Inside Amy Schumer S1 Ep4 - The SSL Review

Inside Amy Schumer Season1 Episode 4
This show makes me laugh, and here's the best part - Amy Schumer tends to bring it when it comes to realism and female sexuality. She brought it in her movie Trainwreck, in The Joe Rogan Podcast, and largely in the other episodes of this show I've SSL Reviewed so far. She has shown a strong willingness to give the clit the glory it deserves, speak some truths about lady sex experiences, rep for actual lady-gasms - all things largely absent in media and also incredibly important to Orgasm Equality. (She could use some schooling and humbling when it comes to speaking about race though).

The SSL Reviewable
There is plenty to SSL Review in this show. And for those that don't yet know, an SSL Review is a critique specifically of discussions or depictions of female orgasm, female masturbation, or the clit. I focus on that and really only that (unless I want to talk about something else). I'm looking mainly at realism and about how the depiction/discussion plays in the larger cultural conversation about female orgasm and women's sexuality. This particular SSL Review will be a big stretch, however. There are no specific discussions about female orgasm, but I think the lack of female orgasm is so boldly written between the lines, that i thought this episode was worthy of a a post.

Please, my friends, do enjoy more SSL Reviews for MOVIES and TV SHOWS.

Lady Porn Sketch
So here's the scene:

Amy is talking to her friend. they're both sitting on the couch together. the friend says that she just doesn't like the idea of porn, and she's just not into it. Amy, however, says that she really should watch this one because it is different. It feels like real sex. It's literally from the woman's point of view. Her friend reluctantly says okay, and then we get to see this porn.

It's POV of a woman being banged by a sweaty shirtless dude. First she's looking at his chest, then, clearly she was turned over because she's looking at the mattress and her hand that's holding her up. She tries to touch the guy's hand, but he kinda pushes it off. Then she is turned over again, and he's telling her to move down, and she says he's on her hair. He moves a little and then he asks her to call him Adam Sandler (specifically from the movie Spanglish) and asks her if she can bend her leg back more (she says she can't). Then he's all like, 'OK,OK, OK, OK" and comes, then rolls over. She tries to touch him, and he brushes her off, and she turns on the TV.

Then Amy's friend goes, "Did you show me this so I would think guys are gross and lez-out with you?...It worked." and they start making out....which in turn becomes an internet porn clip that some dude is watching and licking his lips.

Big Dick Dikscussion
She starts out talking about how a big dick is like a unicorn. In theory it'd be nice to see it, but then when it's there in front of you, it's just a horse with a weapon on it's head and it's terrifying,.
I went home with guy and he went down on me right away, because he was raised well. I'm thinking of getting his mom's email - give her a shout out. So he's doing that, and then he gave up after a while because he could see I was texting (I'm like, it's about you!). So, and then he presents his penis, like, here it is. And I think he thought that because I was like a substantial gal, that I'd be like 'that ol' thing,' but I was like, 'MOM!!!!' It didn't even register as a cock. It just looked like an animal had latched on....I was not excited. It was just like all fear. I was like What! No! and I know I should have been excited. I know I should have been taking instagram pics with it.
All her stand-up has to do with her situation with a guy with a big dick. Even her segment, Amy Goes Deep where she does one on one interviews with non-celebrities, is with a guy that has a big dick. It's not at all about his ability to please a woman with his big ol' schlong. In fact, I think she particularly steers away from that conversation. She just keeps making jokes about a big dick and how painful and cumbersome it can be during sex, and he's, to me, very proud of it and thinks that it is incredibly exciting and pleasing to women, and he begins to allude to that, but she just doesn't let him talk much. Like she asks him about masturbating - if it takes him longer than other guys, and he says he stopped masturbating a good while ago...clearly alluding to the fact that he doesn't have to because he has so many pussies willing to get fucked he doesn't need to do that, but she just kinda cuts him off and asks if it's because it's so big he needs a team of experts like heave-ho-ing on it to get it done. Other than that, she just talks about what his balls look like, asks him if he's tried anal and where that woman is buried, and you know, stuff like that.

My Thoughts
Okay - so like I said above, this post for me is all about looking at things that are SUPPOSED to be hot for women, but actually probably aren't most of the time. And, that to me, at its core, is about how twisted the assumptions about female pleasure and female orgasm are - about how wrong we, as a culture, have it.

The Porn Stuff
There is no actual depiction/discussion of orgasm here, but I feel like the distinct depiction of its lack is important and worthy of a review. There's a lot going on with this skit, but the aspect I want to focus on is it's voice about how boring, gross, unsexy, and unorgasmic sex often is for women. The skit's about porn, but really the funny part is that we're seeing a real woman's POV experience of sex...like totally from her perspective. Its humor arises largely, I think, because it seems outrageous how bad it is, but at the same time, for women it hits home. I venture to say most women have at least once had an experience quite similar. This, my friend, is the kind of thing we need a woman's eye to write because it's not the public face of female sexual experience we're looking at in this skit. It's the hidden untalked about one. Instead of showing the female experience of sex in a braggy, bravado sex-kitten way or a scary rapey way - which is how we often see them depicted, this was about as normal as it can get. Now, let that sink in because IT SUCKED...and yet it's sooo familiar to sooo many..

And, yes people who are indignantly thinking #NotAllSex, I get it. I get that there can be really sexy, hot even orgasmic sex for the ladies out there. It's obviously possible, and it obviously happens. I'm totally down with that, but I'm not down with using #NotAllSex types of excuses to gloss over or ignore the severity and importance of how terrible normal ol' sex often is. I'm not going to pretend like sex described in this skit is just terrible sex in the way you would describe terrible ice cream. We know that most ice cream is not terrible, so this terrible ice cream must be out of the ordinary #NotAllIceCream. We'd like to think of sex in the same way, but really it's only men who get that luxury. For women terrible sex is just an extreme case of the already quite shit sex that is the norm of sex, and even women who are having better sex now have probably had sex like this sometime in their life...because normal sex is too often terrible for the ladies (Here's a primer of how orgasm-less penetration is for ladies, HERE's some writing on how bad normal sex is...and another....and another...and another related to terrible/normal oral sex)

The Big Dick Stuff
So, first we have a send-up of plain ol'sex with dudes. It's something that women are supposed to be all hot for, but the reality is that it's often terrible and often orgasm-less. Now we get the send-up of big dicks. They are supposed to be hot to women. We're supposed to be desperate for them. They're supposed to be lady-gasm giving machines. BUT...the reality is that's a bunch of bullshit, and not just because penises (even big ones) are pretty useless at giving women orgasms (seriously), but also because a big dick might just be too damn big, man.

Amy isn't playing by mythology of big dicks mean virile, manly men that are able to please women. Women know that shit ain't true. We know a big dick hurts like a motherfucker when it hits your cervix or if you're not dripping like Niagara Falls and horny as a mothafucka. We know the orgasmic hope the myth of giant cocks bring melts away into a sad fleeing cloud when were orgasm-less and a little too 'fucked-sore' at the end of it. I mmean I'm not saying a big dick isn't hot to look at and touch, but the realities of that inside you are often far from glamorous.

Amy keeps it real in the stand-up and the interview. Both the man in her story and the man she was interviewing had an idea that women would really be excited about their dig ol' bicks, but she never let's that feeling linger in the air. She just simply doesn't play into that myth, and I think in doing that she takes some of its power away.

The Vulva Rating
I think her perspective on these two things that have a long proud history as lady-gasm givers - intercourse with a dick and intercourse with a big dick - is so on point, so female, and so hidden in our larger culture. I love that she unabashedly trashes these notions, and I think revealing her very female perspective on this lets other ladies know they're not crazy in thinking similar thoughts or experiencing similar things, and all that takes power away from these incorrect myths around how/why women orgasm.

