Reverend Hornibastard and the Case of the Male Orgasm

A little over a month ago, I wrote a long post detailing and defending my stance on the definition of the female orgasm as part of a debate I agreed to do with Edward Clint over at Skeptic Ink. Turns out a guy who calls himself Reverend Hornibastard (because, honestly, why wouldn't you call yourself that), read it and asked me some thoughtful questions in the comments. We had an enjoyable exchange, and a couple days later he commented that he had written something inspired a bit by my blog post.

He has a blog called Hornibastard's Mad Muse (obviously), and he decided to write a post about the what the male orgasm is. You can find it HERE. He first spoke about my post, and what I really appreciate is that he got a lot of what I was saying - that a clear definition of the female orgasm must be used by everyone from researchers to sex advisers to pretty much anyone who speaks on the subject, if we as a culture are ever going to be able to move forward on the subject. Right now, we're talking around each other more than anything. Anyway, he got that, and honestly, that's a part of my argument that people seem to disregard or misunderstand a lot, so I very much appreciate him saying what he said.

Then he went on to speak about how he defines orgasm for himself. His thoughts are self-admittedly informal and anecdotal, so not exactly great to draw larger conclusions from, but they are personal and he doesn't try to make them more than that. I'm always interested to hear how people view and experience their orgasms and sexual pleasure. I think it's incredibly interesting and important. Here's how he began

All this got me thinking, "What defines the male orgasm?"
This may seem like a silly question to most people. Everyone regards the male orgasm as the point when the male ejaculates. The sudden emission of semen and all the exquisitely pleasurable convulsions of the muscles in the male's erogenous zones that produce that geyser of baby batter defines the male orgasm for nearly everyone.  
But not for me.  
Like almost everyone else, my orgasms almost always coincide with ejaculation and all those wonderful muscle contractions that make the ejaculation happen. But a lifetime of unofficial, informal research suggests that there is more to a male orgasm than the emission of semen. There is also a vital psychological component.

He goes on to describe times when "semen unexpectedly started shooting out of" his kielbasa  when he was only beginning to get excited; times when we woke up having splooged in his sheets without going to bed horny or remembering any erotic dreams; Times when he felt an orgasm but nothing came out.
By the same token, I've occasionally had a "dry orgasm." In those instances, I was extremely happy and felt like it was time to discharge my bazooka. But when those intensely pleasurable reflexive muscle convulsions got underway, absolutely nothing came out. 
Nary a drop. 
Despite the lack of a proper ejaculation, I still regarded those events as orgasms. They felt like orgasms (in both the physical and psychological senses).
He uses all these anecdotes to point out that he doesn't feel as though he can define his orgasm in a clinical way. He concludes with:
I realize my analysis is informal and anecdotal, but for me the physiological markers alone do not define what I call an orgasm. The right emotional and psychological states must coincide with those physiological events. 
Researchers can define an orgasm however they want, but I will always cherish most the orgasms that meet my own personal criteria.
I love that ol' Reverend Hornibastard is thinking and writing about this topic. I think that the discordance people feel between a very clear physiologic definition of orgasm and the way they feel and experience their orgasms and their sexual pleasure is one of the trickiest and most charged parts of the conversation SSL is trying to elicit. Putting labels on anything is generally gross to people, but particularly when talking about something like orgasm which, although a physiologic event, is so deeply intertwined with emotion, love, pleasure, and human contact. It's a hard (pardon the pun) conversion, but an important one to pick through, so Thank You, Thank You Reverend Hornibastard.

Now, I'm going to be picky ol' me and point out a physiological thing that struck me as important to the points he was making. Orgasm and ejaculation are actually different physiologic events for men, just as they are with women. Normally men experience them in perfect tandem, so that the ejaculate is pushed out into the urethra (the ejaculation) and the spasms of the pelvic muscles (the orgasm) propel it with force out of the penis. They can happen without the other though.

From what I've read, it seems like men who can have multiple orgasms do so by controlling their bodies in such a way that they orgasm sans ejaculation until the ejaculation finally happens and puts an end to the fun. There can also be ejaculations without orgasm - for instance with prostate stimulation minus the penile stimulation. I don't really have an data or studies to back this up, but I've often wondered if for men, a significant component to their level of pleasure at orgasm related to how well their body happened to time the ejaculation with it. So, maybe an ejaculation happening just slightly earlier or later than the orgasm could make the whole thing feel quite different. Maybe an early ejaculation puts a bit of a kibosh on the orgasm following it. I don't know, and I don't even have the male junk to test these thoughts on and give you some personal anecdotal experiences. I just wanted to point out that maybe for Hornibastard and for other men too, some of the variation they feel in their sexual releases have more to do with physiological issues and a little less to do with emotion than one might think.

To me, his post made me even more interested in seeing how clear definitions in regard to sexual release could possibly help people - men and women - understand, describe, and pursue their orgasm in better more thoughtful ways.

Sorry I'm always over-analyzing these types of thing, Mr. Reverend Hornibastard, but that's the nature of my blog. Thank you again for writing about this, thinking about this, and for talking about your experiences. Rock on with your self and you Mad Muse blog!


Our Latest Review at IndyRed.com

Well, we finally did it. We missed out on a perfect score because we're just too damn gross. Science, Sex, and the Ladies got ourselves another review over at Indy Red. It's a really cool indie movie review site from out of Ontario. The review made us blush a little bit, but it seems our movie made the reviewer blush a bit too. Here's how the reviewer summed it up.
As I wrote above, from a technical view this should score a five! However, I don't feel right about scoring Science Sex and the Ladies a perfect score when I know in my heart that a large number of viewers wouldn't make it through the first 15 minutes. But let me add that for any unsure people who may want to watch... do yourself a favor and push through the uncomfortable parts. A real Gem awaits if you do.

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

Back to my point. Our movie just has too damn much vulva up front...or maybe it was our example porn? I'm not sure, but it does take people out of their comfort zone a bit - and that's intentional. Everything is in there for a reason. If something needed to be shown to  make a point, we showed that shit. The fake vulva and penis on a platter in the first scene is weird as hell, but we like to think it adds a bit of humor and anatomical correctness to the dinner table demonstration. That's just how this movie rolls, and actually the reviewer seemed to get that,
The only real complaint I have are the overly graphic areas of this film. What's funny is that the graphic parts also help make the film what it is! I also know that my feelings regarding these sections were more out of personal embarrassment... than anything really shown on screen. I am, after all an adult. Could it be that my personal feelings regarding the subject matter were half of what this movie was about? Maybe.
What's actually pretty funny is that I have really never gotten feedback - face to face or anonymous -that the graphic parts were bad or inappropriate within the movie. I do get a lot of feedback where someone say they don't mind it and they get it, but they worry that other people (maybe even most people) will have a problem with it. It's like everyone underestimates the ability for other people to handle this movie. I used to worry that we might have made a movie that is just too much for people, but the more people who see it and talk to me about it, the more I know that people are largely fine with the graphic parts. They might be a little uncomfortable, but they can reason away their own feelings. Now I just need to prove to people that other people will be okay with it too.

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

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


50 Shades of Grey - The SSL Review, Guest Style

Today is a very special guest SSL Review from the one and only Barnaby. He's one of the other 2 directors of Science, Sex and the Ladies, and he kindly volunteered to do the SSL Review for the much awaited 50 Shades of Grey. I'm all for a good guest review, so here it is. Enjoy the voice of Mr. Barnaby Aaron.

Fan’s of this blog might be disappointed to see that Trisha is not writing the review for this movie.  I mean this is 50 Shades, this is big.  So why is it being left to me?  Well, Trisha is in Brazil for work for 3 months.  She’s enjoying exotic locations, tropical climates, cheap and delicious Brazilian Steakhouses, and next week she’ll be enjoying Carnivale in freaking Brazil!  Not to mention all the different varieties of juices available to her everyday,  I mean freaking watermelon juice for breakfast everyday!  Meanwhile, I’m stuck in Indiana where everything is puke green grey and dirty. The freezing wind is blowing the will to live out of my body, so if anybody is going to hate watch this abomination it’s going to be me.  Snarky bile is the only thing warming my insides.

First of all I want to talk about the movie itself and the cultural phenomenon surrounding its release. This movie has generated so much talk in the last couple of weeks and most of it has been bad.  Reportedly the stars of the movie, Dakota Johnson and Jamie Dornan hate each other and their loathing for one another was pretty evident on their publicity tour.  Also, they seemed to be distancing themselves from the project, knowing that it was going to be bad.  Then the reviews starting coming in, and it seemed that everyone had a problem with the movie.  Bad writing, promotes unhealthy relationships, one dimensional characters,  misrepresentation of bdsm, bad directing, no chemistry, he isn’t hot enough,  the sex scenes are boring, it’s too long,  etc.  Yet, at the time of this writing, 50 Shades will have the biggest Valentine's Day Weekend boxoffice of all times.  Why is this?  I can think of two reasons.  The first reason is something I’ve mentioned before, Hate Watching.  This might seem like a stretch, but I believe that perhaps the producers of this movie have knowingly or unknowingly discovered a radical new way of marketing a film.  Promote it as a trainwreck and have all those irony loving hipsters come watch it.  I mean that is why I watched it, and it delivered with lines like, “I don’t make love, I fuck….hard”  and  “I’m fifty shades of fucked up.”   I’m not the only one who came out to hate watch. There is a lot to hate about this movie.  All the criticisms of the movie I mentioned before are legitimate.

