Random Male Hite Report #7

Hello, friends. It's time for more 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 haven't changed that much. Then in 1981, she dropped The Hite Report on Male Sexuality where she over 7,000 men give detailed answers about sex, relationships, and women. It too is revolutionary, and the honesty 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 909
This is from the chapter Thirty Men Speak About Their Lives. In this chapter, long excerpts from each of 30 different respondents are set out for us. Shere Hite chose these because they were "some of the most interesting and emotionally involving material received and show the range and variety of points of view expressed." So, the following passage is from one of those 30 men.  

...was doing it, I was trying to make sure I was doing it right. But the thing that was really exciting was that she showed me exactly what to do-that meant she was very excited too, excited enough to want me to do it to her. It made me feel really close to her and special because nobody ever did that before-really intimate, because I always thought of masturbation as a very private thing. If she wanted me to masturbate her, that seemed really private. I felt, how could we be any closer?
    Men never talk about masturbating women, at least I've never heard them talk about it. They talk about women masturbating them a lot, but they never talk about themselves masturbating women, or there being thirty-two different ways women masturbate! And i didn't even know one. I thought women masturbated by putting something inside. Masturbation had still for me a real pejorative context, like it's not the real thing, or that's just what women do when they don't have a man. A frustrated women would just want to stick something in here, I thought, but it could never be as good a s a cock. i guess that's why men think that a woman needs a man, that she could never masturbate herself as well as a man could-I've heard that so many times. But really, a woman can just put a vibrator or her hand on her mons and just come and come and come.
    Anyway, getting back to the first time I gave her clitoral stimulation, after a while when I kept trying, she was really excited and breathing heavy, her whole body was tensing up with her legs tight together and straight out-and then she got really tense and tight and moaned and held herself like that for a few minutes. Then she told me she came. It was a revelation for me.
    Of all the things we had done before that-like when we were kissing and I could her moaning, her head is right by my ear sometimes, and I'm listening and I can feel her breathing-never was it that exciting, it was so thrilling during her orgasm. I felt like she was really strong! That was my reaction to the whole thing-that she had a tremendous strength- a really powerful energy that was inside her. Also, I felt really small next to her when she had an orgasm and I didn't!
    I also felt like-well, I used to believe that the idea was to fuck until you both had orgasms together, but all of the sudden I realized it was a really good feeling to enjoy someone else's orgasm, even if I didn't have one. Plus, to discover that she could have one that made me envious-plus I think she had another one about a minute later-well, I was really amazed! Later, after we did it a lot, I really got to enjoy it. She feels energetic and powerful and independent when she orgasms, and it makes me feel good to be next to someone so strong and active and alive.
    Do you know the difference between being next to a really passive person and someone that's really excited? It makes me feel great, it makes me feel really excited, aroused, like having orgasms, really strong, it makes me feel like an animal. I just want to hop on and screw her at that point and I often do.
    But I consider me masturbating her one of the major things that we do. I don't consider it a warm up thing. Sometimes when we don't do it I miss doing it. Sometimes she's said things to me while I'm doing it that make me feel really good, or really hot. I get sweaty when I'm doing it, and I like that feeling a lot...


Ice Saints - The SSL Review

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

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

Ice Saints - Dir. Ryan Balas

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

So Deirdre is naked, sitting on the floor against a bed or something, and the camera seems to be set on a dresser maybe and is pointed at her. Ryan walks in from behind her (he's in boxers, but no worries, he gets naked later, so it's square), hands her a drink and sits next to her, and the following conversation happens (these were transcribed in the dark, so the words might not be exact quotes, but it's pretty close).
Ryan: I'm sorry you didn't orgasm.
Deirdre: It's okay.
Ryan: You always sound so disappointed,...
Deirdre: I just don't like it when it's so squeaky....
Then they (mostly he) goes on to say things about who cares whether the neighbors hear them and that they should get a better bed, (I believe they have a futon) so that it doesn't squeak like that, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Fort Tilden - The SSL Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Lady Porn Day - Better Late Than Never

So I missed Lady Porn Day. Apparently it's February 22nd, and since I feel like it's too late now to wait till next year, I'll just talk about it today. It was started by Rachel Rabbit White where she writes
At it’s heart, this is about celebrating pornography and masturbation. It is an opportunity for ladies of all genders (or however you identify) to open up a dialog: What is feminist porn? What is your history with porn? What do you find hot?

Very good. I like the idea of women openly talking about porn. It's complicated and deep inside of us (no pun intended), and important to orgasm equality. We need to begin considering more publicly our wants and needs in regard to porn.

It is an intriguing media, and for most of us, it was/is an important detailed, what-goes-where kind of education about sexual encounters...the kind that you otherwise only get from real encounters. It is also way too male-fantasy heavy and way too actual female orgasm light - way, way, way too light. Also, it can be (is likely) an incredibly bad miseducation, but you know what, it's been a fucking hot part of my orgasmic history. It's also been really disappointing at times. In fact, back in the very early 2000's, the realization that some big fantasy situations that I wanted to see in porn were not around much (sexy lady-junk focused MMF porn for instance), and the certain and increasingly undesirable cum-on-face ending to every single porn (I actually thought it was hot at first - really) was a main reason I got the idea for working on Science, Sex and the Ladies. It's not one thing, that crazy ol' porn, and through all the bad parts and the very real criticisms I believe it deserves, I have and continue to partake. I love watching shit that is so very not what I want done to me in real life. I like some nasty nast, ya'll. That's just how it is, and I think think I'm not alone.