I give this a 4 1/2 out of 5 vulva rating.



5 Movies #DirectedByWomen About Women Freaking Out About Love and/or Marriage

I started doing this categorized List of 5 movies thing where I showcase movies that were directed by women and that I have actually seen. It all started during the Directed By Women Worldwide Viewing Party in September 2015, and it was pretty fun, so I've continued doing it from time to time.

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

You can find all my 5-movie lists HERE.

We're heading towards Valentines Day with it's focus on a certain type of love  - a love that scares some. In fact it scares some so much that they make movies about how scared they are of it...or maybe how strange they feel that they aren't experiencing what they believe that certain type of love to be (usually related to seeing their friends get married). They also never consider anything outside of a monogamous long-term relationship, and honestly, it might be a more interesting movie if they did. But anyway - that, my friends, is the focus of ALL the movies in this special Valentine edition of the 5 #DirectedByWomen movie list.  Enjoy.

Post Grad - This was directed by Vicki Jenson. I saw this fairly recently on Netflix, I believe. Michael Keaton is the dad in this, which was a surprise. I enjoyed it. It's my kind of alone on a Saturday night watch.

2 Laggies - This one was directed by Lynn Shelton. So, this one was a surprisingly fun movie, and a better take on the very similar theme all these movies share. It's just a little weirder and more fun for my taste. I was pleasantly surprised when I watched this on probably Netflix? Amazon? I don't know. something streaming. You might be too.

3 Cake - This was directed by Nisha Ganatra. I saw this also on something streaming some night when I was chillin' alone eating fancy cheese and crackers and chocolate for dinner. This is not the Cake with Jennifer Aniston. this one came first. I liked watching this one too. It was what I was looking for.

4 It Had To Be You - This was directed by Sasha Gordon. I believe (and I hope I'm not just talking out of my ass here - I'm going from memory) that this director is also a composer who did the music for this movie as well as directing. You can tell. This is an indie movie, but the music is more interesting and dynamic than most indie movies. It makes a HUGE difference - because honestly indie movie music can be pretty terribly boring and cliche. That, plus the generally well made-ness of this movie makes it something I would definitely recommend.

5 Landlines - This was directed by Gillian Robespierre. She had previously directed Obvious Child, which I really loved so I sought this out when it was released. I love the main actress in this, and I thought it was a really entertaining movie that in its weirdest parts, was pretty intriguing, but if I'm being real honest had a much more stale voice on long term relationships and monogomy than I was hoping for. But, that said, it is still a really good movie.


Saturday Night Fever - The SSL Review

Saturday Night Fever
I remember catching this movie on late night TV sometime in my late teens or early 20's. I'd only really known it as the whole BeeGees-John Travolta-Disco Dancing Point Move thing. Turns out, it's a dark, gritty movie, and I really liked it. Also, like for real, Travolta's dancing is more than that point move he did. He's a stone cold fab dancer. Anyway, saw it on Amazon Prime a couple nights ago, and decided to give it a re-watch. Still very much enjoyed it - even with all the rapey-ness and actual rape in it (I don't remember how I related to those scenes when I first saw it, but now I feel like they seem particularly poignant about how women are forced to traverse our sexual and romantic culture. I don't think the movie plays these lightly, but I also wonder how these scenes were perceived in 1977 when the movie came out).

There was also a lady-gasm scene in this movie, and so lucky me/lucky you, I get to SSL Review it.

The SSL Review Review
Here's a quick summary of an SSL Review for newbies. An SSL Review is a critique of depictions or discussions of female masturbation, female orgasm, or the clit. I only review those scenes - not the movie as a whole (unless I feel like talking about more), and I focus mostly on the realism of the depiction/discussion and also how it fits into a larger cultural discussion of female orgasm and sexuality.

Check all the SSL Review movies HERE and TV SSL Reviews HERE.

Lady-gasm Through A Car Window
Let me set the scene. Travolta (Tony) and his friends go to this disco in their home area of Brooklyn every weekend. They all drive in one car, and as they are getting out of the car to start their disco night, we hear them remind each other that they get 5 minutes in the car for fucking and then the next guy gets his turn. So, stuff happens in the disco, and then one friend (Joey) and his lady friend come up to Tony and complain that another friend (Double J) has already been in there 25 minutes, and he can't get him out. Tony, annoyed that these dudes can't do anything without him (he is the leader of this pack), goes out to the car followed by the couple. They bang on the wind and the following conversation ensues
Tony: Alright. Get out. You've been in there 20 minutes. Get out!
Then we see into the car (they're looking right in there at him), and we see Double J's naked butt, his pants around his thighs doing the girl missionary across the length of the back seat. We can't really see her underneath him. He kinda turns his head back to they guys looking through the window and says

Double J: 25 in the car, 20 in the chick
Tony: Yeah, well get out before we pull you out.
We hear her let out a bit of a moan
Double J: She ain't come yet!
Tony: (straight faced) Since when do you care?
We then see Double J move so that he's sitting on the middle of the back seat facing forward, and she is in front of him kinda on his lap facing away with her hands on the backs of the front seats. Since we don't see them again until after she comes, it's possible that she could have rubbed her clit, but nothing indicates that.
We are outside the car now and can't see quite what is going on.
Double J: Whoa...Okay. It's happening.
Lady in car: "Harder! Harder!
Double J: It's happening. It's happening!!
It clearly happens
Double J: I'll be out in a minute man 
Lady in car: Harder! I'm coming! I'm coming! (screams in orgasm) 
Double J: Oh Yeah!
The Review
Classic Laugh Line
First off, I think the lines where that dude says the gal hasn't come yet, and Tony says he never cared before, are pretty poignant about the state of our culture. It's like, kinda a joke but also not. That joke always is...still to this day. That whole dudes-don't-care-if -the-women-they-fuck-come thing can be used as a classic laugh line because even though at that time and today it's clearly a thoughtless, shitty way to approach sex with a woman, it can be a laugh line because it's also 'real-talk, hard-truth humor,' and that's kinda sad.

In 1977 when this movie was made, the idea that women should come during sex was maybe even more of a cultural topic than today because it was only a few years after the big important milestones in the women's sexual revolution. Masters & Johnston released their research showing that women can and do orgasm from appropriate clitoral stimulation and that couples should make sure the woman orgasms. Shere Hite published her surveys of women talking about their orgasm, masturbation, and sexual experiences. Hite told the world that it's BS women don't come during sexual encounters when they are absolutely capable of doing so given the right stimulation. The women's movement in general was heavy in the air in the mid-late 70's making, I assume, men feel wierd and nervous and defensive. The idea that women should be orgasming during sex was all part of that ( I wasn't even born at this time, but the writings from this time made it clear that this was a seemingly new and nerve-hitting topic of the day).

All that to say I think maybe, and I could absolutely be wrong here, that was one of the lines specifically added in this movie to demonstrate what types of guys these were. They were macho and old-school in their feelings - particularly about women. I say this because the movie absolutely has a strong theme involving men's inability to see women - as anything other than a pussy to stick a dick in, that is. So, if you ask me, I'd say that this laugh line pointing out disinterest in a woman's orgasm indicates these characters are the kinds of dudes that like to specifically give the fringe feminist ethos of the time a big 'fuck you.'