But then, the second reason people came out to watch this movie, they like the story.  Despite it all, all the reasons it’s bad and damaging and silly and unrealistic, it is popular and that is why I started to feel gross about piling on.  50 Shades is not a deep movie that has profound things to say about sex or relationships or love, it’s a trashy romance novel come to the big screen.  It’s popular because it’s fantasy, and like most romance novels, it doesn’t adhere closely to realistic depictions of sex because that’s part of the appeal.  To quote our own movie, Science Sex and the Ladies  “Because women wish they could have them - the amazing, effortless vaginal orgasm is as appealing a character as the mysterious yacht captain, or the widowed antique dealer.”   It’s trashy fun that some women like, and that’s fine and totally legitimate.  

So did I like the movie?  Yeah, but maybe not for the right reasons.  It’s goofy as hell, and the writing is really stilted and weird, but I enjoyed that about the movie. Again, the irony thing, it made me laugh, and if the writing were better the movie would have been worse, if that makes any sense.  I thought Dakota Johnson’s Anastasia Steele was really good and not as one dimensional and bloodless as Jamie Dornan’s portrayal of Christian Grey.  The movie is two hours long but it kept my attention, and the way it ended made me want to see what happens next.  (The sequels need to happen...and with the same actors no matter how much they hate each other. Let’s keep the trainwreck rolling!)  Just one more quick thing before we get down to it, the names.  Christian Grey,  as in shades of (ugh).  Anastasia Steele, as in made of (uuugggh).  And there is one Hispanic actor in the movie, his name is Jose.   

Just a few things before we get into it.  I have not read 50 Shades, I heard a little bit about it before hand but have largely avoided it.  I wanted to go into the movie with as little knowledge of the book as possible so I won’t be comparing it to the book.  I’m just viewing it as a thing in itself.  Also I don’t know anything about bdsm so I’m not going to focus on how that stuff is presented.  I’m sure you can find a million reviews with that subject as the focus.  As always we will be looking at the depiction of female orgasm and trust me there is plenty there to talk about.

There is a lot of sex in the movie but it’s hard to determine if there were no orgasms or constant orgasms. The biggest sin of this movie was that Anastasia seemed to have an orgasmic response to EVERYTHING THAT CHRISTIAN DID!!!!  For example, in one of the first scenes of the movie Anastasia meets Christian and is interviewing him.  There is obviously heavy sexual chemistry between the two, and once Anastasia leaves and walks outside, she lets out a heavy shuddering breath.  This is where the problems begin.  I was wondering “is this supposed to be an orgasm or just a display of arousal?”  Now if it were an orgasm it’s totally without any physical contact and therefore total BS, but if it’s just showing how aroused she was then it’s fine, but I couldn’t be totally sure one way or another, and it was a problem throughout the movie.  

Let’s go through through it instance by instance.  Anna and Christian have gone out a few times, and he has just flown her to his apartment.  She mentions that she is a virgin and has never done anything.  (Quick aside - I’m pretty sure that she means that she’s never had intercourse, given a hand job, blow job etc. I’m not sure if she means she has never masturbated, and a scene I will talk about later will cast some more doubt on whether she has or has not).  Anyway, he hears that and says “I need to rectify this situation” (I know).  They go to the bedroom and instantly she is breathing heavy and moaning at each kiss and caress.  He starts kissing down her body, same intensity moaning. He kisses her legs around her vulva, same intensity moaning. He returns to kissing her face, and you see his hand go down towards her vulva.  Now this is interesting, and it happens again in the movie.  His fingers were curved like in a hook. It looked to me to be the type of hand shape that would be good for stimulating the Gspot.  It seemed like he penetrated her with his hand, though I could be mistaken about this.  However, again she seemed to have the same level of moaning and writhing to this as all the other stimulation.  So after about 1.2 seconds of digital penetration, he lays her down, rips open a condom packet with his teeth (showing safe sex is good),  puts on the condom, and penetrates her - and again, moaning same level.  Then it cuts to him on top of her grinding away as she moans after each pump. It is the type of close grinding that could be stimulating to the clitoris.  Then cut to afterwards.  

This is the problem, there is no build up in these sexual encounters. This is not a realistic depiction of build up of arousal to orgasm.  She is either instantly very close to orgasm or she is orgasming, but I can’t tell which it’s supposed to be.  If you want to give the movie the benefit of the doubt I would say that all of her moaning and writing is depicting her arousal, and the orgasm happens off screen after the cut, but you could just as easily say she is orgasming constantly to everything.   It’s a pattern repeated in every sex scene.  

The next sex scene Christian lays her on her back and tells her to keep her hand above her head, foreshadowing the bondage to come later.  He starts kissing down her body. She is again instantly highly aroused/orgasming (I am going to mention this type of response a lot in this review so from now on I’m going to call it an arousgasm).  He is kissing down her body and is about to get to the vulva when they are interrupted.  I mention this scene because it continues an interesting trend that plays throughout the movie,  the build up to oral sex.  

The third sex scene is the first time they use bondage.  She is laying on her back, her hands tied above her head.  He places a blindfold over her eyes, to which she arousgasms.  Again he kisses down her body with an ice cube in his mouth, arousgasms the whole time. He stops at the belly button and flips her over, pulls out another condom, rips it open with his teeth, and does her doggie style, with her arousgasming the whole time.   It then cuts to afterward when they are lying in bed together and she says, “that was really nice.”   

A few things about this scene. It continues teasing the idea of him going down on her, which is an interesting concept.  I think in other movies he would have gone down on her in the first scenes and saved the intercourse for a later scene to build the anticipation of the act.  This movie is doing the opposite. Here we have a situation where oral sex is implied to be the final and maybe ultimate sex act.  Now for the doggie style. She is arousgasming but it doesn’t seem anymore intense than the act of him simply putting the blindfold over her eyes.  That, coupled with the fact that they are saving the oral sex makes me feel like they are making intercourse just another aspect of their sex lives together, not superior or inferior to any other act.  Another thing - he never orgasms on screen. It’s always implied he does either after the cut or not at all.       

The next part is not a sex scene but there are some interesting elements that could be seen to be supportive of clitoral orgasms.  Christian wants Anastasia to sign a contract that spells out the limits of their continuing dominant/submissive relationship.  There are many parts of the contract that spell out explicitly what is allowed within their relationship.  They have a meeting, and in the meeting they start talking about a passage about sex toys.  Anastasia says something along the lines of  “vibrators, yes.  dildos, ok.  genital clamps, no.”   I might be reading into this little part a bit, but I take it to mean that,  “Yes, I like vibrators because they are used to stimulate the clitoris.  Ok on dildos in that maybe your usage of them on me would be penetration which would be ok but not my fav,  and I’m not interested in genital clamps because I don’t see that as pleasurable for me at all.”   Now this kind of contradicts the part where she said she is a virgin and hasn’t done “anything,” because I think that using a vibrator is something that can inform your sexuality.  This might seem minor, but I think a virgin who masturbates would be able to have the opinion that vibrators are good, but one that never did probably wouldn’t have this insight.  It’s another gray area (sorry)  but one that I think should be clarified so that we can know why she is objecting to these conditions.

Later in the meeting when Christian is getting turned on and wants to have sex, Anastasia refuses saying it’s a business meeting.  He then points out that she is pressing her thighs together, her breathing is getting heavy and there is a  change in her complexion.  Pressing your legs together is a way to stimulate the clitoris and heavy breathing and a change in completion can be a sign of heavy arousal, so I’m going to give them credit for a good depiction on that one.    

There is a quick scene where Christian spanks Anastasia and she arousgasms.  That is about it. If she is just aroused, fine. If she is orgasming, not good.  

The next sex scene is the first in Christian’s playroom.  It’s where he has all his bdsm equipment.  He is the dominant, she the submissive.  He ties her up so that she is standing. He moves his hand down her body. Again with the hooked finger,  he digitally penetrates her for about 1.6 seconds, then starts kissing down her body, again stopping before he gets to the vulva. He then gets out the whip and starts whipping her lightly.  It then cuts to them having intercourse. She is still hanging with her hands above her. They are facing each other, and he is holding her bottom, thrusting into her.  Now she has been arousgasming this whole time, but the intensity of the arousgasm is higher at the point they are having the hanging intercourse.  I think she is more definitely having an onscreen orgasm.  So is this her first onscreen orgasm or just another more intense orgasm? I don’t know.  (I think I’ll call this an orgousal).  Now in their position there is some clitoral pelvic grinding possible but the strokes are much more intense than before, so I would think the implication is that she is having the orgasm due to more intense pumping, not more intense clitoral grinding.  The clitoral grinding in the first sex scene was much more evident than here.   So this scene is a step back for the movie, but it redeems itself in the next sex scene.

In the past, in a movie like this, there may have been scenes where the couple did oral or digital first and that would build up to a scene where intercourse is had.  This gives the obvious impression that intercouse is the ultimate.  To its credit, this movie does not do that.  In the second sex scene in Christian’s playroom,  Christian ties Anastasia down on a bed.  I believe she is blindfolded.  Christian takes out a feather and runs it up and down her body.  She is arousgasming at the instant the feather touches her. He then takes out a flail and gently whips her, and yes, she arousgasms.  And then after teasing it all movie long, he kisses down her body and finally, yes,  he goes down on her.   She arches up and has a pretty obvious and instant orgasm (or orgousal).  This is the final pleasurable sex act in the movie.  There is another sex scene where Anastasia is violently caned but she doesn’t like it, and doesn’t pretend to like it.   There has been a lot of unrealistic depictions of sex in this movie, but I do appreciate the implication that, by saving it for last and teasing it throughout the movie, oral sex, and assumably clitoral stimulation is seen as the most desirable sex act for a woman.  

