Size Matters (Sorta Kinda)

September 14, 2009 3:05 AM

If you want a vaginal orgasm, according to a new study size does matter. But is there a hidden agenda behind the study?

Dr Vivienne Cass, a professor at Curtin University of Technology in Perth and author of The Elusive Orgasm, worries about the motivations of research that emphasises vaginal over clitoral orgasms, arguing that it is part of the increasing "medicalisation of sexuality". She argues that women who can't achieve vaginal orgasms are basically treated as sick and this, in turn, allows drug companies to sell them a pill.

But Associate Professor Rosemary Coates, president of the World Association for Sexual Health, believes that such assumptions are "reverting back to Freudian assumptions about female sexual responses," saying that "some form of clitoral stimulation is almost always required to trigger orgasm." However the study authors dismiss this view as "clitorocentric" and blame it for the "destruction of human pleasure."

Meanwhile, the studies central claim, that size matters shows that one-third of the women surveyed said that they were more likely to have an orgasm with a longer than average penis.

"Given that the vagina [has a high nerve density] throughout… more thorough stimulation of the full length of the vagina… might result in a more fulfilling experience," the paper's authors write. They also found that sexual education which taught women the vagina was important for eliciting female orgasm was also of benefit.

The message then is clear. If you're a man with a longer than average penis, don't go asking any frogs to marry you. [rimshot]

posted by Effigy2000 (177 comments total)

More inside indeed.
posted by Dr Dracator at 3:23 AM on September 14, 2009 [111 favorites]

Now of course I have a gigantic penis, but the few "non-clitoral" orgasms I have ... encountered ... were 100% to do with the mood / passion / etc.

I.e., it could have been a non-vaginal orgasm. I think the elbow or a kneecap is enough when sexual tension is that high.
posted by krilli at 3:38 AM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

Here are the study aims according to the abstract:

Aims. To examine the extent to which women's vaginal orgasm consistency is associated with (i) being told in childhood or adolescence that the vagina was the important zone for inducing female orgasm; (ii) how well they focus mentally on vaginal sensations during PVI; (iii) greater PVI duration; and (iv) preference for above-average penis length.

In my personal experience, (ii) and (iii) are more important by far, and (iv) can be a definite handicap in some positions. But is 14.5 centimeters that much longer than average? I would have thought that was pretty much within the normal range, not that I ever pulled out a tape measure with any of my partners.

I once dumped a very nice guy after I realized during a makeout session that his equipment was practically the length and width of my forearm. There was just no way it was going to happen. True story.
posted by timeo danaos at 3:53 AM on September 14, 2009 [2 favorites]

The researchers define a vaginal orgasm as an "orgasm produced simply from movements of the penis in [the] vagina without any additional stimulation."

This completely confuses me. How the heck do you have a penis (or phallic object for the non-hetronormative) in a vagina without get all close and cuddly with the clitoris too? They are located kind of close together. I'm picturing a guy deliberating bending back so he doesn't touch the woman at all - except with his penis.

And I thought the glans was only part of the clitoris and the nerves ran alongside the vaginal walls so vaginal sex was, also, stimulating the clitoris.
posted by saucysault at 3:59 AM on September 14, 2009 [7 favorites]

I'm picturing a guy deliberating bending back so he doesn't touch the woman at all - except with his penis.

The man bounces his penis in front of the lane once, then twice. As the crowd go silent to watch his free throw, he takes careful aim, and bounces his penis off the backboard, rebounding once on the steel ring, it enters the vagina with a satisfying noise of rubber on string. The crowd cheers!

When the referee gives him his penis back, he bounces it again for the second throw...
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 4:12 AM on September 14, 2009 [8 favorites]

You're blaming the small penis, you've got the huge vagina...it's not necessary.
posted by turgid dahlia at 4:13 AM on September 14, 2009 [2 favorites]

I'm totally clitorocentric. Shit like this just pisses me right off.

I had two orgasms tonight. I got laid twice, and then I went to sleep in a haze of endorphins, and it was fucking awesome. But they weren't real orgasms! Oh no, like most women, I'm handicapped by my defective vagina, so I required manual stimulation to reach orgasm! Despite the fact that my hands are conveniently sized so as to reach my clitoris easily, and there are many positions in which it's quite easy to fuck your cake and jerk it too, I obviously am being deprived.