That line was written over 40 year ago, and I'm talking so much about it because I find it particularly relevant given that laugh lines about this kind of thing are still quite popular - in more machismo elements of our culture, but also in more mainstream media, memes, etc. Even if it's meant as a joke it's still true in our culture that it is a joke because it's kinda true. And when it's used as a laugh line, most would argue it is 'just a joke' - making fun of those people - you know, the other people who unlike 'most guys' don't have utmost understanding and respect for their lady-partner's desires and orgasm. Please. Like I said before, it's a laugh line because of the truth behind it, and I know that there is truth behind it because of all male-orgasm-only sexual encounters happening out there that include way more than just 'those other dudes.' It's kinda dudes in general with women in general being complicit. So point here is that I think we should remember we haven't come that far on the topic of female orgasm from where we were when this movie came out.

As for the woman's orgasm in the car. I don't know how this was intended to be perceived, but since there was no indication she was diddling her clit during the time she was off screen. This, I would argue, is a depiction of a woman getting a penis moved in and out of her vaginal canal and vocally expressing an orgasm even though the physical things happening to her were not realistically things that would get a woman off - like anatomically speaking.

I always consider the possibility in these common, yet unrealistic depictions of female orgasm  that the intention was actually to depict a woman faking an orgasm. Occasionally I can argue that, but mostly, it doesn't seem to be the case, and in this scene, I would venture to guess she was really intended to be orgasming. I mean we were told that he had been screwing her for 20 minutes, and the incorrect/misleading notion that women need their vaginal canals banged for 20-30 minutes before they can come was around then as much as it is today, so it makes sense to me that the director wanted her to come and assumed that within the sex act they depicted, her orgasm was realistic. He was wrong to assume that banging a woman would cause her to come . It's actually unrealistic as hell because WOMEN NEED OUTER CLITORAL STIMULATION TO COME, but whatever. This is so common of a way lady-gasms are depicted that I'm not even mad.

If you ask me, though, the fact that she did make orgasm sounds there makes a lot of real-life sense to me. It seems realistic to what would actually happen in that situation. Granted this is completely fiction, and I'm now musing about what was really happening in this fictional scene, but I want to just play through this. So, what I mean here is that a classic way women fake an orgasm (or maybe a lot of times it's not quite faking, but just showing excitement in the way we think we should and is sexy for the man) is to vocally 'come' while he is actually coming. It's been a sensible option in a lot of ways for a lot of women. It's hot to him so it helps him get over the hump and come, but it also lets him know he can come if he feels he has to bang and hold off his orgasm until she comes. Bada boom bada bing. It ends all the banging that is actually not making her come and probably getting boring, Plus he's satisfied he's a real man and satisfied her. Everyone's happy...well, except the woman who in the moment or even years later will realize she's been having orgasmless, shit sex that has slowly chipped away at her once bountiful sex drive...I mean other than that.

The Vulva Rating
Saturday Night Fever had a classic scene of a woman coming during intercourse even though there was absolutely no clitoral stimulation involved. It's unrealistic and adds to the mountain of other scenes like this that continue to convince every new generation of women that they should be able to orgasm this way, even though anatomy and research into female orgasm says otherwise. It pushes incorrect ideas about how sex and orgasms should be, and does a lot of harm to women and men alike.

So that's bad, but I also think this movie is good and I think for its time it was a thoughtful look into how men so easily and commonly disregard women. So I give it a little point for that. I give this movie a 1 1/2 out of 5 star rating.



Inside Amy Schumer S1 Ep8: The SSL Review

Inside Amy Schumer Season1 Episode 8
This show makes me laugh, and here's the best part - Amy Schumer tends to bring it when it comes to realism and female sexuality. She brought it in her movie Trainwreck, in The Joe Rogan Podcast, and largely in the other episodes of this show I've SSL Reviewed so far. She has shown a strong willingness to give the clit the glory it deserves, speak some truths about lady sex experiences, rep for actual lady-gasms - all things largely absent in media and also incredibly important to Orgasm Equality. (She could use some schooling and humbling when it comes to speaking about race though).

The SSL Reviewable
There is plenty to SSL Review in this show. And for those that don't yet know, an SSL Review is a critique specifically of discussions or depictions of female orgasm, female masturbation, or the clit. I focus on that and really only that (unless I want to talk about something else). I'm looking mainly at realism and about how the depiction/discussion plays in the larger cultural conversation about female orgasm and women's sexuality.

Please, my friends, do enjoy more SSL Reviews for MOVIES and TV SHOWS.

Ladygasms: Balance Beams, Oscar Music, and Storage Wars
In season 1, throughout the episodes, we see Amy Schumer doing actual stand-up. In episode 8 she's saying the following thing to the crowd.

Women. We're lucky, aren't we? 'Cause women, we can have multiple orgasms - I've read.
crowd laughs
And I swear, that's not me, like, trashing guys. It's not easy to give me an orgasm. It's not fun. It's...I have to have the focus of an Olympic hopeful on a balance beam.
She pantomimes being on a balance beam while the crowd laughs.
And I get distracted. If the temperature changes I'm like, "I lost it. I lost it." But women, like sometimes, we have to fake orgasms, right? And that's not us being disrespectful to men. That's just -- that's our way of saying to you, you know..."wrap it up." Right? That's your Oscar-play-off, end-your-speech music. We're saying, I love you. I'm glad we did this. But Storage Wars is on in a minute. Get out of me.

The Review
Here are my thoughts. I'll make it quick.

When she talks about multiple orgasms, she does two thing there that I think are poignant.
1 She gives a nod to the idea that women are like somehow way luckier because we get to have multiple orgasms, but I've always thought the insinuation of that idea is a bunch of bullshit because:

First, men can have multiple orgasms too (it's harder and uncommon, but they just have to hold of  their ejaculation).

Second, a multiple orgasm is just, like, a longer orgasm. Like there's an orgasm; you keep stimulating; there's another and it goes on for a few minutes. It's not like women are orgasming for hours on end in a state of nirvana like romance novels and numerous TV and movies would have you believe. That's just straight up BS. So, like, it's just a bit longer experience for a woman having multiple orgasms.

Third, and this is most important. Women barely orgasm at all when we're in bed with a man, so fuck if multiple orgasms are possible. We still in the overall just don't get as many orgasms as men - by far, and to say we're lucky in the orgasm department is a severe misreading of the lady-sex experience. Maybe I'm not speaking for all women here, but we'd take consistent orgasms during sex, partners who have a basic understanding of what we need to orgasm, and a general culture that prioritizes our orgasmic pleasure over some measly multi-orgasm ability any day...especially since men actually could have that ability as well.

She adds in 'I've read,' at the end of that statement about women's luckiness and multiple orgasms, and I think it changes a lot. I like it because that add-on gives a nod to the idea that women read and hear stuff all the time about different types of orgasm and ways to get mind-blowing orgasms and all that, but it doesn't actually make sense against what we know about our bodies and our actual sexual experiences (because mostly we hear completely incorrect and often ridiculous things about our orgasms). I think this statement as a whole is realistic and from a woman's perspective...Like, I imagine a woman hearing that and being like - 'yeah! I'm not the only one who hears how AMAZING multiple orgasms are and how I should be having them, but only has like a normal orgasm...sometimes...when he eats me out. I felt kinda bad about not being able to elicit this amazing multiple orgasm I'm supposed to be having, but at least I'm not the only one!'

She jokes about how hard it is to give her an orgasm, and I think it's probably realistic to some degree, but I have 2 conflicting thoughts about it.

 It adds to the stereotype that women's bodies are just more fickle about orgasms; as if women's innate capability for orgasm is more reliant on mood and environment than men's. There's really, in my humble opinion, no reason to believe that women's bodies are naturally less able to orgasm in this way. There is every reason, however, to believe that women aren't getting the best stimulation for orgasm a lot of the time, and we mistake the trouble women have coming because of that for women's bodies being too persnickety (because we literally don't understand that women orgasm from clitoral glans area stimulation and not from vaginal canal stimulation...and we also don't understand how much normal, everyday sexual encounters are often quite damaging to lady-desire).