I give this movie 2 out of 4 clits.  I wish they would have had Anastasia build up arousal to orgasm more clearly, but I did appreciate how they did not put intercourse above all other sex acts.  



CATGASM and Other Things

Okay, so I'm in Brazil now, and I'm not ready to write a proper blog right now so this will be a bit of a quick hodge-podge, so here goes.

1. 50 Shades of Grey is opening tonight, and clearly, that needs to be SSL Reviewed. I mean if it's anything like the book, there will be more lady-gasms had in ridiculously unrealistic ways than you can shake a stick at. However, I don't know when it's coming to Brazil, and if I can see a non-Portuguese dubbed version. Luckily, Barnaby, one of we three directors of SSL, offered to watch it tonight and write a guest SSL Review of it - so look forward to that.

2. I got to Brazil, worked one day, and then Carnival started. Well, it's this upcoming Tuesday, but it kinda goes from tomorrow (Saturday) thru Tuesday. My work is closed until Thursday. So, that's pretty awesome. Now I get to go to some beach near Rio with a co-worker to her parent's cabin for 4 days to chill and watch an old-school folk-style Carnival Parade (no topless ladies with giant feather headdresses). Anyway, I'm pretty into it, and that's why this blog post is so short.

3. Sometimes I just Google something that might be relevant to this blog to see if there's something out there on the internets that I might want to write about. Well, in that spirit I Googled "catgasm" that's right, "catgasm." Guess what? I found an awesome Tumblr title none other than CATGASM. There are lots of cute pictures of cats, and you should probably look at it. http://catgasm.tumblr.com/ 


Santa Paws, Brazil, and The Right Kind of Lust

So, I'm leaving for Brazil today. I'll be there for a few months as part of my non-orgasm related day job. Please don't worry about my cats. They don't have to move. Some people are coming to stay with them, and they'll be just fine. You can worry about me, though, if you want. I am trying to get a lot of shit done before I go, and it seems to never end. Right now I'm wearing a "Santa Paws" Christmas nightgown/sweatshirt type of thing because all my clothes worth wearing are packed. It's not that I wouldn't wear ol' Santa Paws. I do wear it. Ask my nieces and nephews. They see it every year at our Christmas sleep overs. It's just that it's not Christmas. I'll be honest. I bought Santa Paws at a Goodwill on my way to an Ugly Christmas Sweater party, and I straight won the ugly sweater contest with it, bitches. You'd think I have more sense than to continue wearing it, but you'd be wrong. I quickly fell in love with the warmth, and cat-in-a-stocking-surrounded-by-holly cuteness. I wear it all the time - at Christmas, but it's not Christmas. It's Brazil time, and that's why Santa Paws is here.

That brings me back to my point. I'm busy, and so I'm just going to post a treat of a video. Those who know and love Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job! will probably get the most enjoyment out of it, but it's pretty good none the less.

Let me just say it's called "In Lust," and it's really just a dude doing something and then this girl comes into the shot and starts running at him. He drops everything immediately and literally, and as she jumps into his arms, he brings her up to his shoulder, crotch to face, and starts spinning. She raises her arms up like she praying to the gods, and then it all happens again in another place. It's a beautiful kind of lady-crotch-to-face lust, and I like it.

IN LUST from Eric Wareheim on Vimeo.


2 New Dirty Song Champs - 212 and Love Again!

There are 2 new additions to the SSL Dirty Songs Playlist today, thanks to SSL co-director Barnaby and SSL friend Stephanie. They both submitted badass songs that also discuss some lady-gasmy action. The tricky part about an SSL Dirty Song Champ is that it not only has to have sweet lady-gasm pleasure stuff, but it also has to specifically not talk about dicks making ladies orgasm. This is tougher than you would think to get that combo in one song. Yes, there's lots of great nasty songs out there that speak of clit lovin' and such, but they always be trying to throw some the-amazing-cock-gives-amazing-orgasms schtick. If you want to see the other SSL Dirty Song Champs go HERE. Okay, so here's the 2 new SSL Dirty Song Champs.

1. Love Again (Akinyele Back) (feat. Gansta Boo) from Run the Jewels

Not only is this a good song, but it's full of nasty ass stuff. Yeah, it talks a little about having the dick up in it (who can blame a gal for enjoying that), but it doesn't say that the ol' in and out makes her come, and it focuses mostly on lickin' the clit. The dude raps first and his hook talks about how much she loves having his dick in her mouth all day. The gal (Gansta Boo) raps last and her hook talks about how much he loves having her clit in his mouth all day. Now that's some reciprocity I can get behind! Thanks Barnaby.
Also, you will enjoy these lyrics. Go check them out.

2. 212 (feat. Lazy Jay) from Azealia Banks

I love this song. It's kick ass. Stephanie has good taste. This one is not as dirty as the other one, but it has 1 part that qualifies it as an SSL Dirty Song Champ...cause we like anything here that gives props to the ol' cunnilingus.
She know where I get mine from end of season
Now she wanna lick my plum in the evenin'
And fit that tongue tongue d-deep in
I guess that cunt gettin' eaten
I guess that cunt gettin' eaten
I guess that cunt gettin' eaten
I guess that cunt gettin' eaten
I guess it is, indeed. You will also enjoy these lyrics. I like the video a lot too.


An SSL Review at the Independent Critic!

Science, Sex and the Ladies got another review! This one is over at The Independent Critic. Check it out HERE. The site is actually run by someone who lives in Indiana, but I didn't know that when I was sending out press kits. I'm always surprised at stuff we ol' Hoosiers are doing. There really is more than corn in Indiana (Hoosiers actually might be the only ones to get that. It's not just a random line made up because people often talk about corn and Indiana as one. It's a line from a long running commercial for Indiana Beach - an amusement park with a lake my sister once described as having "carp on carp")

Anyway, Richard, the critic over there at The Independent Critic, wrote some really nice stuff about this movie, and we thank him for taking the time to review it!

While this isn't the first doc I've seen to avoid the dreaded "talking head" approach to documentary filmmaking, one has to be impressed with the way this intimate yet important subject is approached and presented. 
While Science, Sex and the Ladies has its humor, you should know going into it that it doesn't make fun of sex, light of sex, or serve up sex in any sort of titillating way. This is a documentary, a well-informed documentary, and it takes its mission seriously and completes it incredibly well. - The Independent Critic


Coitus as revealed by ultrasound in one volunteer couple - a Journal Article I Read

Well, I found better access to journal articles - thanks to my friend Stephanie, my cousin McKenzie, and my husband's sneaky internet ways. It's exciting because I do like to read more than the abstracts, and if you don't have good student-type access, they cost about $40 a pop, which is bullshit. Anyway, I chose a short one for my next installment in the Journal Article's I Read series. It's called "Coitus as revealed by ultrasound in one volunteer couple." 

This article is interesting, I think, for this blog because it's one that is commonly used to support the argument about the deep inner parts of the clit being the real "G-spot." Well, maybe that's not the exact way to put it. There is an argument in the lady-gasm and sexology world right now that goes something like this: There is no difference between clitoral and vaginal orgasms. They are all clitoral. It's just that sometimes the clitoral glans is stimulated in order to cause the orgasm (what some might traditionally call a clitoral orgasm) and sometimes the clitoral legs/Crus Clitoris and/or the bulb of vestibule (aka clitoral bulbs) are stimulated to cause the orgasm (what some might traditionally call a vaginal orgasm). 

I find the argument a bit troubling for 1 simple reason. There is no actual physiologic evidence for an orgasm caused by stimulation inside the vagina (i.e. "vaginal" orgasm). The only orgasms recorded were due to some direct or indirect stimulation of the clitoral glans. No one has ever proven that an orgasm can be elicited from stimulation inside the vagina, so giving a cause for this orgasm that might not even exist (whether it be through stimulation of the clitoral legs, the "g-spot" or any other thing in the vagina), seems a little problematic.

Anyway, the main cause for this even-vaginal-orgasms-are-clitoral argument are studies showing that during penetration, part of this inner clitoral structure gets close to the area of the vagina that has traditionally been thought to house the "g-spot." You see, when a woman gets aroused, she gets at least as much blood pooling in her genitals as men, only for ladies, it mostly fills in these inner clitoral structures. They are largely erectile tissue that become engorged during arousal.

So that's the background. Here's the study.

Coitus as revealed by ultrasound in one volunteer couple. 
J Sex Med. 2010 Aug;7(8):2750-4. Buisson O1, Foldes P, Jannini E, Mimoun S.

This is a study meant simply to see what happens to the vagina and surrounding tissue and organs when a woman is aroused and having intercourse. It is quite simple actually. The couple (the study points out they are both medical doctors for some reason), is verified as having no medical issues, no sexual dysfunction, and the woman "was regularly capable of achieving a vaginally activated orgasm from penetration without concomitant stimulation of the external clitoris." She lay in a gynecological position (on a table with her legs in stirrups) in a doctors office. The man was standing, and he penetrated her.

An ultrasound was taken as she became aroused (the clitoral legs and bulbs became more engorged). From the ultrasound, the authors concluded:
The penis exerts pressure on the anterior vaginal wall resulting in pressure (and movement) of penis on the entire CUV* complex against the pubic symphisis. The clitoris was stretched by the penis. The roots of the clitoris were ascending and completely widened by the penis. During intercourse the anterior wall of the vagina was crushed against the root of the clitoris. The Kobelt plexis was well visualized and seemed to be repeatedly crushed by the penis like a pumping effect.
So, this study basically showed how the penis moves our lady junk around during intercourse, which is pretty interesting. It doesn't actually say anything about "vaginal" orgasm, though. Neither she nor the man in this study orgasmed. I do so very, very much wish they had though. If this women could actually have "vaginally activated orgasm from penetration without concomitant stimulation of the external clitoris," then by god, catching that on ultrasound would have truly been a big step forward in the study of female orgasm. Maybe next time, I guess.