I would go on but I'm about to go post an Ask Me question about whether I should even bother having sexual relationships.
posted by Juliet Banana at 4:15 AM on September 14, 2009 [31 favorites]

This is why I date women with tiny forearms.
posted by horsewithnoname at 4:20 AM on September 14, 2009 [37 favorites]

I can't take seriously anything that considers clitoral and vaginal orgasm as separate phenomena. It's a throwback to Freud and doesn't deserve a place in modern discourse about female sexuality. For me, this research only backs that up, as it shows that those women who report vaginal orgasms are the most socialized and invested in its existence. Nothing new to see here, except that almost anything can get published.
posted by Sova at 4:24 AM on September 14, 2009 [11 favorites]

A longer penis? What on earth could a longer penis do for me? Oh yeah, that's right, give me a achy frikkin cervix. No thanks, I'll go for girth any day when we're talking about size 'enhancing' the experience. Even so, all of the best sex I've had has been with 'average' (or smaller) penises. Perhaps I just have a short vagina?

Also... everyone (who owns a vagina) knows there are no (or at least significantly fewer?) nerve endings in the deeper areas of the vagina, so how the hell could a longer penis provide more stimulation?
posted by sunshinesky at 4:24 AM on September 14, 2009 [8 favorites]

"One-third of the women (34 per cent) said that they were more likely to have an orgasm with a longer than average penis (14.5 centimetres), but nearly two-thirds said that they had no preference."

That doesn't sound like very compelling evidence one way or the other.

Anybody who's interested in the history of the vaginal v. clitoral debate should check out The G-Spot and Other Recent Discoveries About Human Sexuality, where the authors present proof for G-spot orgasms and female ejaculation, but also bend over backwards asking their readers to accept their own orgasms for what they are instead of putting pressure on themselves to have a certain kind of orgasm.

Here's a quote:

"Inevitably some people are going to decide that they prefer orgasms that can be classified at one point or another on each continuum. We make no value judgment about where people are or want to be on these continuums. We do want people to be aware of their options and the various means of achieving them. As we have said before—but it is certainly important enough to repeat several times—don’t use the information in this book to set up new standards for yourself or your partner because, by doing so, you may undermine the pleasures that are already yours."

Instead of saying "Hey look we found the right way to have orgasms!" they're just presenting evidence for orgasmic variation, which I guess I just think is awesome. Serious plug for Ladas, Perry, and Whipple back in 1982.
posted by besonders at 4:40 AM on September 14, 2009 [4 favorites]

Reading statements like "In American culture we tend to view sex as an act of work,..." and "We have removed the social constraints of personal interaction and given free reign to the tyranny of the disembodied penis." make me really glad there were no blogs when I was writing school papers.
posted by vapidave at 4:41 AM on September 14, 2009

[rimshot]

I thought we were talking about vaginal sex?
posted by crossoverman at 4:43 AM on September 14, 2009 [10 favorites]

I'm totally clitorocentric.

Yeah, me too.
posted by rokusan at 4:46 AM on September 14, 2009

But is 14.5 centimeters that much longer than average?

That's just under 6 inches. I would have said that was about an inch longer than average but... you know...
posted by crossoverman at 4:52 AM on September 14, 2009

Well, I take from this information this: women get two kinds of orgasms and men only get one. This is discriminatory. I'm writing my Conressional representative. If we can't achieve equality of orgasm, how are we going to solve racism? Somebody should organize a Million Penis March!
posted by jamstigator at 4:54 AM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

according to a new study size does matter.

Researchers sifted over 500 ads on Craigslist's "casual encounters" category to reach this conclusion.
posted by qvantamon at 5:01 AM on September 14, 2009 [2 favorites]

Well, I take from this information this: women get two kinds of orgasms and men only get one.

No, men can orgasm from many different kinds of manipulation of their sex organs, the same way women have multiple means to an end. It's probably (overall) easier for men, too.

(Heck, we can do it in our sleep.)
posted by rokusan at 5:08 AM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

But is 14.5 centimeters that much longer than average?

That's just under 6 inches. I would have said that was about an inch longer than average but... you know...

You know why women are so bad at math?

Because all their lives they've been told this is six inches (*holds up fingers a couple inches apart).
posted by Pollomacho at 5:09 AM on September 14, 2009 [15 favorites]

We have removed the social constraints of personal interaction and given free reign to the tyranny of the disembodied penis.

