitate to coax certain sexual acts forward despite her clearly not being eager. Lisa was not an enthusiastic 'yes' through most of the sex act. I don't know about you, but if I signal to someone to do something and they keep ignoring me and changing the subject, I'm gonna take that as a soft no. For instance, when Lisa abruptly clammed up, exited their kissing, and told Micheal she hadn't had sex in 8 years, that's a sure clue to slow down and let her lead. He was all like, 'cool we'll just lay here together,' but he couldn't stop moving forward towards what he wanted for very long. He started kissing on her less than a minute later. She completely ignored him with both her voice and her body for over a minute and a half. That's a pretty strong non-verbal 'no' if I've ever seen one. He continued until she stopped ignoring him. Maybe she decided she wanted to go further at that point, but maybe she was taking his clues and realized resistance was futile, thinking it was easiest just to kinda go with it.

Consensual Is A Low Bar To Set
I think a lot of women have made that decision, and it is our decision. It's technically consensual. It's certainly not rape, and Michael probably didn't feel like he was coercing her. Lisa may or may not feel icky about it - it's kinda personal, but the bigger point here is that this sexual situation was kind of coercive, yet that element went largely unnoticed. Whether the filmmakers intended it or not, we audience members were exposed to an unwavering look at this ridiculously common but less than ideal sexual situation and simply didn't think its grossness worthy or remarkable enough to comment on.

I know it seems picky, but seen clearly, this was not an enthusiastically consensual experience, and it put Lisa in a situation where she may have allowed things to happen that she felt conflicted about. Nobody likes feeling out of control like that in a personal negotiation. Nobody likes thinking back and feeling like they got pushed into something because they didn't know how to speak up or even what to say and how to say it if they did.

Orgasming Makes a Difference
Now, humor me for a minute and just think about this situation through the surface understanding - where 1. Lisa orgasmed along with Michael vs. 2. the interpretation I'm putting forward in which those vocalizations were quite possibly faked. Being gently coaxed outside of your comfort zone into an orgasm, as is the case in interpretation 1, is one thing, but being coaxed into a situation where a dude has an orgasm on you and you feel like you need to vocalize an orgasm along with him for whatever reason, as is the case for interpretation 2, is another situation all together. One is not so bad - maybe even a nice surprise, and the other seems a little pointless and slightly regretful when you look back on it. I'd like to reiterate that the latter interpretation of this sex scene makes more sense given the context clues of this movie, and it's insane that this isn't more clear to more people.

This Type Of Shitty Sex Might Be Normal, But Women Are Beginning To Question Why It Happens So Much
Just so you know, I haven't gone insane. I am still aware Michael and Lisa are fictional and this scene is just a scene, but my point here is that this depiction feels real and feels average - which to me just brightly highlights how deeply this type of sexual script is ingrained in all of us as normal. And, as I said above, if this is normal, we need to reevaluate how good this normal sexual script is for ladies and our orgasms.

If you think I'm being a crazy, judgey, psycho about this, then let me just say in my defense that I'm not making this up. Women are really beginning to question this type of script; starting to point out how often normal sex means bad sex for the ladies and linking that not to random experiences we all have where bad communication leads to less than great times, but to larger cultural norms that more often leave ladies with the short end of the stick in the bedroom. (You can find recent articles about this 'bad sex' situation HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE - to start you out).

Conclusion
Now, like I said, discussing my thoughts on this is complicated. This is not an unrealistic scene. One-night stands just like this happen all over the world, so in a very big way, my beef is not with the movie per se. My beef is with the culture that allows a scene like this to unquestionably represent the thing critics and probably the filmmakers believe it to be; a brief but mutual sex act ending in orgasm for two strangers. I cannot say what exactly Kaufman's intentions were with this scene, but that viewers/reviewers didn't seem to pick up on the normalized coercion and the fact that the female character orgasmed without physical actions that would likely cause orgasm seems incredibly weird and problematic to me. What does that say about how people out there in real life understand sex and lady-gasms, and about what sex like that depicted in this movie means in women's lives?

To me, I see this scene, and I see a woman that had bad sex and a man who was kinda ill-mannered in his pursuit to orgasm. She didn't actually come. She wasn't really even that into it, and then the next morning, she got shit on by the dude. To me, this is an all too real scene reflecting the bullshitty sexual situation real women exist within - one where our orgasms are so misunderstood that an unrealistic depiction of it isn't even on the radar - (seriously, intercourse does not a ladygasm make).

Unlike a lot of the reviews I read about this movie, I don't see the scene as touching, or human connecty-ish, or a brief piece of kindness that was lovely for the time it existed even if it was over quickly. Those represent to me surface takes that simply don't incorporate realistic understandings of female orgasm or sexual negotiation.

So, in this light, I can't look at the Anomalisa scene without thinking how blind it is to the modern female voice on sexual experiences and how clearly the reaction to this scene highlights the larger blindness (even from us females ourselves) to the realities of female orgasm.

The SSL Vulva Rating
The orgasm in this scene was had under rather unrealistic circumstances. I've made that point very clear, and certainly that's not good for the vulva rating. The scene also embodies and further normalizes incredibly common sexual scripts that ignore the realities of female orgasm and favor male sexual needs. So, not only does this movie casually imply that actions that are not likely to make a woman orgasm actually do make a woman orgasm, it also implies that the very common but slightly coercive and non-orgasmic kind of sexual experience depicted between Michael and Lisa is actually kinda sweet and mutually orgasmic. It is not progressive, but in a way I appreciate it because I think its glaring thoughtlessness about an authentic female sexual experience makes it stand out as an interesting and informative piece of sexual history.

I wonder if one day we will look back at this scene the way we look back at scenes of John Wayne slapping a lady and then kissing her deeply. You can't blame it for being made at the time, but now it's just so archaic and strange.

This movie gets a 2 vulva rating...cause at least she got ate out a little and the eating out looked realistic for the short time it was on screen.

(!)(!)