*CUV - clito-urethrovaginal complex


Random Male Hite Report #11

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 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)  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 431

This is from the chapter Toward a New Idea of Intercourse. In the section "Stereotypes about intercourse." These are answers to the survey question : "Do you have your best orgasms during fellatio, masturbation, intercourse or some other activity? Which activity do you find overall the most enjoyable?"

"My best orgasms have been from masturbation with intercourse a close second. This is due to the refined techniques I need for which most women do not have the patience, skill, or interest."
    "In masturbation the pleasure is more intense, as I am concentrating a good deal more on my own pleasure, that little ol' button-pusher, me. My best orgasms have always been privately conceived."
    "The joys of masturbating a cock allow you many alternatives, you can develop a technique that allows you to give yourself all sorts of good feelings. In fucking you ejaculate because the head of the cock is stimulated by moving back and forth in a vagina. There is no change in pressure, no bending, and movement is slower than the hand or head-you don't have the variety. But when you masturbate you can grab the cock in many different ways, with many different pressures, you can slide your hand over the head for one sensation, or you can use the skin that forms a movable sheath over the head for another. It gives me the opportunity to enjoy many sensations missed in fucking. Masturbating gives me my greatest orgasms."
    "Mi best orgasms are masturbation with simultaneous rectal stimulation by penis or dildo."
    "The stimulation during masturbation is more concise; also I can fantasize during masturbation. the vagina actually is not much stimulation for me. Then too I don't have to worry about satisfying her. I can be selfish. If I try to cross over to the masturbation habits in lovemaking, I'm going to be a bad lovemaker because I'll just be trying to get my rocks off. I love the initial penetration into the vagina, but it's just not enough friction. Probably because I'm so used to masturbating."*
    "I have two distinctly different types of orgasm. One is produced bu penis-vagina intercourse, the other by masturbation. My first and favorite type of orgasm is produced by masturbating with anal penetration which results in a very different build-up and climax. The entire process is less frenzied, less penis-centered. The sensations are less localized, more diffuse, I feel sensations in my nipples, my inner thighs, the soles of my feet more intensely, and throughout the buildup, rather than only transiently as in the 'usual' thrusting orgasm buildup, where they are quickly overwhelmed by penis sensation. the climax too feels more global, less acute, and it's sensation is one of sweet, wonderful melting, suffusing out from the genitals."
    "I would like to differentiate between the kind of orgasm I feel when I'm masturbating versus the kind of orgasm I have when I'm having vaginal intercourse. When I'm masturbating I usually have a very strong orgasm. Also, I can have several mini-orgasms (orgasms with contractions but without ejaculation) before I finally want to have the ejaculatory orgasm. I've rarely had those kinds of min-orgasms in vaginal intercourse. I can't control it that closely. Also, if I'm masturbating I can feel all the accessory organs - the prostate, the urethra bulb, all those contracting. In the penis itself I can feel the muscles contracting. When...
*This statement somewhat parallels women's fears that possibly they couldn't orgasm during intercourse because the had masturbated too much or too well. See chapter 3 of The Hite Report on female sexuality to see why just the opposite is true.


SSL Vimeo sale, Dayton Premiere!, and Blogger is an Asshole

Hello! I thought I'd give you all a couple updates.

1 Science, Sex and the Ladies, as you may already know, is available on Vimeo on Demand (which you can get also access through Apple TV, Amazon Fire, and Roku). Well, by golly, now you can apply the promo code: OrgasmScience until January 26th to get streaming for $1.99 and download for $7.99. If you'd been interested in checking it out, now's the time. Oh - and if you do check it out, we'd love for you to leave a comment

2 A lovely woman from Dayton, Ohio contacted me recently, and she's going to be hosting a small screening or 2...or 3 with friends and maybe fellow church members. You know I love a small screening, and although it's not too far from me, I believe the first of her small screenings will be the Dayton Premiere of SSL! That's worthy of a shout-out, so here it is. Have fun you Dayton ladies!

If you are interested in hosting a small screening (you only need a couple friends and a TV) just contact me at trisha at ancmovies dottt com. SSL wants to come to your town! (Sorry, I have a ridiculous pull towards using the word "cum" instead of come in bad puns)

3 I was writing THIS reply, the first of my posts in the debate I'm doing with Edward Clint at Skeptic Ink, and I accidentally hit control+Z. In normal stuff that usually just takes you back one step. In blogger, it erases your whole fucking post and saves it immediately upon that keystroke. Let me just point out real quick that my reply is not short. It's long as hell, and I thought real hard about killing myself by walking in front of a bus holding my computer. I thought since my computer contains Blogger, it might hurt Blogger too and make Blogger regret what it did to me. I know Blogger is cold and dead inside, though, and I decided against it. After, my screams and hate subsided, I realized I hadn't lost that much - just a lot of formatting and some small rewrites of a few parts. I had most of it saved somewhere else. I'm not so stupid I guess. Blogger has fucked me enough that I don't fully trust it, and take measures to delay or defeat it's dick moves. I just wanted to share that in hopes of shaming or hurting blogger's feelings.


The Female Orgasm Debate With Edward Clint at Skeptic Ink - My Response #1


I have to say, I’m excited to be having this debate, and I want to thank Edward Clint for agreeing to do this. Ed co-produces Skeptic Blogs and writes on a variety of topics there. He is currently a graduate student at UCLA studying Evolutionary Psychology. He has proven to be quite considerate to me and thoughtful about this topic. As Ed said, this is a new debate. It is not building from our original back and forth.

I have written extensively on my stance about female orgasm and  made a movie on the topic. So, since my view is already out there, Ed and I agreed that he would begin our discussion with a response to my stance (taken from my movie and my blog – particularly THIS POST explaining  why I say that vaginal stimulation has not been shown to cause orgasm). Please check out Ed’s post HERE. We are specifically taking opposite sides of the following statements. I’m on the pro side, of course.

for the record, I wouldn't define this as orgasm

The Statements to be Debated
1. Masters & Johnson's  (1966) book Human Sexual Response provides the best scientific description of the definition and nature of orgasm.
2. Orgasm is caused by direct or indirect stimulation of the clitoral glans/vulvar area in women.

I’m going to go about this by first outlining my support for these statements. I will keep in mind the objections Ed has outlined, and do my best to touch on those. After that, I will respond specifically and in more detail to each of his objections in the appendices. Hopefully, this can allow those who want to read just the gist to drop off before it gets more detailed.  

Support for Statement 1
Masters & Johnson's  (1966) book Human Sexual Response provides the best scientific description of the definition and nature of orgasm.

Masters and Johnson’s (M&J’s) description of the physical markers of orgasm are what I believe the scientific definition of the word orgasm should be based upon. Very basically, the main physical marker is a rhythmic release of the pelvic muscle tension and blood congestion that has developed during sexual arousal. It’s measurable, well known, possible in both men and women and in people all across the world, and relies on the well known and heavily agreed upon physical markers of sexual arousal in order to come about. No other commonly used definition of orgasm is that verifiable, that universal, or that directly linked to the physical elements of sexual arousal.

This definition of orgasm makes sense even given the immense variation in psycho-social elements that affect people’s ability to attain orgasm and the meaning and subjective pleasure they find in it. This physiological event exists as a human event that can and does occur in direct relation to human sexual arousal. Plus, although the psycho-social elements are absolutely integral in understanding things like who has orgasms, why people don’t have them, and what significance orgasm has to a population, the event still exists on its own and stands as a good definition of orgasm. Let me elaborate on why this physiologic definition of orgasm seems most sensible to me.

1 The orgasmic muscle contractions described by M&J are not under dispute as a marker for sexual climax. Although the word orgasm and its meaning are contentious, this marker for sexual climax is not, and it is already part of any sensible and knowledgeable definition out there for orgasm (Meston et al p174).  It is known to exist in both men and women and is a thing that the majority of women and almost all men experience (even if they have wildly different ways of getting to it and diverse feelings about it).  So, there is agreement that this exists and about how it behaves and is measured. It is already respected and widespread definition of orgasmI am merely proposing it be the definition. There is a universal element to this definition particularly because it is a physiologic one.

Ed objects to aspects of the 1966 M&J study in an attempt to discredit their findings about orgasm. The objections are sometimes blatantly wrong and other times simply not a good argument for disregarding or discrediting it. I have specific responses to his full list of objections and also a  response to Ed’s citation that claims to directly dispute M&J’s finding (it absolutely does not ) in appendix A below. M&J is a 50 year old study, and things have changed. Their work has been expanded on. More work has gone into things like hormonal activity during arousal and orgasm, and modern ways to record the physical markers of arousal and orgasm have been developed (M&J used to actually get down there and measure parts by hand to check for vasocongestion. Photoplethysmographs are now often used to do that), but these markers M&J identified are still understood as important markers. Their work in Human Sexual Response is by far the largest and most comprehensive physiological study of arousal and orgasm that exists. It is fundamental and has not been rejected or seriously debased over the last 50 years (Meston et al p180).

2 There, of course, are other experiences some would put forward as being orgasms; ejaculation, tantric/spiritual/mental experiences,  or a type of inner/vaginal/uterine/g-spot/anal climax that specifically does not involve the recordable muscular activity described by M&J. That’s not a complete list, but it’s some of the usual suspects, and I think it's problematic to call or insinuate that any of these things are orgasm.