It's just fantasy, but it's also very much more than that. We ladies have a relationship with porn that needs more attention, and so if you write, maybe go write about it. If you have friends, talk about it, if you don't like bringing up porn randomly in polite company, then do some soul-searching about it.  


Free Thinking Feminists Love SSL!

Okay, maybe the title of this post is overstating. The Indianapolis Free Thinking Feminist Group watched Science, Sex, and the Ladies, and some of them said they loved it. So, you know, maybe they were just being nice, and maybe some of them hated it and haven't told me, which is cool and polite and all that.

Seriously though, SSL showed at the lovely Garfield Park Arts Center last night, and there was lots of food and drink and laughs and a really nice discussion that made its way out into the parking lot, but was broken up because mosquito are evil...and work in the morning and all that. My point is, I thought it was a really fun showing, and I think I'll be hearing more from the group as different people have time to kinda ponder it a bit.

This is a group of really thoughtful, fun, interesting and curious men and women, so I put a lot of value into their thoughts. I'll keep you posted as I hear more from them.

Also, we were right next to the "bear tunnel" which led from the old Indianapolis zoo to a little room about 10 feet over where the bears used to hibernate. I didn't know this was a thing that existed.

Also, Rice Krispy Treats are kick ass.

Also, so are cheese balls.

Also, there is a way to arrange seats where everyone can see, and it might not be what you expect.

Also - unicorns, man.

Indy Free Thinking Feminists watching Science, Sex and the Ladies


Mad Men S1 - The SSL Review

I resisted watching Mad Men for a long time. I don't know. I guess I just didn't like all the oooing and aaahhing over the era. However, I had been hearing good things about it, and it is my belief that if one waits too long to watch a movie or TV show, it loses something. Especially if it is leading the way in style or content or something, The punch of the new dies when you watch a show's copycats first. So, I figured since it's coming up on its last season, I should get in and catch up.

So, here I am in Season 4 of Mad Men. As happens with all series on which I binge, it literally bleeds into my dreams and the characters's names pop up casually in me and Charlie's conversations. I'm not complaining though, I am enjoying it. I love TV.

To SSL review something, it needs to discuss or depict female sexual release or female masturbation. I then tell you all if I deemed it ridiculous or sensible and/or how I feel it contributed to our cultural understanding of female sexuality. That's how this works. This isn't on HBO or Showtime, so there simply isn't a lot to review, but what I do have to review is subtle and about female masturbation.

Season 1 Episode 11 "Indian Summer"

Depiction 1
This one's simple. It's classic even. Picture it. A 1960 housewife has a young, persistent and somewhat attractive sales man come to the door. He almost convinces her to measure windows upstairs, but then she decides it's too dangerous/tempting and asks him to leave. It gets her juices flowing though, and when she gets too darn close to her jumpy washing machine, she starts to fantasize about this young salesman while she rubs up against the vibrating machine. We don't see her move too much or make a big porn-inspired show of her orgasm. This isn't HBO, but we assume, oh we assume.

Depiction/Discussion 2
Oh, Peggy Olson - what an episode you had! She got the rather important opportunity (she's really just a secretary at this point) to write advertising copy for a weight loss device that's supposed to somehow work the fat off the ladies. Well, turns out this thing is a harness that you step into like panties and it vibrates, and as soon as Peggy tries the device, at home and comfy in her PJs, she clearly gets what its actual selling point is...and immediately takes them off, appalled. Long story short, she, discreetly as possible, does a great presentation to the other copywriters for this device. It was a good day, and in the final scene, we see her again comfy at home in her PJs, but this time she willingly puts on that vibrating harness - fully aware of what it might do to her...

It also needs to be noted that before the company enlisted a woman to work on the copywriting, and thus when they still thought it was just a shit weigh loss device, a few of the guys in the room had their wives test it out. One dude's wife liked it and thought she'd use it again. Well, unsurprisingly, upon learning during Peggy's presentation that this device provides women "the pleasure of a man without the man," one guy in the room begins making fun of the dude who's wife was into it. That pissed the husband off hardcore and a fist fight had to be stopped.

Now, the idea that a husband's dick must not be doing the job if his wife likes a vibrator on her clit is certainly relevant for the time, but it's also not so foreign now. Same goes for Peggy's initial reaction to masturbation. Yeah, it seems like women of the 50's would be more against the idea of jiggling their junk, but it's not like women of this time are totally cool with it either. Check out the 2005 book Dilemmas of Desire, you'd find of the 34 teenage girls that were interviewed, very few thought masturbation was a normal thing for any girl, much less themselves, to do.

What I'm saying is I worry that this "oh 1960 was so different and funny!" perspective Mad Men - especially during this first season - takes could downplay the extent to which these problems still exist. I mean, in 2014, I can still write a blog that is like, "wow - I saw female masturbation depicted in this movie/TV show! Yay! We don't get to see that nearly as much as male masturbation!"