This reminds me, it's been a hella long time since I last saw Zardoz.
posted by Greg Nog at 5:12 AM on September 14, 2009 [19 favorites]

Because all their lives they've been told this is six inches (*holds up fingers a couple inches apart).

Well, yeah. The ones who volunteered any information on the topic all said it was six inches.

Now I feel so naive.
posted by timeo danaos at 5:19 AM on September 14, 2009

So is this all part of a viral campaign for a new womens-viagra that's coming out next spring? Because I feel like in recent weeks this topic has popped up all over the place.

I feel like there's a team of marketing experts sitting in a basement somewhere trying to find the most evil ways to make women feel insecure about something they previously didn't think about, like the claim that a woman’s history of vaginal orgasm is discernible from her walk. I call Pepsi Blue on the whole damn phenomena.
posted by svenni at 5:23 AM on September 14, 2009 [5 favorites]

Also... everyone (who owns a vagina) knows there are no (or at least significantly fewer?) nerve endings in the deeper areas of the vagina, so how the hell could a longer penis provide more stimulation?

Mentally.

But for the quantifiers out there, let's also consider this: assume a guy with a 5-inch cock has the stamina for x thrusts per encounter. I just Googled up 225 as the average x. Let's assume that's correct for the moment. Also, let's assume that all 5 of those inches are traveling past the more sensitive part of the vagina on the way in and on the way out. So she's getting 5*2*225 effective cock-inches per encounter with this guy. That's 2,250 cock-inches, or 187.5 cock-feet.

Now add an inch to his cock. If (?) he can maintain the same number of thrusts (225) and put that extra inch in and out with each thrust (?), she's now getting 2,700 cock-inches, or 225 cock-feet, which is 37.5 more cock-feet.

Of course, the extra effort required to lay the extra pipe might mean that his thrust level deteriorates. That's where the hive crotch comes in. Go experiment and report your results back here! If you can, have a third person taking the measurements and keeping count.
posted by pracowity at 5:26 AM on September 14, 2009 [95 favorites]

(Heck, we can do it in our sleep.)

Women can orgasm in sleep as well. It kinda further denies any possible distinction between vaginal and clitoral because it doesn't require physical stimulation and so can't be located in the same way. It's just another route to orgasm, whatever that may be for you.
posted by Sova at 5:28 AM on September 14, 2009 [4 favorites]

a bit of anatomy lesson: the clitoris has a highly innervated interior structure, which runs parallel to the upper wall of the vagina. Most sex researches believe the evidence that a "vaginal orgasm" is one in which the clitoris is stimulated by the movement of the vaginal wall against the clitoral "shaft." Additionally, several studies have suggested that the distance between the clitoral head and the vaginal opening (which varies among women) makes a difference in whether a penis can provide direct stimulation during sex in the missionary position. This clitoral distance conundrum affects about 1/3 of women, suspiciously the same proportion who report results in the Cass study.
posted by Jon_Evil at 5:29 AM on September 14, 2009 [6 favorites]

If you can, have a third person taking the measurements and keeping count.

You could duct tape a pedometer to your hip.
posted by Pollomacho at 5:46 AM on September 14, 2009 [2 favorites]

Wait, there's a variety of sexual responses in women? No way!

Actually, I think it's fascinating how both the study's authors and their critics seem to be making a very similar argument. Authors: women who orgasm through penetration alone shouldn't be medicalized and told to focus on their clitorises. Critics: this study aids medicalization of women's orgasms, regardless of how that orgasm is really being created.

I can see the problems of relying on self-reporting (especially about penis size), but at the same time someone's satisfaction with their own sex life should be the gold standard. Hooking someone up the orgasmo-meter and telling them that their sexual response, which they have always enjoyed and been happy with, scores only 2.5 Orgs, compared to the human average of 50 Orgs, isn't going to make that person any happier.

And that's the weird thing about a lot of the talk about orgasms, even some of the supposedly sex-positive stuff. There's such a strong tone of "sure, you think you are happy, but that's because you are deluded and doing it wrong." It's great to present alternatives and options, but at the end of the day the focus should be much more on whether you are happy and satisfied, not how close are you to someone else's standard.
posted by Forktine at 5:57 AM on September 14, 2009 [3 favorites]

You could duct tape a pedometer to your hip.