2 On the other hand - I think in practice women are more persnickety about mood and environment leading up to our orgasm, but it's not an innate thing. In my, again, humble opinion, it's because we've endured way more sexual assaults, orgasm-less sex, shitty/boring/coercive sexual interactions than men. So, unlike men, we may have a lot of things about a sexual interaction that, from past experiences, don't associate in our mind with arousal, and so we have to be a bit persnickety to find what gets our arousal going enough to get us to orgasm...because so many parts of sex, that are and have always been arousing for men, can become off-putting, unarousing, scary, or just plane gross for women given our past experiences.
So, I do think Amy's coming from a place of realism from a female perspective, but without context and deeper discussion, it also just reinforces a damaging stereotype instead as opposed to open audiences to new perspectives, which at it's best, is what comedy can do.

Then she talks about faking.
It's true that women fake, and I like when people talk about it and put it out there in the open. We as a culture need to confront that fully and completely. Our culture is never going to understand (and be shamed by) how very little consideration is given to women's orgasms until we all get real and stop believing, even kinda-half-believing, that all the faked orgasms out there are actual orgasms. The more we talk about women faking, the more we have to face it, and the more we have to consider that we, our partner, the porn actress, or that character on that show aren't actually orgasming and that mimicking what got them or us to that fake orgasm is not going to magically also be sensible for attaining an actual orgasm.

Also, yes women need to stop faking because clearly it's counter productive. I get that, but I won't put this all on ladies and their "choice" to fake. I think faking is often more complicated than any easy fake/notfake, 50/50 choice. There's a lot to unpack there, but I will say dudes and the culture at large have a huge responsibility in this as well. And one thing that dudes could do is consider that maybe women don't want you banging on them for hours, and maybe that girl (probably every girl that wasn't also explicitly working her clitoral glans area also) that came while you were fucking her, did not actually come and maybe was just done with you fucking her. She was playing the 'Oscar-play-off, end-your-speech music'  Seriously. Consider that...and then try to ask, listen, learn, and adjust accordingly with as little judgment and as much consideration as possible.

Vulva Rating
I always love the female perspective, and I like her real-talk about faking so the dude will just stop. I also like the way she turned the multiple orgasm joke from the BS notion that women are sooo much more lucky than men because of multiple orgasms to a point about how women's bodies (or at least her's...and other women can then also relate) don't always seem to respond how orgasm advice says they should.

I again thought the discussion of the persnickety lady-body was realistic in practice, and it probably is good for women who feel their ability to orgasm is not what it should/could be (like why can't we all just orgasm like Samantha on Sex and the City). It's good and healing to know you are not alone (in fact 6you're probably very normal and Samantha in real life would not actually be orgasming doing those things she does most of the time). However, it also just reinforces the bad stereotype that women naturally need more in order to orgasm.

This is a bit of a mixed bag, but overall good. I give this a 3 1/2 out of 5 vulvas.



1977 Hustler Review Series Wrap-up: It's Not Great

The Final in the 1977 Hustler Series 
This is a wrap-up to a deal I made a couple years ago to SSL Review a Hustler from September 1977. I don't have any more reviews to do in this magazine, but I just feel like I needed to give it a final goodbye. And, I don't mean that in a good way - like because I loved it and I'll miss it or something. I mean it in more of a bad way - because it was gross and sexist and surprisingly racist...with a pedophile edge.

I'll get into that, but if you haven't been keeping up on this particular series - you can find all the previous SSL Reviews (reviews specifically of depictions or discussions of female orgasm, female masturbation or the clit), linked under the magazine section HERE. There were 6 sections in this magazine that included something I could SSL Review, and by far my favorite of those was the Huster XXX movie reviews - because those movies were bonkers.

Anyway, I started this because a fab lady named Jill Hamilton who writes the Cosmo Sex Position lists - like a fucking Orgasm Equality Hero btw- and a blog called In Bed With Married Women, which you will not regret reading, had a give away. We just needed to tell her what we'd do with it. I saw this vintage Hustler, and I promised to both SSL Review it cover to cover and to also masturbate to it. She chose me, and thus it began.

I didn't masturbate to it. It feels like I'd mess up some kind of karma if I rubbed one off to it. It doesn't deserve me. I liked seeing it though and seeing what it was like in a late 70's Hustler. I enjoyed doing the reviews too.

BUT....It was, as I said above, gross and sexist and surprisingly racist...with a pedophile edge. I normally put pics in these but, well, no, not for these. Here's some of the terrible-ness:
  • Chester the Molester. I honestly didn't know Chester the Molester was reoccurring cartoon in Hustler. I remember I babysat at this house across the street. Their last name was Chester, and me and my BFF called them Chester the Molester - just because it rhymed and we had heard that term before, I guess? Anyway, I'm not going to put a picture of it in here because I wouldn't feel right replicating the image for prosperity, but let me just describe it. It's a full page. Chester the Molester is an older white dude with white hair and a creepy smile. He's got a Nazi band around his upper arm. He's in a city in the foreground of the picture hiding around the corner of a building. Behind him and on the sidewalk next to the building a mom, dad, and a little girl are waiting to cross the street. Chester is not visible to them. They are clearly Jewish and in a Jewish neighborhood because the girl has a star of David necklace. The dad has a yarmulke, and there's a Hasidic Jewish man walking in the background. The noses are ridiculously over drawn for a little extra racism. Chester has a string attached to a dollar that he is pulling from around the corner and the girl is chasing it towards where he is hiding. In his other hand he has a bat raised ready to get her. Oh, and there is piss and shit on the sidewalk. That's it. That's the comic - the whole comic. Can I just ask Whyyyyy? It's not comedic. It's super racist. I don't really know what to say, but why?... and why a full page devoted to it, Hustler? You wrong.
  • They probably have alternative motives for selling a kid's sex ed book. There's a page titled "Hustler Books and Movies." It's got 5 little sections of different sex books and/or sex reels to order; one on masturbation, some little "dirty" comics, some explicit sex position photo books, a book series on modern sexual behavior that has "lots of full color explicit photos", and then a book called Show Me! with 2 pre adolescent shirtless children on the cover. It's supposed to be a sex ed book for your kids, and checking with wikipedia it is a sex ed book for kids- although a controversial one because of its explicit drawings. Buuutttt, again, I need to ask why they got that damn thing on that page? A book that was, at the time this magazine came out, being banned in some areas as child pornography? Even if it really was meant to be just a very straightforward book for kids, it is clearly being marketed on the down low in this Hustler as a way to look at drawings of naked kids, right? I'm not crazy?
  • There's another racist, nose-related comic, but it's only an 1/8 of a page this time and no potential molesting insinuated. It's also not funny.
  • Um there's a huge, several page-long comic with a really racist-ly drawn black football team. Their dialogue in it is also quite racists. They're having lots of sex, and there's some famous people in it too. It's pretty bad.
  • There's a big ol' article on child prostitution with a totally inappropriate cover page. It's pretending to be some kind of deep journalistic look at the problem of child prostitution, but it's really just a horseshit article. The really gross part, though, is that the front of the article is a 2 page spread of an almost pubescent girl, blond hair and innocent blue eyes, sitting on a bed in a dank motel room holding money. She's completely naked to the point that we see her vulva. Like....whyyyyyyyyyyyyyy? Did they feel like sexualizing a little cartoon girl in a story about child prostitution was good idea journalistic integrity? Is that why they made sure her legs were open enough to see everything? Come on, Hustler. Jesus Christ.
  • The rest of the grossness is just your average hardcore magazine grossness. I think I hit the worst above, but rest assured, there's stuff in there you could live without.
So, that concludes my Hustler September 1977 Review Journey. I am going to throw it away now. I think mid-nineties Penthouse is next. Hopefully it's at least a little less racist, although I'm not holding my breath.