Gals doing it is still more stigmatized than guys doing it. There are plenty of women and girls who still flat out see it as inappropriate for ladies. There are still plenty of men who feel like they are not doing their job when women work their own junk. Our cultural view of female masturbation might be better in ways, but it is still a problem. All that said, I don't think this show set out to downplay this problem in modern times or anything. There was no harm intended, and my criticism is so subtle anyway, so I will focus on the basics. What it did do was heavily insinuated that 2 quite normal women masturbated. It also created somewhat realistic scenarios - in terms of whether the masturbatory actions these women did could actually cause orgasm. A vibrating harness against one's vulva? Why, yes, that should work just fine. A horny-ass woman rubbing her vulva against a warm gently vibrating machine? Well, the positioning may be a bit tricky, but sure, that could work too! In 2014, that kind of dive into the world of lady-bation is still revolutionary.

So, Mad Men Season 1 gets 4 out of 5 vulvas!


An Ode To Lady-bation In Celebration Of Independence!

In honor of Independence Day which all of America will be celebrating with fireworks and fantastic food tomorrow, I am re-posting a little tribute I did about 2 years ago. It's about lady-bation, which is certainly one of the most important acts of independence. Also, for fun and so I don't bore you if you read this 2 years ago, I added a little more to it this time. Enjoy...and please practice a little independne tomorrow!

Here's to all the ladies rubbing up against their pillows; grinding hips into old teddy bears; laying on the couch spread eagle with their hands between their legs; riding their palms, face down on their bed; legs crossed in class gently pressing thighs against lips; silver bullet vibrators gliding across their vulvas; handle ends of old electric toothbrushes with just enough vibration pressed against clits; giant, cumbersome back massagers misused in the cover of night; fancy removable shower heads held dangerously close to the nether regions; quick rub offs in bed to help nod off; secret, quiet circles on disappointed clits next to sleeping lovers; joyously lip jigglin' in office bathroom stalls with memories of last night; frantic childhood couch arm humping; bored fingers on swollen clits; pick-me-ups between study sessions; unintentional bike seat friction; slow, sensual vulva massages in front of dirty internet searchings; wanton orifices chock full of toys as the Hitachi dances against puffy lips; good vibrations sitting on top of dryers; and all the other dirty, sexy, bored, silly, loving, gentle, secret, uninhibited, prohibited, fantastic ways we get ourselves, by ourselves, off.

P.S. Here's the one I posted back then about male-bation too.


Randome Hite Report #9 - Double the Fun!

So, as you may know, I do a series called Random Hite Report where I choose 1 page at random from either The Hite Report: A National Study of Female Sexuality or from The Hite Report on Male Sexuality, and I transcribe that page here for you. Both these books are incredibly interesting, poignant reads about how men and women (in their own words) experience sex, orgasms, love and relationships. I think everyone should read these. The detail and intimacy is captivating.

In fact, I liked the page I picked today from the Female Hite Report so much that I made the unprecedented choice of transcribing 2 pages (that's right I said 2!). These were from the chapter "Intercourse" in the subsection "Clitoral Stimulation By Hand During Intercourse." These are all answers to a question asking women to detail ways that they were able to orgasm during intercourse (obviously, these were answers from women who could orgasm during intercourse and who did so by using manual stimulation). I just thought it was really interesting to hear the specific ways these women have found to get theirs while a penis was inside their junk. These are the kinds of depictions of sex we don't see on TV, movies or porn, but that are clearly happening somewhere in the real world. Oh, and p.s. the Hite Report is one of the few female orgasm surveys out there that makes sure to clearly understand what women mean when they say they can orgasm during intercourse...does that mean they use a hand, or grind the clit against something, or are they actually saying they orgasm from the penis stimulating the vagina? Too often, that's not part of the survey.