"Come on honey, it's for science!"
posted by Pollomacho at 6:00 AM on September 14, 2009

Maybe it is just because I have a Czech friend who found that while living in the UK she was subjected to a massive amount of "Eastern European women are sluts" stereotyping but why did the Scottish author limit the study to such a small and homogenous and hetrosexual group instead of a broader cross cultural comparison?
posted by saucysault at 6:05 AM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

You could duct tape a pedometer to your hip.

"Come on honey, it's for science!"

I once worked with researchers conducting a clinical trial of a new erectile dysfunction drug. One of the enrollment criteria was that couples had to be willing to use a stopwatch to document the exact duration of penis-in-vagina intercourse.

This was less of a bar to recruitment than you might imagine. Hey, they got a free stopwatch out of it!
posted by timeo danaos at 6:06 AM on September 14, 2009 [3 favorites]

I'd think self-reported stopwatch times might suffer the same problem as self-reported penis sizes. "Ooh, that's not great. But hey, if I move the decimal two places to the right..."
posted by Forktine at 6:14 AM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

Medicalization of sex, indeed. Jeebus. There's a fair number of women who can't have / haven't had an orgasm, and they are told by pop culture that they're freaks; this idiocy about vaginal versus clitoral just further propagates the idea that there's a RIGHT WAY and a WRONG WAY of doing it. And there's not.

Generally, sex is fun. It can be a component of intimacy. It can have a utilitarian function. It can just be a good, cathartic fuck. When it's consensual, it should feel good, whatever that means for the participants. It's not a race (unless that's your thing), but everybody wins. How you go about the details is your business.

Also: tapping the cervix is often considered a bug, not a feature.
posted by sadiehawkinstein at 6:26 AM on September 14, 2009 [4 favorites]

You could duct tape a pedometer to your hip.

And thus, a new, disturbing trend in Nike+ competition was born.
posted by qvantamon at 6:30 AM on September 14, 2009 [8 favorites]

Why did they only do time trials on penis-in-vagina sex? I'd think if you were going to sell an impotence drug you'd want it to work every time like the roofies Billy Dee used to slip into women's malt liquor.
posted by Pollomacho at 6:31 AM on September 14, 2009

Lesbian orgasms mean nothing to these people, too. Clearly, lesbians don't orgasm, being all penis free and all.

Let's just have some sex and quit worrying about it so much. Sometimes it's even more fun when you don't have a goal, like taking a long meander on the beach. You aren't going anywhere in particular, but the journey is worth it on its own.
posted by Jilder at 6:37 AM on September 14, 2009 [2 favorites]

HIDDEN VAGENDA.

That is all.
posted by hermitosis at 6:53 AM on September 14, 2009 [18 favorites]

Since when does being a lesbian make you penis free. Lesbians aren't necessarily anti-penis, they just aren't into the men attached to them.
posted by Pollomacho at 6:54 AM on September 14, 2009 [2 favorites]

Great, as if I wasn't already feeling grossly inadequate...
posted by tommasz at 6:58 AM on September 14, 2009

Somebody should organize a Million Penis March!

Well, there was a Million Dick March on Saturday; is that close enough? (It turns out there were only a few tens of thousands of them.)
posted by grouse at 6:58 AM on September 14, 2009 [3 favorites]

Also: tapping the cervix is often considered a bug, not a feature.

Quoted for being WISDOM FOR THE AGES.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:08 AM on September 14, 2009 [13 favorites]

Somebody should organize a Million Penis March!

And call it "The Million Glans March," obviously.
posted by Elsa at 7:11 AM on September 14, 2009 [2 favorites]

I dunno if I'm part of a new generation of men or what, but I always think of the clitoral orgasm as the 'default' orgasm.

All this talk about "vaginal orgasm" -- and I mean really, is there any other kind? what, is the clitoris suddenly a part of the gall bladder or something? -- seems pretty misguided. It's like when you read Lady Chatterly's Lover, and you think, "why the hell couldn't Clifford just go down on her? And why does her lover (who talks like Scottish Cookie Monster) insist that the 'vaginal' orgasm is the only true orgasm? Is Lawrence simply unaware of the female anatomy?"

Besides, if you can truly bring a woman to teary-eyed, body-shaking, paroxysmal climax, you do not need to worry about how big your dick is. What you need to do is hold her, kiss her on the neck, run your fingers through her hair, and sleep the sleep of the satisfied. And then take her out the next day for pancakes.