Sex and the City S6 Part 2 Ep1-8: A Retro SSL Review

My new little segment is back for a another round (Here's the others). It's a modified, lazy version of an SSL Review. It's just me transcribing my notes, page by page, on all of the Sex and the City episodes. I watched them all - not necessarily in order - during 2007 and 2008, and I took notes on the depiction/discussion of female orgasm and female masturbation. It was my early attempt at this type of lady-gasm review stuff. Anyway, I never actually created reviews from these notes, but since they exist, I'd like to get them out there on the interwebs before they get burned in a house fire or something...thus this series.

Ramona and my SATC Notes

Anyway, the fun of this will be that I will transcribe these as word for word as I can while still trying to make it be a sensible read. I'll post a pick of the notes for your reference. I'll do one or more episodes at a time - from the beginning of the notebook to the end. I may add notes for clarification or add my SSL-Review-style comments.

Hopefully the notes I took privately 10 years ago won't make me look like a dumb asshole. I will add them in the TV SSL Review Master List  (of course you are also welcome to check out the Movie SSL Review Master List as well). Here we go.

SATC Notes Season 6 Part 2 Ep. 1-8

Season 6 Part 2 Ep1

  • Miranda's ex-man is mimicking her saying, "Oh Robert, no one's been in me this deep before" - making orgasm sounds.
  • She mentions to her new man he looks upset. 
  • Carrie says in voice over scientists say women when have sex, release chemical that makes women attach 
  • Samantha fucking from behind - she looks bored, but it's an emotional thing

Season 6 Part 2 Ep2

  • Nothing

Season 6 Part 2 Ep3

  • Sam asked nun if she's allowed to masturbate. Nun says, I don't know. I never asked.
  • Charlotte having sex cowgirl w/ husband sitting up - no orgasm - interuppted

Season 6 Part 2 Ep4

  • Nothing

Season 6 Part 2 Ep5

  • Samantha make porn movie w/ actor to prove he's not gay - it's porn looking and doggy style

Season 6 Part 2 Ep6

  • Sam - "I think my maid is using my vibrator"

Season 6 Part 2 Ep8

  • Samantha, after no sex-drive-chemo, has cowgirl style sex and is obviously bouncing w/ obviously no clit stimulation (pretty graphic) - and orgasms crazy-style

Modern Day Me Comments
A list:

  • I have no idea why I wrote down that Miranda told her new man he looked upset...unless maybe I didn't complete that thought, or maybe it's connected to Samantha's V.O. about sex chemicals
  • The sex chemical thing would not make an SSL review today (really most of this wouldn't) because it isn't specifically depicting or discussing lady-gasms, lady-bation, or clits. I wrote it down though, I'm sure, because it's stupid and misleading to say women release attachment chemicals during sex because all people do. 
  • Not enjoying and/or orgasming from sex with a dude because of an emotional relationship issue when all the physical things are the same as scenes that did show the character orgasming is classic for this show and all media. Yes, emotion affects arousal affects orgasm, but there is a strong sense in our culture that women's physical ability to orgasm is innately more attached to her emotional state than a man's is...but I would say the hard truth is that women just almost never get the right physical stimulation we need to orgasm, so when we're pissed or annoyed we stop faking and/or find much less joy in the other closeness/emotional aspects of sex, so it just seems like we're more emotionally fickle with our orgasms. But, that's like, my opinion, man.
  • Samantha orgasming during intercourse with no additional clitoral stimulation. Unrealistic yet classic Sam
  • STDs can be passed through sex toys, people. You shouldn't use a vibrator in some random woman's house you're cleaning...but you know, maybe she's been sheltered her whole life, and this vibrator she found while cleaning houses awoke something in her and changed her life. Maybe she got her groove back. In that case, it's worth the risk.


Freudian BS in a Legit, Peer-Reviewed Journal: A Retro Journal Article I Read

I'll be real here. I'm still focusing on other parts of my life at the moment, and I haven't written anything for this blog yet even though I have many things I would like to be writing on. However, I got all excited because I got an email from a grad student studying orgasm. They thanked me for my December 2016 post below and my Dr. Stuart Brody trashing, and then piled on a bit more well-deserved Brody trash talk, which I ABSOLUTELY loved. Anyway, I thought, why not repost? If you've already read it, sorry. If not, then please enjoy. It's not short though...It's long.

The repost of: Freudian BS in a Legit, Peer-Reviewed Journal: A Journal Article I Read originally posted December 27, 2016.

Welcome back to 'A Journal Article I Read,' a series where I summarize a lady-gasm related journal article in a way that is hopefully both comprehensive and also not too long. You can find a list of all the journal articles in this series HERE.

Here is what I'll be summarizing today.

A woman's history of vaginal orgasm is discernible from her walk.
Nicholas A1, Brody S, de Sutter P, de Carufel F.
J Sex Med. 2008 Sep;5(9):2119-24.

The BS intent of this article - a background from me
This is a unique summary for me because I have a lot to say about not only this article, but also about the author of this article and the background of why this article exists. Spoiler alert: I'm pretty darn disappointed with the amount of bias, the direct link to Freudian BS, the incorrect assumptions about scientific understanding of vaginal orgasm, and the experimental design. 

Let me begin with the quickest summary of my discontent that I can conjure up.
 Freud thought the vaginal orgasm was the only mature way for a woman to orgasm and that ability to orgasm from clitoral stimulation only was a sign of immaturity. He just made that shit up. Like if I just decided to say that for men, orgasm from penile stimulation was infantile, and to gain full maturity a man must be able to orgasm from anal intercourse...and people believed me and acted like it made sense.

Anyway, it was not backed up by reality or scientific investigation and it still isn't. In fact, there actually is still not any physical evidence at all in scientific literature that women can orgasm through vaginal stimulation alone. This is after decades of research into female orgasm - which does btw clearly back up the knowledge that women can and do orgasm from outer clitoral/vulva stimulation just as men do from penile stimulation. Clitorally stimulated orgasms have been observed and physically verified numerous times. Just like penile orgasms, it is fairly clear in scientific literature how they can happen, what happens in the body when they do, and to some extent who can have them...i.e. any intact healthy body is capable of a penile or clitorally (really anything around that tissue even if it's somewhere in between a clit and a penis) stimulated orgasm. Female orgasm is not mysterious or confusing, but vaginal orgasm is because as much as it's discussed, researched, and advised about, scientists have not yet found physical evidence that orgasms can happen though stimulation inside the vagina without additional external genital stimulation.

So, to be real clear, when a person (and believe you me a shit ton of these people are scientists in peer reviewed journals*) speaks about the vaginal orgasm, about what women and/or their bodies are like who have them, about their health benefits, about what they look like in the brain, these people are, if you will, talking out of their ass. If they make no mention that orgasms caused by stimulation inside the vagina, with no additional outer vulva/clitoral stimulation, have never been physically verified, then they are not speaking, and may not even understand, the whole story. We don't actually know if these orgasms can happen. We don't know what is actually happening in the body when the women who say they have vaginal orgasms are experiencing what they call vaginal orgasms. So please tell me how we can make distinctions between women who do and do not have them?


So...what exactly pisses me off so much
Incorrectly going about a study as if vaginal orgasms (orgasms caused by stimulation inside the vag only w/ no additional outer stimulation) are a scientifically understood and verified phenomenon is sadly pretty normal for female orgasm studies in peer reviewed journals. Me critiquing that uninformed assumption in these journal summaries is par for the course, so that's not what I'm most worried about in this one. I'm worried about the Freud-was-right-vaginal-orgasms-are-the-only-mature-sexual-climax-a-woman-can-have-and-clitoral-orgasms-make-women-less-mentally-and-physically-healthy agenda this article and this author seem to have. Because I do feel like there is evidence for this kind of agenda.