The Hite Report: A National Study of Female Sexuality. Dell NY 1976. p292-293

...right away so that it could really be rubbed. I have decided that it's much better to do it with my hand."
    "During intercourse, sideways, I place my hand around the part of the penis that is not in the vagina, massage it, and at the same time create clitoral stimulation and orgasms occur!"
    "My partner is lying on his back, i am on top of him with his penis inside my vagina. I am kneeling with my upper body raised up away from his chest so that my breasts are hanging down in such a way that he is able to lift his head and suck on my nipples. One of his hands is down between us, and his fingers are directly stimulating my clitoris and the area around it. With his other hand, he is feeling other areas of my body, especially my bottom. Meanwhile, I am free to move in whatever way gives me the most pleasure."
    "I can't squeeze my legs together during regular intercourse. That is still necessary for me to make myself come. And I never have the same sort of violently physical orgasm with vaginal penetrationwith the penis that I do with direct clitoral stimulation. I'm not even sure if i come. I get a great sensation of pleasure, but it never peaks like it does the other way. I wish it did. I'd love to come right when he does without any extra attention. The only we've been able to achieve this is if he lies on his back, and I on mine, with my rear on his pelvis. In this manner, his penis can be inside me, but my clitoris is free to be stroked by him and my stomach and leg muscles are unrestricted so they can act freely in the often violent spasmodic way they do when I'm coming. I would love to hear from someone who is able to have a super orgasm during intercourse without any direct clitoral manipulation. I suppose it's possible. I wonder if I could 'learn how' the way I've 'learned' how the other way.
    "I have orgasms during intercourse only by masturbating simultaneously. While I'm doing this I don't like my partner to move around too much because it's distracting."
    "I have often had a desire to have an orgasm with penetration and have tried to have my partner penetrate me, lying on my side across him, and stimulate  my clitoris at the same time, but this doesn't work too well, because sometimes he can't hold his erection and also I have the problem of having to keep my legs tightly together in order to climax."
    "Positions and movement are better or worse for all sorts of things, both physical and psychological, but they have never yet led to direct enough clitoral stimualtion to lead to orgasm for me without a helping hand."
    "Intercourse is okay providing some form of clitoral stimulation is continued during intercourse. If we are in such a position that makes penis/clitoral contact impossible or at least impractical, then my mate would need only to to use a free hand to manipulate my clitoris."
    "My most beautiful sexual experience ever was one afternoon I spent with my lover. He sat with his penis in my vagina while I was lying down, and he vibrated me from one orgasm to another while pushing himself in and out. There was so much love coming out of him. I'll never forget it."
    "I am on top, sitting up, during intercourse. He touches my clitoris llightly with his finger, hand or both hands, in a way that I can move against it as I want to."
    "I have not found a lasting position that will give me maximum clitoral stimulation during intercourse. Direct stimulation with a hand is necessary to orgasm."
    "I enjoy entry from behind so I can stimulate my own clitoris at the same time."
    "We have intercourse with slow, writhing movements on both of our parts, pressing my labia around his penis while my hands caress his stroking penis, or while I masturbate and/or close my legs tightly together."
    "If I am feeling especially 'horny' and feel the need to be penetrated, then intercourse itself is good. But physically, it is satisfying only if accompanied by clitoral stimulation. I don't feel overly excited by vaginal penetration. Psychologically, it can be exciting by just the thought of what the man is doing to you and at times I'll experience a physical excitement with is a feeling that is not as intense or high-pitched as clitoral stimulation, but definitely a sexual feeling in the vagina during penetration. Intercourse without clitoral stimulation has never led to orgasm (so far for me, anyway)."


In Bed With Married Women, or Where Science, Sex and the Ladies Is

Well, you just never know what you'll find over at In Bed With Married Women, now do you? It might be wearable vaginas, or the Onahole, Dinosaur Erotica, or maybe - just maybe, it'll be Science, Sex and the Ladies, in a fantastically titled post How to Make a Woman Come--Even If You Are That Woman. AKA Things I Learned from Science, Sex and the Ladies . I quite like the title.

This is dinosaur erotica - just in case you thought it didn't exist

Here's a little snippet of her post, but you should go on over there to check it out fully. Thanks to Jill Hamilton for watching the movie and writing this up. She's a pretty funny gal. Plus, event though she probably wouldn't use the term Orgasm Equality Movement, but she's certainly supported it in the past.

I learned all kinds of things from Science, Sex, and the Ladies, up to and including:
--I couldn't tell a whit of difference between the photos of the Aroused Clitoris and Unaroused Clitoris (possible future lesbian lovers: you have been forewarned.) 
--Women have their strongest orgasms by their own hand, second strongest with someone else's hand, and weakest via fucking and the frustratingly indirect stimulation of a penis rubbing-near-but-not-quite-exactly-where-you-need-it. 
 --Contrary to popular belief, women don't take forever to come. Women come as quickly as easily as men, given the right stimulation. Men would also take forever to come if they were only being stimulated by, say, someone diligently rubbing their pubic hair.
My favorite part of the film depicted scenes of people engaged in various forms of sexual congress--a blow job, fucking, etc...--when a cheery actress would walk into the each scene and advise the female participant to "Rub one out!" to enhance her experience. It was fun, breezy and educational--like a particularly racy episode of The Electric Company.

I actually do wish this was the sort of stuff young people saw. And, while I'm at it, I wish more sex scenes depicted women being stimulated realistically, in the way that women actually need to be stimulated, so that women would no longer have to think they were somehow broken, doing it wrong or hadn't yet found the proper dick.


Rocks and Glass Houses - Skeptic Ink Article Ain't So Skeptical

Charlie sent this article to me (The Clitoris Revealed and How io9 Got It Wrong) from Skeptic Ink. The author (Edward Clint) was lambasting a recent i09 article on its terrible coverage of a 2009 study that used a sonogram to look at the full clitoral complex (there's a lot of erectile clitoral tissue below the skin). The study linked an area where part of the clitoral complex got cozy against the vagina during penetration to an area the 5 women in the study felt was a pleasurable one in the vagina. The researchers suggested this may be the "g-spot" (as in the "g-spot" may actually just be the area where the root of the clitoral complex butts up against the vagina during penetration and not be some piece of anatomy within the vagina). There is a suggestion that this "g-spot" is linked to the "vaginal orgasm" the 5 women in the study claim to have, but there is no specific causal connection asserted in the study's conclusion. 

Edward Clint rightly details how the io9 article covering the study is characteristically silly in the way media interpretations of scientific studies always seem to be, and I appreciated that he pointed that out. In fact, I loved that this article pointed out a lot of things about scientific reporting that annoy me (not telling the full story, over exaggeration, only picking out the parts that seem exciting), but then at the end of the article, there is a section called "The vaginal orgasm and the G-spot debate: We can all stop caring now," and that's where it all goes wrong. 

Frankly, I don't think that Clint (and he's not alone - honestly his tone and arguments are very much the status quo) has a good handle on some important aspects of this subject, Let me tackle the larger issue first.