Because pancakes are rad.
posted by Afroblanco at 7:13 AM on September 14, 2009 [39 favorites]

jamstigator: "women get two kinds of orgasms and men only get one"

Prostate Orgasm.
posted by idiopath at 7:16 AM on September 14, 2009 [6 favorites]

Afroblanco: ""vaginal orgasm" -- and I mean really, is there any other kind?"

The clitoris is not part of the vagina. Medically speaking the vagina is an orifice, and not the surrounding external or internal structures.
posted by idiopath at 7:17 AM on September 14, 2009 [2 favorites]

From the article:

"Self-reporting needs to be done very carefully," Dr O'Brien said. "These things come down to perceptions and that introduces a weakness in the study."

What an understatement!
posted by Obscure Reference at 7:20 AM on September 14, 2009 [3 favorites]

See? This is why I just use the Orgasmatron.
posted by asusu at 7:29 AM on September 14, 2009 [2 favorites]

A longer penis? What on earth could a longer penis do for me? Oh yeah, that's right, give me a achy frikkin cervix.

Some girls actually like that. OK not the achiness, but the hurt.

Man I sound like a nasty, nasty pervert here, but this is the truth as far as I know it.

(And probably it is the girls that like it that are the nasty, nasty perverts – and not necessarily me.)
posted by krilli at 7:39 AM on September 14, 2009

Some girls actually like that. OK not the achiness, but the hurt. Man I sound like a nasty, nasty pervert here, but this is the truth as far as I know it.

That qualifier is very important. I happen to most definitely not be one of the people who likes it. (And of course, I also happen to be one of a subset whose cervix is in an unusual place because of a retroverted uterus, so I'm more likely to have things bump into it and ow.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:43 AM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

How the heck do you have a penis (or phallic object for the non-hetronormative) in a vagina without get all close and cuddly with the clitoris too?

HELLO DOGGY STYLE

And also, Jesus, folks, the "vagina" we're talking about here is the vaginal canal, not the entire female genitalia. Yes, I know lay people (ha ha) say "vagina" to mean the whole cunt, but sex and reproduction and gynecology researchers don't.

And also, since only 30% of women at most have "vaginal orgasms," this is a study of rather limited utility.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:46 AM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

Oh, and:

How the heck do you have a penis (or phallic object for the non-hetronormative) in a vagina without get all close and cuddly with the clitoris too?

The close-and-cuddly you get with thrusting is intermittent, and isn't always enough.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:54 AM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

Just what we need, one more UR DOIN IT RONG sex study to make women feel inadequate about their orgasms and men about their penis size, as if we don't already have enough of this mess. PROTIP: If you and your partner(s) are enjoying your sexual relations, you're doing it right.
posted by notashroom at 8:03 AM on September 14, 2009 [5 favorites]

LOL XXX-IANS
posted by ob at 8:04 AM on September 14, 2009 [10 favorites]

Now add an inch to his cock. If (?) he can maintain the same number of thrusts (225) and put that extra inch in and out with each thrust (?), she's now getting 2,700 cock-inches, or 225 cock-feet, which is 37.5 more cock-feet.

[...]

posted by pracowity at 8:26 AM on September 14

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

prah-tso-VEE-tih
/praʦɔ'vitɨ/
posted by pracowity

Which, if anyone is curious, is Polish for 'hard-working.'

posted by languagehat at 12:23 PM on July 30

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

eponysterical.
posted by Afroblanco at 8:05 AM on September 14, 2009 [3 favorites]

Last weekend I was at a party. A very beautiful woman (late 30's-early 40's) was sitting on the cooler, which just looks like a table. I ask if I can get a beer and explain she's on the cooler. After I made a joke about how she could charge money, she said "maybe I could charge for kisses, or maybe I'd have to pay." I thought I gallantly said she would never have to do that, but my friend said I was tipsy and said that she'd never have to do that as she was very attractive. Anyway, she immediately invites me to sit down next to her. Promising.

So we get to chatting and within 45 seconds she starts to say that she has a problem. I ask what it is. She says that when she started seeing the guy she is dating that he said he was "small." I said well it can't be too important." She asked why I said that and I mentioned that she was still with him, so he must have something you really like. No, she insisted, size was really, really important.

Ewwwww. . . . .

(I later found out that she is bascially nuts)
posted by Ironmouth at 8:06 AM on September 14, 2009

The close-and-cuddly you get with thrusting is intermittent, and isn't always enough.