Ejaculation is a sexual response but is a different physiologic event than orgasm. This is true for both men and women...and although men almost always experience it, since it is linked to orgasm in males, it may not be common among women. The rest of the above options have no set of physical markers that could let a scientist know that these events are occurring. The respondent must be taken at their word that there is a climactic sexual experience happening. The only exception to this would be some studies showing mental activity during a time when the respondent claims to orgasm. This is a recordable response, but as of yet there is no clear understanding of whether the brain activity seen is a reliable marker to indicate any particular kind of climactic sexual experience, much less the muscle contractions identified by M&J’s work. There is also no understanding of what that brain activity correlates to physically, or if it correlates to anything physical at all.  Brain activity may be an interesting avenue of research to pursue, but to be convincing as a marker for orgasm, that mental activity should  also correlated with a culmination of or climax to physical sexual arousal.  

3 Which brings me to my major reason for calling the muscle activity described by M&J orgasm (and biggest qualm with calling these other things orgasm).  The M&J described orgasm has a physiologic quality that is quite specifically the physical climax of changes in the body that happen during human sexual arousal, and those other things in the list are not. To be clear here, I’m not arguing that those other things have no value, are not pleasurable, or don’t feel climactic. I’m not even arguing that orgasm is the most pleasurable thing a person can experience regarding sex. I’m arguing that these other things are something different and not events that rely on and relieve the muscle tension and blood congestion in the pelvic region induced by sexual arousal. I believe that makes this event more than just one of many possible experiences that people find pleasurable or climactic during sex. It makes this event an orgasm.

Before I move on, let’s get back to sexual arousal because I think it is often hard to separate the ideas of arousal and orgasm, and I’ve found over and over through the years that discussing the two as separate seems to cause major confusion about what I am arguing. So...Yes, sexual arousal can be “turned on” in humans in an infinite number of ways. It’s got everything to do with psycho-social and circumstantial variables. The thing is though, however one gets it started, sustains it, or increases it (and that process really is as unique as people are), when it happens, the body reacts largely the same in all humans. The basic markers of sexual arousal that M&J noted  (such as penile erection, vaginal lubrication, testes being pulled up against the body, and repositioning of the uterus/elongation of the vagina - all due to pelvic vasocongestion and muscle tension), have certainly been expanded upon over the last 50 years, but they are basically the same things researchers still today use to denote arousal. Increased heart rate, raised blood pressure, increased pain theshold and pupil dilation are also used but are indicators of regular ol’ non-sexual arousal as well. So, how one gets aroused, how he/she feels about it, and expectations surrounding arousal are incredibly complicated and variable, but how the body responds to that arousal seems to be quite universal.  

The orgasm is absolutely dependent on that physical arousal because there needs to be sexual muscle tension and blood congestion present for there to be an event (the orgasm) that releases that tension. It’s clear that orgasms don’t happen without arousal and arousal doesn’t happen without activities that are steeped heavily in psycho-social elements, so a complete study of orgasms among humans is naturally tied to the psycho-social. However, the definition of orgasm, doesn’t need to be.

Why it's important to make this distinction
I really do understand that the feelings around a word like orgasm are complicated. I really do know that although I have no intention of telling women that there is only one way to enjoy sex (for instance - experiencing the orgasm defined by Masters and Johnson), that none the less, my simply saying that there should be a standardized definition of the word orgasm, is enough to make some people feel slighted, misunderstood, or inadequate. I don’t love that, but I think that advocating for clarity in the discussion of female sexual response is worth the trouble it digs up.

There is confusion about the word orgasm. Researchers, doctors, therapists, sexual advisers, and random people who want to speak about orgasm from a place of even limited authority could continue to use that word loosely, to make statements about orgasm without being specific about what is meant, but I think it only leads to spinning our wheels on the topic. Saying that situation A causes an orgasm in one study and that situation B causes an orgasm in another study, is most helpful when the word orgasm means the same thing in both. Right now, it does not - way too often. It seems to me like people involved in this discussion are talking around each other and there needs to be clarity of language…to help women understand their situation and to help researchers build from each other's work more easily.

As I described above, I think orgasm should be used to describe the M&J definition of orgasm. I also think ejaculation should be used to describe ejaculation, and a climactic experience should be used to describe a climactic experience sans orgasm. Other more specific words could come to light to categorize these other mental or physical climactic experiences as researchers hopefully gain clear understanding of what these are and how to identify them. Also, I think scientists should be cognizant of the mixed use of the word "orgasm."   If talking about reported cases of orgasm, there should be an understanding that a claim of “orgasm” could mean a wildly large amount of different events, and data should be assessed with that in mind. I believe that clarity of language is absolutely necessary for the discussion about female orgasm to move forward (instead of in confusing circles like it seems to be doing now).

Statement 1 Conclusion
I do also get where Ed is coming from when he says that orgasm is “a mental event, an experience.” He’s right, it is both of those things, but so is every other thing we humans do. It’s not useful as a definition. It's also not a reason to disregard the M&J characterization as insufficient. The physical characterization of orgasm proposed is an undisputed reaction that can happen to both men and women all across the world at the climax of a person’s physical sexual arousal. The contractions can be weak or strong, have a somewhat variable rhythm, last for a somewhat variable amount of time, but the basic description set forth by M&J is a sensible definition for orgasm. The fact that there is infinite variation in how people get from no arousal to orgasm, or in how people subjectively experience this event does not mean that we don’t or can’t have a good definition of orgasm. Similarly the infinite subjective experience of a heart attack, and the many discussions existing about what causes them and what prevents them, does not negate that it is a blockage of oxygen-rich blood to the heart muscle. Both a heart attack and orgasm exist as a thing that can be defined, and all the psycho-social things around us can inhibit them, help them, affect the framework in which they are practiced, and bring different meanings to them. However, it is difficult to really discuss those psycho-social aspects in any meaningful way unless there is a clear definition of what it is they are affecting, and that clear definition is exactly what I propose.

Support for Statement 2
Orgasm is caused by direct or indirect stimulation of the clitoral glans/vulvar area in women.

I think my support of statement 1 stands on pretty firm ground, but I willingly admit this second statement is slightly mushier. However, it doesn’t have to do with the arguments about Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), cervical stimulation in women with spinal injuries, culture considerations or dildos as Ed suggests. It does have something to do with his point about M&J’s findings regarding orgasms during intercourse though. I actually think some of M&J's findings are the best arguments against this second statement. So, let me tell you why I think there’s mushiness in this argument, and then I’ll tell you why, even with the mushiness, it’s still the most sensible one. 

The reasons for this mushiness in Statement 2

1 My assertion is not based on undeniable proof. It’s based on an overwhelming amount of evidence that stimulation of the clitoral glans/vulva area can induce orgasm and an overwhelming lack of evidence that any-other-thing-stimulated can induce orgasm. That’s why I make that assertion. It’s about the evidence as is. However, although there has been about 50 years since M&J first came out, and so far there still isn’t much to go on for the “any-other-thing-stimulated can induce orgasm” statement, it's possible there could be in the future.

It is all very close together down there. It doesn’t seem impossible for the clitoral glans area, without being directly touched, to be stimulated just enough to orgasm from movement in areas close by such as; 
the in-out movement of a phallus in the vagina, 
or strong vibration on a close-by area, 
or specific muscular movement that might shift things slightly in the vulvar area. 

I think it’s incredibly important in science and in sexual advice to parse out as clear and detailed an understanding about what is and is not known to induce orgasm as we possibly can be. That means really trying to figure out the specifics of what touches what. I will continue to argue that this is meaningful and incredibly important, but I get that it can get a little nuanced for some people’s taste.

3 Like Ed mentioned about good ol’ Master’s and Johnson’s 1966 book Human Sexual Response, they did record orgasms in women during vaginal penetration with no additional stimulation. I would add that they also found 3 women (all of whom could additionally orgasm through clitoral glans area stimulation and through intercourse) who achieved orgasm through breast stimulation without additional clitoral manipulation.

Yet Statement 2 is still the best bet 
Those 3 points all kinda go together so let me just explain a little. The M&J accounts of both the intercourse and the breast induced orgasms were observed and recorded in the lab. They documented both subjective accounts of the orgasms and objective recording of the orgasmic pelvic muscular activity. There are no other studies that document an objective recording of orgasmic pelvic muscular activity for orgasms stimulated from anything but the clitoral/vulva area – not stimulation of the breasts (besides M&J), not anuses, not G-spots, V-spots, C-spots nor other spots, not from the inner clitoral legs being pushed on or "crushed" through the vaginal wall, not the vaginal wall itself, and not even any other intercourse induced orgasms like the M&J documented ones above (I’ll get back to these in a minute). 

Those studies just don’t exist. There’s plenty of claims in surveys and even in labs studies that these other types of stimulation do cause women to orgasm, but the physical evidence just has not been taken; or the physical evidence taken was things like heart rate, blood pressure, pupil dilation, or pain tolerance – all things that are certainly markers of arousal (both general arousal and sexual arousal) but not necessarily of orgasm; or it’s a brain scan that might suggest an orgasm, but there is no recording of the pelvic muscle activity to go along with it, and no certainty that the brain activity seen means anything about a physiologic response in the body – much less orgasmic muscular activity. These other studies and surveys that suggest female orgasm caused by something other than clitoral/vulva area stimulation exists, simply don’t give any actual evidence that this is the case.

Okay, so there is a striking lack of evidence for non clitoral/vulva area induced orgasms, except for M&J’s work. It might seem problematic to my statement, but it’s less than you’d think. M&J asserted that the orgasms through intercourse, the ones with no other clitoral/vulva area stimulation, were actually stimulated through the clitoral glans indirectly. They asserted that the clit was rubbed through a Rube-Goldberg-like situation in which the labia pulled on the clitoral hood which rubbed against the clitoral glans – so it was quite indirect. 