An orgasm caused by stimulation of something inside the vagina (a Vaginally Induced Orgasm or VIO),  has never actually been recorded. I know it sounds crazy, but it's true. It doesn't exist in scientific record. (I explain that further HERE and HERE if you are interested).  Most people writing about g-spot/vaginal orgasms don't know or completely ignore this. They, quite wrongly, take for granted that VIO's exist, and I think it twists the entire picture of female sexual response into a confused mess that is not helpful to anyone. Take for instance Clint's discussion about the "vaginal vs. clitoral orgasm debate." 
In the first half of the 20th century, notions of vaginal vs. clitoral orgasm took hold (thank Freud, who coined the term vaginal orgasm), along with the ignorant and sexist notions that women incapable of the “vaginal” orgasm were “frigid” and that penis-vagina sex was the only source of orgasms that counted. This lead some feminists to adopt the opposite and politically-valenced position that the vagina was irrelevant to pleasure, and that the vaginal orgasm was a lie. Just in case you think I am overstating, feminist Anne Koedt wrote in 1970, It has also been known that women need no anesthesia inside the vagina during surgery, thus pointing to the fact that the vagina is in fact not a highly sensitive area. (This quote was repeated to me in a 2012 gender studies classroom by a professor, quite seriously) This is why it’s good to remember the opposite of wrong is not necessarily right and that it’s a bad idea to confuse facts with moral values: facts can change. 
He seems to play Anne Koedt as some crazy ideologue, but she is not. Koedt was part of a larger feminist campaign that emerged from the then recent Master's and Johnson physiology of orgasm research. M&J's research described how there was no evidence of VIOs and showed how stimulation of the clitoral glans caused female orgasm. That research is, to this day, still relevant and foundational. Let me be clear. Orgasms caused by stimulation of the clitoral glans have been described, documented, and there is a clear understanding of what is needed to get them and who is capable of having them. Orgasms from vaginal stimulation have not been documented or described and there is no clear understanding of what is needed to have them or who is capable of having them. 

Koedt's statement that the vagina has very little sensitivity to touch and that the vaginal orgasm is a lie is not just a willy-nilly opposing reaction to Freud. It is what the science says (this was true in 1970 and still today). Freud's theories, including the "vaginal orgasm" that he so kindly birthed into this world, are just some completely untested ideas a famous dude had that really, really caught on - that's all. To pose Freud's bullshit against Anne Koedt's article, an article that is backed up by good science, is just plain silly.

Even after the G-spot was "discovered" and brought into the public eye in 1982, there still has been no causal connection documented in a lab between something in the vag being stimulated and an orgasm. From the G-spot's 1982 "coming-out,", we did learn that there are prostate-like ducts surrounding the urethra that protrude out from the vaginal wall when excited (this is what I would define as the g-spot), and that when there is sufficient pressure and stimulation of that area, some women ejaculate (which is different from orgasm) through their urethra. That is the only type of sexual release caused by vaginal stimulation that has been documented, and yet strangely this article and almost all like it ignore this very real and concrete quality of the g-spot. Instead the focus is on its possible part in a type of orgasm, that frankly, may not even exist. 

Another issue I have is that Clint confuses two different " clit vs. vag debates." There is a debate about whether a vaginal orgasm exists at all. This is the debate I'd like to have and the debate that was in question with Anne Koedt and similar feminists of the time. Then there is the debate about whether VIOs are caused by something actually in the vaginal structure  vs. the idea that VIOs are caused by indirect stimulation of the deep clitoral roots through the walls of the vagina. Clint sort of lumps these two together as the clit vs. vag debate, but they are actually quite different. The first follows what is scientifically known and simply sees no evidence for a VIO. The second assumes that VIOs obviously exist and is simply asking whether the clitoral legs stimulated through vaginal penetration is the cause or the vag itself. 
The modern research tells us that everyone is right! Or, everyone is wrong, however you’d like to parse it, because all of the parts are important. And right on cue, both “sides” of the G-spot debate have claimed immediate victory with the anti side saying “See, it’s just clitoral!” and the pro side saying “see! it is real, and just where we said!”. The correct answer is, researchers aside, who cares? 
What if the orgasm some women experience during vaginal intercourse is caused by the internal clitoris? Does changing the mere label and invisible mechanism for the event from “vaginal” to “internal clitoral” change a thing about the event for anybody involved? Does it somehow change moral arguments about the political equality of women? I don’t think that it does. Isn’t it cool if it’s a fact that the G-spot that some women report actually is the spot where the clitoris contacts the anterior vaginal wall?
This is annoying to me because the very important debate about whether vaginal orgasms even exist, the debate he unfairly poo-pooed as just a feminist reaction to Freud's nonsense, is further being pushed into irrelevant obscurity because he's incorrectly lumping it with a debate about which undefined mechanism causes an undocumented, not understood, orgasm that may not even exist. "Is it the thing in the vag we can't find?" vag side says, "or the penis pushing against the wall of the vagina - which then pushes on the surrounding tissue - which then pushes on the clitoral leg that causes VIO?" clit side asks. Framed this way, Clint's right, who cares? It probably doesn't exist anyway. (and P.S. when it's said that the clit has more nerve endings than the entire penis, it is meant that the clitoral glans, the part on the outside, has that many nerves, not the whole clitoral structure. I can't find anything that says how nervy the inner clit legs are, but I think it's fair to say it's a hell of a lot less nervy than the glans. The inner legs engorge with blood when aroused, that seems to be their claim to fame - not intense nerviness). 