That's why it is supposed to be the bump AND grind.
posted by Pollomacho at 8:07 AM on September 14, 2009

one more UR DOIN IT RONG sex study to make women feel inadequate about their orgasms and men about their penis size, as if we don't already have enough of this mess. PROTIP: If you and your partner(s) are enjoying your sexual relations, you're doing it right.

Seems like there's been a spate of "my man can't come what's wrong with him" questions on AskMe of late. I think something bad is going around. Instead of dropping the worst parts of male sterotyping, women are just adopting it wholesale.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:08 AM on September 14, 2009

TMI.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:08 AM on September 14, 2009

I think the reason length is something that can cause this kind of orgasm, but width isn't cited is because a longer than normal penis will stretch the entire vagina when it bottoms out and thus make everything tighter. So one feels a very unique sensation compared to regular sex. If you are a person that likes that stretch, longer is going to be something you prefer. A shorter penis just can't do it. Not possible, even if its really wide, the wide stretch is in a different direction and doesn't stretch the whole thing. Also, length stretch can be easily regulated by depth, where stretch from width is a) always the same i/e not variable on demand and b) Is often much reduced with enough encounters with the same person. there is no law you can't combine this depth stretch with clitoral stimulation and shoot for a combined type orgasm. You may not get both, but trying is most of the fun. Shooting for both makes whichever one you find better IMHO.

Also, direct g-spot stimulation can cause a vaginal orgasm. It really exists. It has a different texture, you can find it. Its not that difficult. reach in, hook your finger around the pubic bone, there you are. Many people find combining g-spot and oral-clitoral stimulation is a winning combination, if you are just looking for a great orgasm and, again, don't care which bit it comes from.
posted by Antidisestablishmentarianist at 8:10 AM on September 14, 2009

If you're a man with a longer than average penis, don't go asking any frogs to marry you.

haha.. he got no more penis liao.. faint!!!
posted by mazola at 8:12 AM on September 14, 2009 [4 favorites]

What's a cockfoot in metric?
posted by electroboy at 8:15 AM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

$20, same as in Imperial.
posted by grouse at 8:21 AM on September 14, 2009 [11 favorites]

FYI ladies, us big guys don't like the diaphragm so don't try using it as a cushion to protect your cervix from a battering from a big guy. When the head runs into to the edge of the diaphragm, we big guys say ouch.

Hey did I mention I'm a big guy? Maybe that's where I got my name. Maybe!
posted by surplus at 8:31 AM on September 14, 2009

FYI ladies, us big guys don't like the diaphragm so don't try using it as a cushion to protect your cervix from a battering from a big guy.

*blink* Erm, I think the women who use diaphragms are using them for a somewhat different reason (i.e., they're trying to not get knocked up). The diaphragm, as I understand it, is inconvenient enough a gizmo that I doubt women would be using it in this fashion. (Correct me if I'm wrong, mind you, but I'm just assuming.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:35 AM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

Fifty bucks? Sure, I'll take it!

You want that as 2 twenties and a ten? Or 5 tens?

I don't care. Fifty bucks is fifty bucks. I'll take it however it, um, comes.
posted by staggering termagant at 8:40 AM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

I just Googled up 225 as the average x

You know the bored-looking people at the entrances of stores, subways, and theaters with clickers, who count how many people walked in?

I imagine that in this study, every couple has one of them standing off to the side.

Click. click. click. Looks at watch, thinks about going to the food court.
posted by zippy at 8:49 AM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

If you really want to maximize cock-footage during sex, the easiest way is to adapt a continuously-running conveyor belt in your cock, and just let it roll.

Then the question becomes - can a woman take off from a conveyor belt?
posted by qvantamon at 9:05 AM on September 14, 2009 [5 favorites]

PROTIP: If you and your partner(s) are enjoying your sexual relations, you're doing it right.

Amen, notashroom. This is one of the most profound things anyone has ever said about sex.

Sex does not have to look like porn. Guys don't have to have giant spurting orgasms, they don't have to have super-long dicks, and they don't have to come buckets from any given sexual activity. Girls do not have to come from thrusting alone, they don't have to have giant boobs or small labia, they don't have to deep-throat.

Movies are not real life. I can't get a parking space right in front of the White House. If I turn on the radio or TV, the news anchors aren't talking about whatever it is that is on my mind at that moment. The kids in my life are not all precocious romping cherubs who never have to throw up, never miss the toilet seat, and never get sulky. When I get sick, it doesn't magically make me more beautiful and spiritual a la Ali McGraw in Love Story--it makes me cranky and puffy-faced and filled with rage.