They give no explanation about the mechanism for which the breast orgasms happened, but they say that the timing of the physiologic markers during arousal and orgasm in both the intercourse and breast orgasm were quite similar. Both were also the weakest type of orgasms that the women had. All the physiologic markers and muscular activity for orgasm were recorded, but they were just objectively recorded as weaker and subjectively reported by the women as weaker. In fact, for the entire study, M&J report that in terms of both the objective intensity of muscle spasms recorded and the subjective reporting of the woman, the masturbatory orgasms were ranked highest, followed by partner manipulation and the lowest intensity reported and recorded was achieved through intercourse (and breast stimulation) (Masters 1966 p133). So, given that the low intensity of the orgasm correlated with more indirectness of the stimulation, it might be just as likely, if not more likely, evidence for the importance of clitoral glans area stimulation for female orgasm, rather than being evidence for inner vaginal induced orgasms. As for the breast stimulation, this is up for debate and hopefully more study. I once put forth a thought on my blog that maybe, during the breast stimulation, some muscle tensing in the vulvar area, once the women had become highly aroused, moved everything around down there just enough to get a touch of clit stimulation and set off the orgasm. Who knows? It’s merely a guess that goes along with the pattern of really indirect stimulation giving less intense orgasms.

Ed's Objections
As I said before, Ed's point about intercourse related orgasms in the M&J study was valid, but his other objections relating to cervical stimulation in women with spinal injury, orgasm in women with FMG, or lesbians buying dildos, aren't useful. They're interesting, but they simply don't contradict Statement 2. The truth is there simply are not studies (the one's Ed cites included) that document a situation where stimulation on anything other than the clitoral/vulva area causing the M&J identified muscle contractions of orgasm. You can read my more detailed response to each of his objections below in Appendix B. However, I do want to speak quickly on Ed's assertion about women with FMG. He cites a study from 1989 that surveys women in an area with an incredibly high incidence of a particularly ugly type of FMG in which the labia is sewn together leaving a flat surface with only a tiny whole left from which the women must pee, menstruate and eventually have intercourse (there is often a knife used on the wedding night). It has been long assumed that the clitoral glans was always cut off with this type of FMG (known as type III), but recently surgeons who do reconstructive surgery for women with FMG have discovered that this is not often the case. Intact clitoral glans are found behind the tissue. One study showed this finding in 40% of the women with type III FMG. So, at least some of the women in the study Ed cites may not be without a clitoris as he assumes they are. If these women are having orgasms (and it’s just a type of survey with no physical validation for their responses) they very well might be having them because they have clit-hiding scar tissue to rub up against their husbands’ pelvises.

Statement 2 conclusion
So, there are things that could easily make me change my mind on the basic need for clitoral/vulva area stimulation in order to orgasm. One of those things would be one study, any study, that makes a physically verified causal connection between stimulation not involving that clitoral/vulva area and orgasmic muscle contraction. There's certainly studies connecting other types of stimulation to arousal or to feelings of pleasure, and those are interesting and useful inquiries into human sexuality. However, this is about the orgasm, and studies like what I'm asking for are hard to come by, and I challenge anyone to find one. Studies trying to make this causal connection can be done and should be done. It's quite mystifying that they don't exist. 

Like I mentioned above, there is actually some debatable evidence for a direct connection between breast stimulation and orgasm, but those studies were done 50 years ago and reported in the M&J study that Ed thinks is not quite up to par, so take that as you will. Other than the M&J study, the only thing to go on is the accounts of women who say they can orgasm from other kinds of stimulation. These accounts are great starting points for investigation into female sexuality, and should never be discounted. However, there should be an effort to physically verify these claims, and as of yet, this has not been done properly. 

There's plenty more to read in the Appendices. Appendix C was added for my responses to Ed's objections that weren't categorization with Appendix A or B. Enjoy. Thanks again to Ed Clint!

Appendix A
Masters and Johnson made major contributions to knowledge about sex. However, the idea that the scientific understanding of the clitoris, orgasm, and female sexual response crystallized 5 decades ago thanks to a non-refereed publication based on a few experiments with tiny, unrepresentative samples in artificial, ecologically non-valid circumstances is preposterous on the face of it. As a psychologist, I do believe I would be laughed out of the room if I proposed such a basis for some description of a pan-human bit of psychology. Here is a short list of the limitations and flaws of M&J 1966.
  • Tiny sample sizes that offer no statistical power to generalize
It may be too small for Ed’s tastes, but there is no other physiological investigation into the body’s responses to arousal and orgasm that is near this large; 382 women and 312 men and a minimum of 7,500 complete cycles of sexual response (Masters 1966 p.12-15). I’d love a bigger study with more modern amenities, but this is the best we have, and honestly, I think calling it tiny is a bit of a stretch.
  • Use of sex workers as participants, which can hardly be called representative of women in general
Not actually true - although, I don’t see this as a problem anyway. Sex workers were used as preliminary subjects, because they were available, as an investigation into how tests should be set up and run. M&J explicitly said that they did not use this population in their final analysis.  “The interrogative material and experimental results derived from the prostitution population have not been included in the material being presented.”  (Masters 1966 p.11) And frankly, even if they did use prostitutes, I don’t see why their physiological sexual response would be any different than any other woman or man. We all have the same parts down there (as long as no disease is present).
  • Sex in a laboratory setting probably is not representative of other settings
Agreed. Sex in a laboratory setting is different from sex in other places. This is an issue to consider in any sexual study, and M&J knew this. My biggest worry here would be that people find it hard to become aroused in this situation. The people in the M&J study obviously were able to overcome that since they did physically become aroused and physically orgasmsed. Of course this may skew the study towards people who are able to become aroused in these situations, but that is a common problem among any study of the body during arousal and orgasm....and even people who get aroused by laboratories have the same genitals as the rest of us.
  • No replications
Granted, a giant study where people are hooked up to physiologic monitors and asked to do sexual acts while the researchers measure and record has not, very unfortunately, been done since. However, like I said above, the work is fundamental and there have been many studies that replicate the measurement of arousal and orgasm in people without finding anything contradictory to what M&J found. There has even been findings that work within M&J's, but also expand on it. For instance THIS study found some more variation in the pelvic muscle responses than did M&J (1 male who could have multiple orgasms before his ejaculation). (3)
  • Participants were “WEIRD” in the Henrichian sense: of a Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic society. Trisha believes the study of one culture, ours, proves things about the human species.
Well, if Human Sexual Response was a study focused on behavior or psychology rather than physiological  reactions to arousal and orgasm then I think this would be an incredibly valid criticism. However, ladies all over the world have the same parts, just like men all over the world do. Granted, the women in other parts of the world might need to think and do different things to become aroused (this is incredibly dependent on psycho-social element), but when they do become aroused, it can be detected in their bodies just the same way we detect it in WEIRD bodies. We can also detect when they are having orgasms, just the same way we detect it in WEIRDs.
Sometimes producing findings that directly contradict M&J, such as Robert King et al. 2011:Fundamentally, these data would seem to contradict the Masters and Johnson (1965) view that masturbatory orgasms are the same as those achieved through intercourse, especially in terms of pleasure and sensation.
This quote boldly stood out to me, back when I read this particular article, as fully inaccurate, so it’s unfortunate that it was picked to prove there is data contradicting M&J’s work. “These data” that the quote is discussing are ones that show (they thought somewhat surprisingly) that a good number of orgasms with a partner were subjectively rated lower than masturbatory orgasms by women in their study (another group of partner orgasms were rated higher, but they found that less surprising). Anyway, that’s not contradictory at all to M&J’s findings. Although M&J were clear through the study that the basic physiological elements such as spasmic release of muscle tension were universal to all orgasms, including masturbatory and those had during intercourse, they never held that they were the same in terms of pleasure or sensation.

In fact, the surprising finding from the study above is specifically supported. M&J reported in terms of both the objective intensity of muscle spasms recorded and the subjective reporting of the woman, that masturbatory orgasms were ranked highest, followed by partner manipulation. The lowest rated orgasms were those achieved during intercourse (Masters 1966 p133). M&J clearly claimed that the physical markers in orgasms during masturbation and intercourse were the same, but never claimed that any other element of these orgasms including intensity, length, meaning, or subjective pleasure were the same.

Appendix B
V. Infibulated women in the SudanWomen in a non-western culture without all that Freud baggage and social expectation still have VIO’s. Hanny Lightfoot-Klein (1989) described the culture as such that women must hide all sexual interest and response in order to appear chaste and modest. They must hide orgasms, or, if they can’t hide them, deny that the outburst was caused by the sex acts. Nonetheless, 90% of the 300 women interviewed said they had orgasms, some even saying “always”. We know, too, that none of these were “clitoral” orgasms, because none of these women have a clitoral glans or labia. They all have a “full pharaonic” type infibulation that involves removal of virtually all external genitalia. I am beyond astonished that women who have been so tragically mutilated can ever enjoy sex at all (many of them do not). Lightfoot-Klein is not the only report of this phenomenon, in the paper she also cited Money et al. (1955) and Verkauf (1975).
First off – love this article. I had not heard of it before this. I found it to be informative, sincere, and thought provoking, but not contradictory to my stance for variety of reasons. Firstly, it is actually quite possible some of these women had partial or intact clits under their scar tissue that could be engaged for orgasmic response.