My other major problem with Clint's last 3 paragraphs is a little more complicated. You see, although I've already pointed out that a VIO is neither understood nor documented, and that wondering which part (the inner clit or the vag) causes these VIOs is kinda useless since we can't even describe the thing they supposedly cause, the idea of a VIO is still incredibly important to tons of women and their partners. Women and men hear it exists, and the details of what exactly may cause it are a matter of great interest. A quick scan through advice columns, magazine articles, books and the internet would easily show how interested people are in this. It shouldn't be taken lightly that women are in search of better information about these types of orgasms, and I was bothered by the flippant way Clint speaks about the level of actual interest non-research people might have in the specific details of how a VIO might be achieved. 

Frankly, I think Clint underestimates the amount of worry, confusion and frustration women (and men) carry about VIOs. Just think about it. These VIOs are over-abundantly depicted in porn, romance novels, and everywhere else sex is depicted. They result from the most common of sex acts - vaginal-penile intercourse. They are low maintenance (just get banged!), supposedly wildly amazing orgasms, yet only 20 to 30% of women say they can experience these elusive trophies of female sexuality. Why wouldn't people hang on every tidbit of information about them? People are not stupid, and they know that understanding these detailed mechanisms are the key to both learning and teaching how to achieve VIOs.(Does the inner clitoral leg really butt up against the vagina to cause these wildly elusive VIO's or is there another stand-alone piece of anatomy some women have that makes them unique and lucky vag-gasm princesses?!? Are all women's bodies capable of VIOs, or just some? What is the anatomy difference among the haves and have nots? Is it the sex position or the dude's junk size that makes it possible?). Just telling people that it's a vague area that can be reached through the vagina is not enough. People certainly want more. I think it's ridiculous, given how much of an importance our culture puts on VIOs to say, who cares? 

So, again, my larger issue with this article and the g-spot/vaginal orgasm debate in general is that the discussion begins from the assumption that there is something that causes these vaginal orgasms, but no one (even quite skeptical people) thinks to say, "hey, wait....what exactly is a VIO? Oh, there is no real definition? It's never actually been physically documented? Why is that? Hmmm, maybe it's kinda problematic to be looking for the cause of something that is not actually defined." 

Having straight-faced discussions about which possible anatomical configuration causes vaginally induced orgasms is as gross to me as discussing what causes women's intuition. Yeah, people talk about it as if it exists, and women will even tell you that they have it, but it is not defined. It may not even exist, and there is no way someone can identify the cause of something when no one knows what exactly that something is. This is pretty basic stuff, and critical people should be looking at and talking about this debate differently. In the future, I would love to see skeptics be as thorough and skeptical about female orgasm as they are with evolution, religion, and global warming.

***I posted this in a comment on the Skeptic Ink article and the author Edward Clint has been totally cool, saying "As this whole website is about skepticism, we delight in thoughtful criticism," which I totally appreciate. If good discussion takes place I'll post a follow-up.
*****UPDATE: Edward Clint and I have agreed to a bit of a debate. He will post his replies with all necessary links on his blog, and I will post mine on this blog. You can find his reply at http://www.skepticink.com/incredulous/2014/07/08/orgasm/ and I will be posting mine soon. Enjoy! response 


Lady Clitoris and Lord Peter DeCocke at the Indy Pride Parade!

This past Saturday Science, Sex and the Ladies proudly marched in the Indianapolis Pride Parade. We were there to promote our movie, to promote Orgasm Equality for All, and most importantly in support of the Indy LGBT community. Was it fun? Yes, sir. Did we get a lot of love from the parade viewers? You know it! Did our parade formation include the esteemed couple, Lady Clitoris and Lord Peter DeCocke? Why yes it did. Here are some facts about our Indy Pride Parade adventure.

Most of our Science, Sex and the Ladies crew for the Indy Pride Parade (some were hiding)

1 Lord Peter DeCocke became nauseous about an hour before the walking began, but heroically pulled his shit together at the last minute and wowed the crowd.

2 Peter DeCock is an actual name of somebody that works at my day job company. It is a large company, so I don't know this man, but I found him by looking up dirty sounding words for fun in the company address book. I also found Thomas Van Ass and one of my all time faves, Virginie Assmat.

3 Science, Sex and the Ladies threw out 1260 pieces of candy including Sour Patch Kids, Starbursts, Twizzlers, Gobstoppers to the spectacular spectators along the route

4 The temperature was around 80 F, which was not as hot as were were fearing. However, even with a nicer temp, you'd think it would get pretty hot in old-timey clothes, but it actually wasn't too bad.

Lady Clitoris and Lord Peter DeCocke at the Indy Pride Parade 2014

5 We were marching behind Cummins, which is a large company headquartered in Columbus, Indiana, but it also sounds kinda dirty. Oh, and all the Cummins folks seemed real nice.

The AnC Crew with our ab fab Costumer!

Lady Clitoris posing with some of the excellent ladies of burlesque here in Indy


Betty Dodson Endorses Science, Sex and the Ladies!

So...Science, Sex and the Ladies received an endorsement statement from Betty Dodson - which is, ummm, awesome, like really awesome.