A little history of clit hate
Freud made that shit up about vaginal orgasm in his whole psychoanalysis deal. Wilhelm Reich was a student of Freud. Alexander Lowen was a student of Reich. All of them had similar feelings about the supremacy of the vaginal orgasm. Reich combined elements of the body into psychoanalysis and Lowen updated Reich's philosophy. It's called bioenergetic analysis. A main tenet of which is "blocks to emotional expression and wellness are revealed and expressed in the body as chronic muscle tensions which are often subconscious. The blocks are treated by combining bioenergetically designed physical exercises, affective expressions and palpation of the muscular tensions." - from Wikipedia.

Stuart motha-fuckin' Brody
Let me also point out that this is an article by a man named Stuart Brody, who is an absolutely prolific writer of scholarly, peer reviewed research articles jocking hard on vaginal orgasms, penile-vaginal intercourse, and even barebacking. He's not the lead author in this particular one, but I see him as a constant player in Freudian BS studies, so I'm picking on him. Please see a list of some of his articles at the bottom of this post - and it's just a few. This dude really cranks these out. But seriously, just take a minute to check out the names of these articles. I think it will help orient you.

The premise of the article
Anyway, Brody was an author on a previous article that claims to show that women who orgasm vaginally use less immature defense mechanisms. Since one must find some type of measurable aspect of maturity in order to prove someone (non-vaginally orgasming women, perhaps?) immature, that study uses a series of self-report questionnaires about personality and psychological defense mechanisms against a questionnaire about their sex lives...and voila, proof that non-vaginally orgasming women are less mature. And do be sure, Brody cites that study several times to back up a variety of statements he makes in his article I will be summarizing below.

This, I would argue, is the first backbone intent in the article I will be summarizing below: Freud/Reich/Lowen were actually right about vaginal orgasms reflecting female maturity! The second backbone intent takes it all a bit further to prove, as Lowen's bioenergetic analysis would tell us, a mental problem (immaturity) manifests itself in us as a physical problem...often tension or 'muscle blocks.'

So, put those together, and we get why the fuck someone (Brody) would even care to study whether a woman's history of vaginal orgasm is discernible from her walk...because immature clitorally orgasming women probably have tension and muscle blocks, and they won't have that swaaang in their walk like the mature vaginal orgasmers...and this article will prove this and Freud and bioenergetics were right all along!!!!!!

What annoys me? Let me count the things.
  1. So, the premise here in itself is annoying to me. Freud just made shit up. Just. made. shit. up. There's been decades since then that have shown us he was pretty off base - particularly about female orgasm. Why are people still acting like what he says is worth further scientific investigation?
  2. The fact that in this study, and in every other study, Brody and his cohorts assume vaginal orgasms are a verified and scientifically understood entity and that the women in their studies who say they orgasm vaginally are actually orgasming vaginally shows ignorance of the existing scientific data and bad experimental design - and is annoying to me. 
  3. That this study bases its data on how some 'experts' visually rate women's body movement instead of using technology to actually take measurements of things like women's hip rotation is lazy and possibly extremely biased - and is also annoying to me. 
  4. Maybe the most annoying thing is that this shit is somehow legitimate lady-gasm science. This article's in a respected peer reviewed journal - a lot of his studies are. Brody is legit. He doesn't seem to be an outcast from the mainstream lady-gasm researchers (although he does have critics- thank you Prause and others, he's still getting his work into mainstream journals). He teams up occasionally with some of the most well known scientists in female orgasm research (Komisaruk for example) and gets included in major journal expert reviews on the topic of vaginal orgasm. This article has also been referenced a fair amount in pop culture. It was even used in a quite popular book Vagina by Naomi Wolfe to emphasize the importance of and help prove the existence of vaginal orgasms.  

More proof of Lowen/Bioenergetic asshole-ery
Before we begin the summary, I'd first like to show you I'm not completely making assumptions about how deep into the vaginal-orgasms-are-real-things-and-also-the-best-things agenda this article, this author, and Lowen/bioenergetics has. Below is a quote from a book written by Lowen (the father of Bioenergetic Analysis). This book is cited in this here article I am about to summarize. I repeat. This is not from this Brody article, but from a book that is referenced in this Brody article.
Most men feel that the need to bring a woman to climax through clitoral stimulation is a burden. If it is done before intercourse but after the man is excited and ready to penetrate, it imposes a restraint upon his natural desire for closeness and intimacy. Not only does he lose some of his excitation through this delay, but the subsequent act of coitus is deprived of its mutual quality. Clitoral stimulation during the act of intercourse may help the woman to reach a climax but it distracts the man from the perception of his genital sensation and greatly interferes with the pelvic movements upon which his own feeling of satisfaction depends. The need to bring a woman to climax through clitoral stimulation after the act of intercourse has been completed and the man has reached his climax is burdensome since it prevents him from enjoying the relaxation and peace which are the rewards of sexuality. Most men to whom I have spoken who engage in this practice resented it.    
I do not mean to condemn the practice of clitoral stimulation if a woman finds that this is the way she can obtain a sexual release. Above all she should not feel guilty about using this procedure. However, I advice my patients against this practice since it focuses feelings on the clitoris and prevents the vaginal response. It is not a fully satisfactory experience and cannot be considered the equivalent of a vaginal orgasm.  
-Lowen, A. Love and Orgasm: A Revolutionary Guide to Sexual Fulfillment. New York, Collier Books, 1975. pp.216-217.

So, that's the point from which I'm starting this summary, but I'd like to let you see for yourself. I will summarize below as straightforward as I can - just as I always try to do, and I will only add in my thoughts or opinions in the me brackets "[Me:]" So, please enjoy,

Summary quick-style
This article is actually quite simple. 16 women take a survey with a question about how often they reach vaginal orgasm. 8 said they vaginally orgasm always or usually and another 8 say they vaginally orgasm rarely or never. The ladies then meet the researchers outside and walk for 100 meters while thinking of something nice, and another 100 meters while thinking of a man they are interested in romantically. They are taped from a distance doing this, and then 4 people, "two appropriately trained (in Functional-Sexological therapy) professors of sexology...and two female research assistants" watch the tapes and come to a consensus on whether or not each woman has had vaginal orgasms or not. "The basis for judgment was a global impression of the woman's free, fluid, energetic, sensual manner of walking (with an emphasis on energy flow through the rotation of the pelvis and the spine)."

The raters made a correct assessment for 6 of the 7 women who claimed vaginal orgasm and 7 of the 9 women who claimed not to have vaginal orgasms.

I'm going to go over some main points the authors put forth in the introduction with a quick discussion of the studies they cited to support their statements;

This article begins with, "A growing corpus of empirical research has clarified that orgasm triggered by stimulation of the vagina and cervix differs physiologically from climax induced by clitoral stimulation." This is backed up by citations for 2 Komisaruk studies about women with spinal cord injuries having 'cervical orgasms' that are facilitated by the vagus and not the pudendal nerve and also by Brody's own studies about vaginal orgasms being associated with less use of immature psychological defense mechanisms and about there being more prolactin hormone releases after p-in-v intercourse vs. after masturbation.
[Me: Not one of these studies actually verifies that the women who claim vaginal orgasm are having an orgasm, so they're, let's say, not all that convincing. Also, the 'cervical orgasms' in the Komisaruk studies are not only never physically verified as orgasms, but furthermore they are strangely 'achieved' by a method of cervical stimulation that is not something one could do at home or even with a penis during intercourse. These Komisaruk studies referenced here are cited in pretty much any study talking about vaginal orgasms, but are rarely cited, in my opinion, in a way that could actually back up what the authors presume to back up. I detail the main Komisaruk study HERE].