Let me explain a bit. In the study, the author interviews over 800 women and 300 men, and found that 90% of the women claimed to have orgasms with their husband anywhere from rarely to always. It doesn’t break down the percentages of the always or the sometimes or the rarelys, but it doesn’t matter too much. At the time this was written, the standard thought was that women with FGM could not possibly orgasm, and this article’s author, I think, really wanted to point out that this is simply not true. Since then, there have been plenty more studies suggesting that women with FGM can orgasm (4,5,12). This seemingly improbable ability is likely in no small part to what surgeons who do reconstructive surgery for FGM have begun observing.There is often some parts of the clitoral glans left after FMG. 

In fact, in the type of FGM that is practiced among the culture in this study, type III (also called infibulation), there was an unexpected reality that came to light when reconstructive surgery became more common (4,5,12). Nour et al found an intact clitoris in 48% of 40 infibulated/type III women undergoing corrective surgery. Type III FMG is pretty terrible.  At its worst, the clitoral glans inner labia are completely cut off, then the labia majora is sewn together leaving only a pinhole sized opening for, you know, urination, menstruation, childbirth, and intercourse (knifes are often used on the wedding night). As I discussed, it used to be assumed that the clitoris was always cut in this type III, but as surgeons have shown us more recently, this isn't always the case. In fact, after direct observation, this definition has been disputed enough that the World Health Organization changed the definition of Type III FMGs (the type from the ) from saying that the clitoris is always cut to defining it as one in which the skin is sewn together “with or without excision of the clitoris.” (14) Given that this article mentions that these surgeries, especially in the outlying areas, are done by untrained midwives, it doesn't seem that strange that there would be a variety in the types of cutting that is done. The statement from some women in the article that their scar tissue was erotically sensitive would also indeed point to some having a clitoris or part of a clitoris behind the scar tissue.

However, there’s not a lot of information to go on in this article besides a few specific anecdotes. It’s more like a thoughtful and informed story than a set of data being discussed. There is no distinction given about how all these women achieved the orgasm. Were they grinding against their husbands? One woman who said she orgasmed frequently said she “moved around a lot during intercourse.” Could she be grinding her hidden clitoris against her husband during intercourse? Or, was it a vaginally induced orgasm? We just don’t know. The “moving around a lot” woman was about as detailed as it got. It’s also questionable whether all or any of the events these women describe as “orgasm”  was even a physiological event. If I know anything about the word orgasm, I know that it is an incredibly culturally steeped word, so I have no idea what they mean when they say orgasm, and neither does the author.

My point here is that this study is not much different from any study asking women about orgasm. There simply isn’t any physical data to verify what they mean when they say it, and their method for getting an orgasm during intercourse (I’ll go ahead and assume there’s not a lot of oral or masturbating going on, but it’s not actually discussed) are not disclosed. Given that these FMG procedures do not universally leave women without an intact clitoral glans, these women could be getting these orgasms just about anyway any American woman could have gotten one.

(Just for fun, I’d like to openly wonder if these women and men in this culture, having probably not seen a lot of simulated sex on tv, movies, and porn, might be somewhat better off in terms of women reaching orgasm during intercourse than western folks. The fast, in-out-in-out style that is often depicted here, doesn’t tend towards a body position with the outer vulva in constant contact with the males body. Maybe, left to our own devices without pre-conceived ideas about what sex should look like, women and men tend to cling closer to each other and more gently move their pelvises in whatever ways feels good – making a grinding-the-clit style orgasm during intercourse more likely. Just a thought to ponder.)
VI. Women with spinal cord injuries experience orgasmsThe clitoris and vulva are innervated by the pudenda spinal nerve. However, in women who have no sensation in the pelvic region due to spinal cord injury, sexual response including orgasm have been documented in several papers. Komisaruk et al’s (2004) replication included fMRI brain imaging showing activation consistent with orgasm. They postulate this is possible due to the vagus nerve, a cranial, not spinal, nerve with projections in the pelvis. Several studies including that one also used as stimuli penetrative vaginal-cervical stimulation, not clitoral.See Sipski et al 1995a and b; Whipple et al 1996; and Komisaruk et al 2004.
I actually think the research into women with Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) and ability to orgasm is pretty cool stuff - and incredibly promising for many women with SCI. The studies Ed includes here show that although spinal injury has occurred at a location and to an extent that would seem to indicate a lack of ability to orgasm, orgasm does still occur for many women with SCI. Sipski et al tends toward this having something to do with reflex autonomic activity and Komisaruk , and Whipple tend towards this having something to do with the Vagus nerve having a direct path from the cervix to the brain. 

Also, the approaches in these 2 articles were different. Sipski’s work compared SCI and non SCI women, finding that when left to their own devices to stimulate themselves to orgasm, all of the non-SCI and about 50% of the SCI women verbally reported orgasm within 75 minutes (although many as quickly as under 10 minutes). All but 3 of the women chose the clitoris as part of their preferred stimulation (the other 3 reported their stimulation as vaginal area. None reported vaginal penetration). Physiologic data including blood pressure, heart rate, and respiration were recorded and reported. Pelvic muscle contractions were recorded, but not reported - and it doesn't say why.

In the Komisurak, Whipple study, 5 women were given cervical stimulation (and it’s a particular kind of cervical stimulation that involves a pessary, which is kinda like a hard cervical ring that had to be sutured to the cervix. Then there is a piece on the pessary that can be attached to the cervical stimulator device that is inserted into the vagina. It sort of puts suction-y pressure on the cervix that the woman controls herself. It’s not your average vaginal stimulation, ya know?) and 3 of them verbally reported orgasm which was accompanied by an increase in brain activity in places the researchers felt, given some past studies, were consistent with what would be expected during orgasm.  Pelvic muscular contraction, heart rate, respiration, and blood pressure were not measured and neither was pelvic muscular activity. They suggest the Vagus nerve bypasses the spine and makes this possible.

The first study does not support the idea that any kind of inner vaginal stimulation causes orgasm. All the stimulation to orgasm in it was in the form of some kind clitoral/vulvar stimulation (although 3 seemed to be closer to the vagina than the clitoris). The 2nd article doesn’t even discuss it. The Komisurak,Whipple study supports a very type of particular type of cervical stimulation having some amount of direct pathway to the brain. It also found increased brain activity at the time women stimulating their cervix this way claimed to orgasm. However, as of yet there is no clear understanding of whether that brain activity is a reliable marker to indicate any particular kind of climactic sexual experience, much less the muscle contractions identified by M&J’s work (which were not tested for). There is also no understanding of what that brain activity correlates to physically, or if it correlates to anything physical at all.  None of these studies discredit the 2 statements in question.
The dildo problem[The sex shop called] Sh™  have an extensive lesbian clientele who have no motivation to pander to male egos, expectations or even existence in sexual terms. Thus they provide an interesting test of what women actually want, away from ideological constraint, voting with their wallets. A typical, although by no means universal, lesbian desire, as represented by products bought, is for penetration. For example the Fun Factory Strap-on™ provides internal stimulation for both (female) partners. If it were true that penetration in sex is something done only to pander to male egos then the existence of such toys requires explanation.
How exactly does this defy my explanation? I certainly never said penetrative sex is something done only to pander to male ego. I never even said women don’t like vaginal penetration. In fact I took great pains in the last two responses I wrote to Ed to make that point clear. Of course vaginal stimulation and penetration can be and often are desired, arousing, and well liked sexual activities. My beef is about people saying or insinuating that stimulation on the inner parts of the vagina – alone - cause orgasm. Women buying dildos doesn’t also mean they are orgasming from vaginal stimulation. I think that is obvious.
VIII. On sensitivity and innervationIt is argued that the vagina has little or no sensitivity, and therefore it is unlikely to be instrumental in orgasm, particularly compared to the highly sensitive clitoris. It is a fact that the vagina is not especially sensitive compared to other body parts. However, there are three reasons I think this argument is inadequate...
He’s got a valid point. The simple fact that the vagina has a lower amount of nerves doesn't automatically lead to the vagina's inability to induce orgasm. I admit I have used the lack of vaginal innervation in this way even though it's not a good argument. I have seen the errors of my ways, and I don’t do it anymore (even though it is mentioned in the movie…Sorry - I talk about that HERE). However it is still true that there is no positive evidence that stimulation of the inner vagina causes orgasm.

Appendix C
I further submit that M&J is not considered the “gold standard” among psychologists, psychiatrists and other researchers. Seminal, perhaps. But the reigning and authoritative model? Not hardly. One of the problems M&J stipulated themselves: the relationship between physiologic, psychological, and sociological factors is qualitatively and quantitatively “totally variable” from one woman to the next (p. 127). M&J focus on the physiologic, calling it an admittedly limited jumping off point that has a degree of objectivity, even if it does not capture the nature of the phenomenon.
It might not be the reigning and authoritative model on how people feel about orgasm or how they describe them or any other thing psychologists study, but it’s pretty fundamental to the physiologic understanding of orgasm and arousal. That’s pretty hard to deny. There is simply not another large study that recorded and described what the body does during sufficient sexual stimulation. It’s clear that Masters and Johnson understood that there were subjective psycho-social aspects to arousal and orgasm – things like; the way a person subjectively feels about their orgasm, how a person prefers to control their orgasmic response, what kind of noises a person makes, what stimulus halts the progression of arousal, and what stimulus increases arousal. The options are unlimited. These are not unimportant to a person’s experience. However, they don’t change the basic physical path the body takes.
If you read further in that passage Ed takes from above,

“Where possible, material presented reflects consideration of three interacting areas of influence upon female orgasmic attainment previously recognized in attempts to understand and to interpret female sexual response: (1) physiologic (characteristic physical conditions and reactions during the peak of sex tension increments); (2)psychological (psychosexual orientation and receptivity to orgasmic attainment); (3) sociologic (cultural, environmental, and social factors influencing orgasmic incidence or ability. The quantitative and qualitative relationship of these factors appears totally variable between one woman’s orgasmic experiences, and orgasm as it occurs in other women. Only baseline physiological reactions and occasional individually characteristic modes of expression remain constant from orgasm to orgasm, reflecting the human female’s apparent tendency toward orientation of sexual expression to psychosocial demand.”