Betty Dodson

If you read this blog regularly, you are certainly aware of Betty. I talk about her and her website with Carlin Ross fairly frequently, and I even did an interview with her a few years back. If, for some reason, you are not familiar, then I really feel you should get on this Dodson train. Seriously, of all the possible people out there in the world that could possibly take a look at my movie, and say, "why yes, this information, these assertions do make sense, and yes this topic is important," Betty Dodson is by far my first choice, and here's why. I think this woman knows what the hell she's talking about when it comes to female orgasm, and I would absolutely not say that about all the people out there giving advice on the subject - not by a long shot. 

For me, what makes the difference with Betty Dodson is experience, plain and simple. It's not just that she's in her 80's and lived through all the changes/lack of changes that happened during the sexual revolution and all the years since. It's not just that she's run revolutionary, hands-on, face-to-face group classes on masturbation  for over 3 decades or that she wrote a ground-breaking book on masturbation. It's not only that she has had formal Sexology training and has been discussing sex, orgasm, and masturbation with other sex experts and sexually experienced people for decades. It's also very much that she has an incredible, diverse sexual history...orgies, casual group sex or mutual masturbation with friends, random hook-ups, long-term monogamous partners, teaching classes where she coaches women as they masturbate to orgasm. She has seen, given, received, and discussed more orgasms and under more circumstances than you can shake a stick at. (Seriously, her sexual memoir is a must read, if you ask me) I mean, she's seen so much and experienced so much, that when she makes a point, we need to listen. 

The unique mix of qualities that is Betty Dodson; her immense sexual experience, her curiosity and fearless interest in sharing her knowledge, her happenstance of living during the 60's sexual revolution, her personal connections in the sex activism world, and her book knowledge about sexology, don't come about very often. There are tons of sexologists, sex advisers, and sex researchers out there now. Some are thoughtful, interested people largely doing good for the world. Some are not. I'd bet my house though, that not one of the sexperts out there - the famous ones, the respected ones, the heavily degreed ones, and the ones that are quoted in every internet or magazine sex column - not one has near the diverse, hands-on knowledge base of authentic sexual and orgasmic behavior as Betty Dodson. 

So, my point is that I have immense respect for her opinion. I was downright giddy when she actually took the time to watch this crazy movie I sent her and then when she agreed to do a statement about it for our press kit. I will be forever grateful. Here it is.

People rarely acknowledge there's a problem in our culture with how we understand female orgasm. Addressing this lack of knowledge is incredibly important to the well-being of women and their partners. After teaching women about orgasm through the practice of masturbation for over 3 decades, I've seen very little has changed for women when it comes to having orgasms during sex with a partner. This never ending number of women coming to me have no idea how to enjoy orgasms alone or with a partner.  
Thanks to the absence of any decent sex education,  both girls and boys rely on hardcore porn to learn about sex. But porn is basically entertainment for men that features fast dramatic screaming female orgasms from men with large penises penetrating vaginas or anuses and withdrawing to show "the cum shot." Today, even young men are becoming MORE insecure about penis size and young girls think they should be able to have orgasms from vaginal penetration.  
Science, Sex and the Ladies does a remarkable job of connecting the dots between stereotypical female sexual inadequacies and the incorrect assumption that women can orgasm from vaginal penetration. The vast number of women faking orgasms allows men to believe that women are having orgasms from a penis thrusting inside their vaginas. As a result, women experience very few orgasms for the amount of sex they're having while society acts as if this is okay but it's not. To correct this problem, we must begin by re-instating the clitoris as a woman's primary organ of pleasure .  
Science, Sex and the Ladies  is saying the things about female orgasm that society needs to hear but continues to resist. This cultural misunderstanding about female sexual response causes suffering for both women and men. Women do not have less interest in enjoying sex and pleasure. Vaginal orgasms do not exist in scientific records without additional clitoral stimulation. Therefor it's obvious that a larger number of women are faking orgasm than we've realized. Although sex is all over the media, any talk about the clitoris and authentic female sexual response leads to censorship across the board; any statements about calling bullshit on vaginal orgasms brings about a mix of complacency, indignation or anger. Our culture needs to start dealing with these problems. Once both men and women enjoy orgasms alone and together we can end the war between the sexes.  
Science, Sex and the Ladies is a must see for people everywhere. I support this movie 100%.
-Betty Dodson 6/2014


How Our F'd Up Sexual Culture Slowly Breaks Us Ladies And Our 'Gasms

So, as you know, I'm a proponent of clearly understanding that the clitoris and not the vagina is responsible for ladygasms, and I'm also a proponent for ladies jiggling their own junk in order to get off - either while alone or with a partner. I think a cultural mentality that took those two things into consideration could do very well for the state of female sexuality in general. However, individuals are a different story. I want to remind everyone from time to time that I am not saying and would never say that these things I advocate through the Orgasm Equality Movement are some kind of cure-all for what ails each and every woman sexually. 

On that note, I was talking with a friend recently about the sense that even though in research women reliably orgasm as quickly and easily as men during masturbation, it seems off somehow. It seems like women really do have a little more trouble and take a little more time orgasming with a partner than men do - even if women are stimulating themselves. I think this is a really interesting point, and below is a sort of altered version of what I had written on it. I hope you enjoy. 
P.S. Thanks to that friend for letting me talk so much, cheers to all the ladies out there  (and frankly, I think that includes all of us) who have been broken in so many small ways by our sexual culture, and thanks to the men out there who really try to listen and understand where we are coming from, because honestly, I think this is one thing that is probably pretty hard for a dude to fully comprehend. 