"At a more speculative, theoretical level, the idea that chronic muscle blocks (or excessive muscle flaccidity) impair sexual function by impairing feeling, sexual motility (and perhaps being a tangible representation of corresponding  psychological blocks), and the discharge of sexual tension has it's roots in a theory developed by Reich [11]. His student Lowen [12,13] developed that theory (and safely distanced it from one of Reich's less well reasoned theories later in his life) and the corresponding psychotherapeutic approach of  bioenergetics, which sought to integrate psychoanalytic psychotherapy approaches with direct liberation of chronic muscle blocks. Other body therapies focus more exclusively on the muscle blocks alone. These body therapies and the underlying theory have rarely been subject to empirical evaluation."
[Me: The citations [11-13] are Reich and Lowen's philosophical work including the book by Lowen that I quoted above.].

"However, one study of men found that the Rolfing method of tissue manipulation led to both a decrease in standing pelvic tilt angle and an increase in cardiac vagus nerve tone associated with improved parasympathetic function [14]." [Me: Maybe check out the Wikipedia on Rolfing HERE] There is then a quick discussion of a few more studies, including one that these authors admit does not have clear controls, that relate physical therapy to improved sexuality. The articles cited in this section are pictured below.

"Observation of the characteristics of a person's walk can convey diagnostic information beyond the obvious musculoskeletal an neurological disorders" It goes on to point towards a few studies (pictures below) that illustrate the point.

The Introduction ends with: "The primary hypothesis in the present study is that clinical sexologists appropriately trained in the relationship between personality, sexology, and body movement will be able to differentiate between women with and without a history of vaginal orgasm purely on the basis of observing the women walking. As an exploratory measure, there is also an examination of the association of vaginal orgasm history with specified components of the walk (described below)."

[Me: The introduction of a scientific article, in my opinion, is meant for a few things. It orients the reader to the history of research on the subject thus far. It also sorta justifies why this the experiment being undertaken is a worthwhile experiment and what the outcome of this experiment might mean to the science of this subject. So in many ways, the introduction is an incredibly important thing to read because it gives you a look into the authors' mind. It exposes biases that aren't usually discussed as biases.]

[Me cont: So, to put this in perspective, let me piece together what the authors of this article are trying to do here. They are linking together 1. the Freudian/Reich/Lowen assumption that vaginal orgasm are better for women in the mind, body, and soul. 2. The idea in bioenergetics that psychological/emotional problems manifest themselves in the body, i.e. 'chronic muscle blocks' and 'excessive muscle flaccidity'  and 3. that if a woman were to have these psychological/emotional problems manifest in their body, one might be able to see it in her movement. So, in essence, the authors are going from the hypothesis that vaginally orgasming women are mentally/emotionally/physically  healthier people who will express that health in their energetic movement. Women who do not orgasm vaginally are less mentally/emotionally/physically who will express that unhealthiness in their bad, unenergetic movement.]

Materials and Methods
  • Female psychology students in Belgium were asked (by a female researcher) to answer a preliminary questionnaire on sexual behavior.
  • Of the women who did the questionnaire and who indicated their willingness to be contacted further, 10 were chosen who responded that they 'always"'or 'often' had vaginal orgasms (vaginally orgasmic) and 10 were chosen who responded that they 'rarely' or 'never' had vaginal orgasms (vaginally anorgasmic). Vaginal orgasms being defined as "triggered solely by penile-vaginal penetration." [Me: Are women who 'rarely' have vaginal orgasms the same as women who 'never' have them? I mean, I'm obviously skeptical of all these answers, given that their ability to have vaginal orgasms is not physically verified (and vaginal orgasms themselves have never been physically verified), but even if one believed these women's answers to be completely true, wouldn't one wonder if they were grouped incorrectly? Maybe women who 'rarely' have them are physically capable of vaginal orgasm and the 'nevers' are not. So grouping them together would confuse the results. The authors don't discuss this as a possible problem. Experimental design, people.]
  • The women also reported their ability to have clitorally stimulated orgasms on the questionnaire
  • After anonymity and confidentiality were assured, the women were given a complete description of the study although participants "were blind to the experimental hypothesis." Written informed consent was obtained, and they were scheduled individually to meet the researchers in a public place
  • 4 participants (3 vaginally orgasmic and 1 vaginally anorgasmic) did not show up, making 16 total participants.
  • Participants were asked to walk 100 meters while "thinking pleasant thoughts of being on a vacation beach" and then another 100 meters while "being in the same local but with in the company of a man for whom they had thoughts of love."
  • These walks were filmed at a distance and the videotapes were then rated by "two appropriately trained (in Functional-Sexological therapy) professors of sexology...and two female research assistants." 
  • "The raters conferred and agreed on a vaginal orgasm status for each woman."  [Me: Why did they confer? Why not let them all rate separately and see if they match each other and match the women's self reports? Did they try it that way first but found it made the results messy as hell, so they had them confer and luckily got better, more positive results? It makes me wonder.]
  • "The basis for judgment was a global impression of the woman's free, fluid, energetic, sensual manner of walking (with an emphasis on energy flow through the rotation of the pelvis and the spine)."
  • The researchers all also rated each woman's walk (from 0-10) for the extent of their: hip adduction, hip rotation, stride length, arm movement, and fluidity of movement. [Me: this was made in 2008. It was very possible at that time to use video of women walking to not just visually rate these things, but to do actual objective measurements of things like stride length and arm movement. Since the authors are trying to create evidence that the psychological problems from not orgasming vaginally can literally manifest physically as muscle tension and 'blocks' that make the women walk less 'fluidly,' you would think it useful to show that there are real objectively measured limitations in these non-vaginally orgasming women's movement. Yet, all the ratings on the movements are just, like, the rater's opinions, man. I mean, I'd at least like to see the authors acknowledge their choice and give a quick explanation for why they chose to have only subjective ratings of these women's movements. And, in case you are wondering if 2008 was too early for people to be thinking about the technology to do objective measuring from video and the pros and cons of rating movement that way, you're wrong. Here's a 2007 textbook dedicated to analyzing human movement patterns in relation to sports biomechanics.]
  • "An additional derived variable reflecting the movement of the leg through the back (sum of ratings of stride length and vertebral rotation) was calculated."
  • The correlation between women's reported experience of vaginal orgasm and the researchers' guesses of vaginal orgasm was examined using "chi-square and Fisher's exact tests (a similar analysis was performed for clitoral orgasm history)" 
  • The associations between the researchers ratings of the individual components of a woman's walk and her history of vaginal orgasm were examined.

  • "The hypothesis was supported, because the trained sexologists were able to infer vaginal orgasm history on the basis of watching the women's walk."
  • "Reported clitoral orgasm ability was unrelated to both rated vaginal orgasm ability and to reported vaginal ability."
  • The only statistically significant correlation found between history of vaginal orgasm and any of the ratings of individual components of the women's walks were from the data points made from the sum of stride length and vertebral rotation. [Me: it seems a little fishy to me that this combination was the only element of the researchers' individual movement ratings to show correlation with the women's reported vag-gasm history. What actual meaning does that combo number have in the end? Clearly none of the straight-forward movement ratings such as stride length or hip rotation correlated, and it makes me wonder if that lack of correlation led them to start combining the ratings in every possible way until they found one that happened to have a statistical correlation with the vaginal orgasm self-reports. They call it exploratory, so I imagine this is close to the case. that kind of thing is probably not an uncommon practice and not really unethical or wrong, but it sure seems like it's sort of a disingenuous way to make a study show more positive results. To their credit I will say that when they spoke of this correlation in the Discussion section. They said "However, the exploratory nature of the secondary finding implies that less emphasis be placed upon it pending appropriate replication."  So, I think even the researchers don't place much meaning on this combo rating of stride length and vertebral rotation.]
  • "Age was unrelated to the sexual variables."