It seems that M&J were actually saying that even with the incredibly variable psycho-sociol elements that make women’s relationship to orgasm quite diverse, the physiological markers of orgasm were the only constant. So, yes, to have a deep, full, complex understanding of what an orgasm is in the human experience is quite complicated and beyond Human Sexual Response, but to have a clear, detailed, seemingly universal understanding of what an orgasm looks like physically, is not that complicated at all and within the scope of Human Sexual Response.
Kaplan (1977) wrote that M&J did not even mention sexual desire! How can a coherent account of human sexual response neglect to consider sexual desire? As if sexuality and sexual experience is about quantified muscle contractions and blood flow.
I honestly don’t know how to be more clear about this. Sexuality and human sexual experience does not need to be quantified or described in order to understand what an orgasm is. An orgasm is an orgasm. Obviously sexuality and sexual experience is not merely about muscle contractions and blood flow, but the physical definition of an orgasm is very much about that.
Research has expanded in other directions as well. MRI and sonography have provided better understanding of the biomechanics of sex than M&J ever had. They wrote that the sole purpose of the clitoris was to create or elevate sexual tension by stimulation of the glans. This is almost certainly not correct. Research is on-going, but more recent studies suggest the erectile tissue of the clitoral complex helps tent the vagina for intercourse. During intercourse, the penis tends to compress the clitoral body and jam the anterior vagina against the root of the clitoris, causing a pumping action on the Kobelt plexus (Buisson et al, 2010).
MRI and sonography have certainly expanded on the understandings of biomechanics of sex. M&J actually did acknowledge their limitations in understanding the clitoris.

“It should be emphasized that the exact roles of the crura (clitoral legs), suspensory ligaments, and various muscle bundles in clitoral retraction have not been determined with total conviction.” (Masters 1966 p51)

I think these and other technologies could be promising in allowing observation of the physical reactions during intercourse in women who say they have orgasms from nothing more than inner vaginal stimualtion. Unfortunately, to date, these observations have never been made. The Buisson et al 2010 paper Clint speaks of was useful and interesting in that it did in fact show that in one couple the erect penis compressed the clitoral legs during intercourse. Although the woman in this study claimed that she regularly has vaginally induced orgasms (VIO), she nor her partner orgasm in this study, so it really gives us nothing but a possible future investigative direction when it comes to the question of what VIOs are, what stimulation is needed to attain them, and how the body reacts. And on a side note, the study doesn’t give a reason why the couple stops before orgasm. Wouldn’t it have been a great aspect to this study?
Evolutionary psychologists have also investigated possible psychological mechanisms involved in sexual response—Men’s masculinity and attractiveness predict their female partners’ reported orgasm frequency and timing. [Link]
Maybe women with more attractive men orgasm more frequently during intercourse, and maybe they don’t. It doesn’t matter to the physical definition of orgasm.  Just to humor it though, if this is meant to have something to do with the idea of a VIO, then it is a terribly inconclusive study on the topic. The questionnaires the women answered did not differentiate between orgasms from vaginal intercourse only and those caused with ancillary clitoral stimulation. It’s also a questionnaire without physical verification of these women’s answers, so any claims of VIO are subject to doubt.

Are There Different Types of Female Orgasm? [Link]
This is based on analysis of a questionnaire that 1) did not include physical verification for the women’s claims about how the event they describes as “orgasm” was achieved or what the physical reality of that event was, and 2) did not make a distinction between intercourse with ancillary clitoral grinding vs. intercourse with no ancillary clitoral stimulation. These results are an interesting look into how women describe a thing that they call orgasm, but that is it. It is not certain that experiences these women are speaking of have anything to do with each other in a physical sense, and if the scientific community is going to accept that anything any woman says is an orgasm should be defined as an orgasm, I would think that to be  incredibly confusing and problematic for getting any kind of meaningful understanding about female sexual response.

Genetic influences on variation in female orgasmic function: a twin study [Link]
This study indicates, using a traditional twin study questionnaire, that the variability in the ability to orgasm for women may be somewhere between 34 and 45% due to genetics. This is due to the fact that genetically identical twins answered questions about their ability to orgasm through masturbation and through intercourse more alike than sets of non-identical twins. As the authors say, this might be due to genetic qualities of the genitals or hormones or it might have to do with things like depression and temperament, so it’s an interesting angle to investigate further. However,  I’m not sure what it’s supposed to convince me of in relation to psychology and/or social elements changing the meaning of orgasm.
M&J took pains, several times, to spell out the importance of non-physical factors and influences: the psychosocial. To wit,A detailed psychosocial study of the research population cannot be presented within the framework of this text. Yet neither this book nor this chapter can be considered complete without emphasizing an acute awareness of the vital, certainly the primary influence, exerted by psychosocial factors upon human sexuality, particularly that of orgasmic attainment of the female. . . .physiologic detail is of value only when considered in relation to [behavioral theory and sociologic concept].M&J are saying that the physical signs are correlative indicators of orgasm, not that they literally are orgasm themselves. If you believe M&J is the “gold standard” (I would not recommend it), you should accept their contention that physiology is not the definition of orgasm.
What M&J are saying there is that social and physiological aspects are incredibly important to human sexuality and to the attainment of female orgasm – meaning the female’s ability to get to the point of having those muscle spasms we call orgasm. I would agree. In Human Sexual Inadequacy, their book describing research into therapy for sexual dysfunction, they were clear that arousal and orgasm are basic functions of the human body, but that psycho-social factors can easily put a stop to the physiological progression of sexual response. They were, as am I, quite aware that orgasm is attained and experienced through a filter of infinitely diverse psycho-social variables, but beyond “orgasmic attainment” there is an objective physiological aspect that is the physiologic orgasm. If you want to call that merely the indicator of an orgasm, I’m okay with that. I would call the blockage of oxygen rich blood to a section of heart muscle a heart attack. However, I’m okay with you calling it an indicator of a heart attack, given all the psycho-social elements that go into the lead up it

Asserting that it is of critical importance to one’s sexual experience the fact of whether the key sensors are in the vaginal tissue, or a couple centimeters away in the clitoral body that can often be smashed against it during penetrative intercourse, strikes me as pedantic and a little silly.

For the record, I don’t and wouldn’t argue whether the key sensors are in the vaginal tissue, clitoral legs sitting close to and being smashed by a penetrated vagina, nor even in the prostate tissue. I would argue they are on none of those and as yet have only been proved to be in and around the clitoral glans. However, if we do find that something within the vagina which seems to trigger orgasm also, I think it is absolutely of scientific import to clearly understand what the mechanism and what the key sensors are. I also think it is of personal import for many people, because knowing what the mechanism is can help people describe and teach how to attain orgasm this way.

1. Buisson, O., Foldes, P., Jannini, E., & Mimoun, S. (2010). Coitus as revealed by ultrasound in one volunteer couple. The journal of sexual medicine, 7(8), 2750-2754.

2. Barry R. Komisaruk, Beverly Whipple, Audrita Crawford, Sherry Grimes, Wen-Ching Liu, Andrew Kalnin, Kristine Mosier, 2004. Brain activation during vaginocervical self-stimulation and orgasm in women with complete spinal cord injury: fMRI evidence of mediation by the Vagus nerves, Brain Research, Volume 1024, Issues 1–2, 22. Pages 77-88.

3. Carmichael MS. Relationships among cardiovascular, muscular, and oxytocin responses during human sexual activity. Arch Sex Behav. 1994 Feb;23(1):59-79.

4. Catania L. Pleasure and orgasm in women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C). J Sex Med. 2007 Nov;4(6):1666-78.

5. Fazari AB et al. Reconstructive surgery for female genital mutilation starts sexual functioning in Sudanese woman: a case report. J Sex Med. 2013 Nov;10(11):2861-5

6. Lightfoot-Klein, Hanny, 1989. The Sexual Experience and Marital Adjustment of Genitally Circumcised and Infibulated Females in the Sudan. The Journal of Sex Research. Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 375-392.

7. Masters, W and Virginia Johnson. Human Sexual Response. Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 1966.

8.Masters, W and Virginia Johnson. Human Sexual Inadequacy. Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 1970.

9. Meston CM, Levin RJ, Sipski ML, Hull EM, Heiman JR (2004). Women's orgasm. Annual Review of Sex Research, 15, 173-257

10.M. Sipski, C. Alexander, R. Rosen, 1995a. Orgasm in women with spinal cord injuries: a laboratory-based assessment. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., 76, pp. 1097–1102.

11.M.L. Sipski, C.J. Alexander, 1995b. Spinal cord injury and female sexuality. Annu. Rev. Sex Res., 6 (1995), pp. 224–244.

12. Nour et al. Defibulation to Treat Female Genital Cutting: Effect on Symptoms and Sexual Function. Obstet Gynecol 2006;108:55–60

13. B. Whipple, C.A. Gerdes, B.R. Komisaruk, 1996. Sexual response to self-stimulation in women with complete spinal cord injury J. Sex Res., 33, pp. 231–240.

14. World Health Organizations. Classifications of female genital mutilation.
 http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/overview/en/ Accessed January, 14 2014.