My thoughts....
I know different women have worries and problems that go beyond simply having the knowledge and permission to actually stimulate the area of her body most likely to cause orgasm during a sexual act with her partner(s). However, this lack of knowledge and lack of empowerment is an incredibly huge problem, and the one the movie focuses on. So, "rub one out" makes a lot of sense. Masturbating (however she does this) oneself to orgasm is the reliable way for a woman to orgasm while with a partner. Intercourse isn't a good bet, and having another person orally or manually stimulate is highly unreliable.
I still have no reason to believe that women are somehow naturally less capable of orgasm. The evidence just doesn't point to it. I think there is a deeper more insidious issue that comes into play more than one would hope. I don't imagine most people have thought about it the way I'm going to speak about it, including many women, but I think it needs to be considered. I will bet my life that every single adult woman in the world has been subjected to at least one of the following (but probably many of them): 
  • formative years full of incorrect anatomical information
  • media images that are in no way reflective of our experience yet highly prized by our friends and lovers
  • shaming
  • countless (I mean countless) mediocre, unorgasmic acts of partnered sex 
  • rape, assault, or grey area rape-ish behavior from a dude 
  • physical pain during sex (and not the oh- I got a cramp or my hair's under your arm kind - the this shit hurts my vagina/cervix/asshole and I'm in pain - not pleasure at all- but I'll just bear it so he will finally finish kind of pain) 
  • lots (and I mean lots) of sex acts that start out arousing but end up disappointing 
  • situation where faking orgasm seems like the best bet...so he'll finish...so I don't take too long...so it'll be sexy for him, etc 
  • dudes who try too hard to "make us come" but just make us feel bad, annoyed, or obligated to act pleased or please them during sex
  • dudes who compare our sexual capabilities to other women during sexual acts
  • dudes who passive-aggressively or even kinda aggressively nag us until we take part in a sexual act we aren't really interested in (seriously, the amount of nagging a woman gets is ridiculous)
  • generally just too many situations where we know we're supposed to be and expected to be aroused, but we're not, and so many other craptastic little kicks to our sexual selves.

Do these really happen to women? Yes, all the time. More than you can imagine. Do partners we love contribute to it? Unfortunately, absolutely, even with the best of intentions. Does it train us in various, very personalized, very deep ways to ignore/shutdown/agonize over our desire and arousal? You bet. Does that ignoring/shutting down/agonizing over our desire and arousal affect our ability to orgasm? Of course.
We women get broken in various degrees and various styles concerning our sexuality and in ways that men are not - and probably can't fully understand. I know I sound very morbid and negative right now, but I know there is also a lot of joy and awesomeness in female sexual lives too. I actually think that the female sex drive and capability for orgasm is quite strong given the shit we collectively put up with while continuing to find ways of orgasming and enjoying our sexual experiences. I'm just being honest about the fact that women have way more sexual experiences where arousal was simply not a part, where the memory actually negates arousal, and/or where they, for whatever reason, felt more obligated to be a part of it rather than really desiring to be a part of it. So to me it makes a lot of sense that often women in partnered situations tend to need "more" to become aroused (which directly affects her ability to orgasm) than men do. Another person + sexual situation does not say to her body's memory "oooh arousing," quite as forcefully and easily as the male's. Depending on the situation, an opposite feeling might be fighting to get out.
*Masturbation (and by this I mean a sex act completely free of another person's presence and pressures), I think, can be a very different story. There is no expectations placed on us by another person. There is no doing it when you don't want to. There is no allowing it to be physically painful. There is no feeling unsafe (well at least I assume there is way way less of those things), and thus a woman's body more associates this situation with arousal, and if arousal is more readily available, so is the orgasm. So, without a partner involved, I imagine most women orgasm quicker and easier, and that may be why scientific studies of ladies masturbating to orgasm seems to not match what people see or experience in bed with women.

All that said, it is still true that women's bodies are not less capable of orgasm and that rubbing one out (however she does this) is a woman's best bet for orgasm with another person. All the ways we ladies get broken over the years complicates our relationship with orgasm, but it doesn't negate those points. We women that are already broken have to continue on our personal paths of finding ways to enjoy our sexual lives. 
However, my biggest dream is that the knowledge and empowerment that I hope the movie gives will spare younger females many of the craptastic aspects of partnered sex that have broke us older folks.


101 Laws of Cliteracy Revisited

Cliteracy! Clit literacy, ya'll!

 I've been thinking lately about artist, Sophia Wallace's Cliteracy Campaign. It's truly on point. I wrote more about it in a blog post when I first heard about it HERE. A big part of it are these posters that have 101 Laws of Cliteracy. She is trying to point out how ignorant our culture is about the main organ of female sexual pleasure - the clitoris, and how much we completely ignore and deny that ignorance. Many of these 101 Laws are exactly the bold, orgasm equality things that need to be said. She is honestly one of the only other people out there saying these things in such a blunt straight-forward manner.

Cheers to Sophia Wallace and The 101 Laws of Cliteracy! Below are some of the posters, but you can check out more of my faves on my first post about this.