  • "Appropriately trained sexologists were able to infer vaginal orgasm history on the basis of watching women walk. The sexologists made global inferences about the women's vaginal orgasm history based on the extent to which the women had a fluid, sensual, energetic, free gait. The ratings were unrelated to the women's reports of clitoral orgasm with a partner, and clitoral orgasm was unrelated to vaginal orgasm."
  • 6 women who claimed to be vaginal orgasmers were rated correctly, and 1 was rated incorrectly.
  • 7 women who claimed not to be vaginal orgasmers were rated correctly and 2 were rated incorrectly.

  • "Although the couple of incorrect diagnoses could simply be that, it is also possible that in the case of the two false positives, it might be that the women have the capacity for vaginal orgasm, but have not yet had sufficient experience or met a man of sufficient quality to induce vaginal orgasm." [Me: I'm assuming the 2 women who were rated incorrectly as vaginally orgasming are not ones who marked themselves as 'rarely' vaginally orgasming (since clearly they DO have a capacity for it), because if that were the case, I feel REAL confident the authors would have been real quick to tell us that and make their results look even better.]
  • The study goes on to say that these women who were pinned by the researchers as vaginal orgasmers but were not, may not have a man with a '"penis of sufficient length to produce cervical buffeting" or that isn't able to keep his erection (either because of erectile dysfunction of premature ejaculation) long enough. They also note the there are studies saying women are most likely to have vaginal orgasms with men who have signs of greater fitness - like attractiveness. [Me: Can I just quickly mention that 'buffeting' can be defined as 'to strike against forcefully and especially repeatedly; batter.' So cervical buffeting with a big ol' dick sounds to me not like a good way to bring about lady-gasms as these researchers seem to say it is, but like a terribly painful sexual encounter akin to a really long and brutal gynecological exam. This banging the cervix for orgasm thing seems kinda out of touch with reality to me, and it's also not backed up in scientific literature, and contrary to what this article would have one believe, it's certainly not backed by the Komisaruk article they cite here. They cite the same Komisaruk article they cite and I discuss in the Introduction that finds women with spinal cord injuries can orgasm from cervical stimulation, but the conclusion is a stretch of the evidence at best (I detail it here). And seriously, this study does not include buffeting the cervix. It actually uses a make-shift thing that does not actually touch the cervix but creates a suctiony stimulation at the cervix, so even if this study did find that orgasms were created from this stimulation (which it doesn't in any verified physical way), it would not be something that could be replicated by ramming a big dick into a woman's cervix. This is the only study I know of (and there are no others referenced) that can support the idea of women needing cervical stimulation or  'buffeting' to orgasm... and it's not a great one.]
  • They point out that "as in any correlational study, a universe of possible unmeasured forces could play a role in the observed findings." They mention that maybe some anatomical features could predispose women to less readiness for vaginal orgasm, and specifically use a recent study correlating more distance between the vagina and urethra to women who claim vaginal orgasm [Me: you can see more on that study HERE. Surprise surprise, there are no actual vaginal orgasms verified in this research, so one should be skeptical of its conclusions] "such characteristics might conceivably influence both vaginal orgasm and pelvic movement directly, whether they are a true precursor of vagina orgasm, or develop as a consequence of developing vaginal orgasm." 
  • They also mention that it might be that women who orgasm vaginally might feel more confident or comfortable or have a better relationship and it shows in their walk. [Me: Ooooorrrrrr...maybe being vaginally orgasmic is a thing women covet because of how much women in movies and porn and books are able to do so, and how much it seems that men like it (remember: stimulating the clit is pretty inconvenient and men resent doing it according to Lowen up there), so after saying they can do that on a survey, those women feel all good about themselves, but the women who just had to admit that they are lame and can't orgasm vaginally on a survey feel, well, lame. Ooooooorrrrr...there were only 16 women in the study, and the raters only got about 82% right, so it might be the luck of the draw and their walks are not really different between groups at all.]
  • They point out this was a small convenience sample of volunteers so that may "limit the generalizability of these results to older women and to the wider community"
  • "The present finding of vaginal orgasm being associated with a more fluid, sensual, energetic, free, unblocked gait adds to the empirical research findings of penis-vaginal orgasm history being specifically associated with the indices of women's better psychological and interpersonal function." 
  • They mention that a recent study [their own previous study] associated women who could orgasm vaginally with having less use of immature psychological defense mechanisms - and say that "Two of the specific immature defense mechanisms (somatization and dissociation) that differentiated vaginally orgasmic and vaginally anorgasmic women might be related to aspects of the present finding. Dissociation involves disconnection of the usually integrated psychological (including sensory-motor) functions of the self, and somatizations involves converting psychological problems into physical complaints and impairments." 

The authors say that even with the small sample, the results are consistent with both theory [Me: made-up Freudian and neo-freudian theory?] and previous empirical findings about vaginally orgasming women having better psychological function. [Me: Let it be known the 'previous empirical findings' they cited were all Brody's own previous studies - 4 of them were cited]
They also say the present findings provide some potential support for "theoretical assumptions of a link between muscle blocks and impairment of sexual and character function" [Me: this is cited with 3 works by the neo-Freudians Lowen and Reich - including the book by Lowen that I quote above.]
The authors also say the findings are "consistent with the possible utility of incorporating training in movement, breathing and muscle patterns into the treatment of sexual dysfunctions"

*I want to give Dr. Nicole Prause a shout out for being a scientist in the lady-gasm field who speaks out in direct ways against those non-sense assumptions about vaginal orgasm. I talk more about here HERE.]

More Articles By Stuart Brody!
Vaginal orgasm is associated with vaginal (not clitoral) sex education, focusing mental attention on vaginal sensations, intercourse duration, and a preference for a longer penis. Brody S1, Weiss P.
J Sex Med. 2010 Aug;7(8):2774-81.

Slimmer women's waist is associated with better erectile function in men independent of age. Brody S1, Weiss P. Arch Sex Behav. 2013 Oct;42(7):1191-8.

Women's partnered orgasm consistency is associated with greater duration of penile-vaginal intercourse but not of foreplay. Weiss P1, Brody S. J Sex Med. 2009 Jan;6(1):135-41.

Simultaneous penile-vaginal intercourse orgasm is associated with satisfaction (sexual, life, partnership, and mental health). Brody S1, Weiss P. J Sex Med. 2011 Mar;8(3):734-41.

Condom use for penile-vaginal intercourse is associated with immature psychological defense mechanisms. Costa RM1, Brody S. J Sex Med. 2008 Nov;5(11):2522-32.

Immature defense mechanisms are associated with lesser vaginal orgasm consistency and greater alcohol consumption before sex. J Sex Med. 2010 Feb;7(2 Pt 1):775-86.

Vaginal orgasm is more prevalent among women with a prominent tubercle of the upper lip. Brody S1, Costa RM. J Sex Med. 2011 Oct;8(10):2793-9.

Greater tactile sensitivity and less use of immature psychological defense mechanisms predict women's penile-vaginal intercourse orgasm. Brody S1, Houde S, Hess U. J Sex Med. 2010 Sep;7(9):3057-65.

Vaginal orgasm is associated with less use of immature psychological defense mechanisms.Brody S1, Costa RM. J Sex Med. 2008 May;5(5):1167-76.