And although I think that the descriptive project of research into human sexuality is important and significant, I think that applying anything learned from that in prescriptive ways can be dangerous. Especially when the prescription is anything other than "human beings are many and various and have many and various things that float their boats and turn their cranks."

The latter was the whole point of Kinsey's research efforts, flawed as they were. Describing the infinite garden of human sexuality is a fantastic project. Trying to reduce sex to a set of recipes is at best counterproductive, and at worst stifling of a deep human need for self-expression.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:07 AM on September 14, 2009 [5 favorites]

And probably it is the girls that like it {cervix-ramming intercourse} that are the nasty, nasty perverts

No. They're women who like cervix-ramming intercourse. "Nasty" and "perverted" aren't in it, unless that's how they self-identify, in which case more power to them.

(Cervix-ramming intercourse is one of those things that the people who like really seem to like, and the people who hate really seem to hate. I am in the "hate" camp myself, but I guess that leaves more for the ladies who like it.)
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:09 AM on September 14, 2009 [2 favorites]

Evolution baby, if there was any particular advantage to a large wang we would all have them.
posted by Damienmce at 9:13 AM on September 14, 2009

Evolution baby, if there was any particular advantage to a large wang we would all have them.

That's not how evolution works in beings as complex as humans. There is a tremendous advantage to perfect eyesight, but we don't all have that.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:21 AM on September 14, 2009

Evolution baby, if there was any particular advantage to a large wang we would all have them.

Pretty much, we all do. Our penises are, generally speaking, twice the size of those of chimpanzees, and much larger than 1-inch gorilla penises.
posted by grouse at 9:23 AM on September 14, 2009

Evolution baby, if there was any particular advantage to a large wang we would all have them.

This also explains the extreme variation in vaginal morphology -- in spite of what porn would have us believe. Throughout history, humankind has agreed on one thing : we're just so happy to see one, we could really care less what it looks like.
posted by Afroblanco at 9:23 AM on September 14, 2009 [7 favorites]

I kind of like xkcd's take on the size question.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:24 AM on September 14, 2009

None of this has answered my question about how I go about having a vaginal orgasm.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:28 AM on September 14, 2009

Metafilter: the tyranny of the disembodied penis
posted by benzenedream at 9:29 AM on September 14, 2009

Some totally normal women have only clitoral orgasms, meaning any penetration with thrusting precludes orgasm. This does not mean we do not enjoy penetration. This does not mean something is wrong with us. Please, if you are a woman in this camp, don't fake it. The only man I've been with who didn't have a bit of a "I've never had a problem before" attitude about this had been schooled by a previous lover. Don't let it make you feel like less of a partner. My clitoral orgasms are ginormous. It makes me so mad to hear it's all in my head. No, it's some kind of physical quirk. I even had a conversation with a woman who only had clitoral orgasms before her child was born, then boom, she had vaginal orgasms. But she thought it was a love thing, a now-I-am-a-woman thing, not a thing that giving birth somehow did to her body. This whole issue makes me so mad and sad.

Not my greatest moment, talking about this on metafilter, but the whole one third of women have vaginal orgasm, and "most" women come from penetration plus stimulation (which is true, what 66%?) leaves out a significant minority and it messes with people's heads.

Ok, I've testified.
posted by rainbaby at 9:35 AM on September 14, 2009 [6 favorites]

>> If you want a vaginal orgasm

Well, if *I* want a vaginal orgasm, I'm going to have to have a few things taken out and a few things put in.
posted by Brosef K at 10:02 AM on September 14, 2009

>> but I always think of the clitoral orgasm as the 'default' orgasm.

Ah, nerds.
posted by Brosef K at 10:03 AM on September 14, 2009

Well, if *I* want a vaginal orgasm, I'm going to have to have a few things taken out and a few things put in.

haha.. he got no more penis liao.. faint!!!
posted by mazola at 10:07 AM on September 14, 2009 [3 favorites]

If you edit /etc/eros/anatomy.conf you can set your default and secondary sources of orgasm level stimulation. Be careful with these settings though, because a misconfigured orgasm system can lead to severe exhaustion and irritability, and is a DOS security risk.
posted by idiopath at 10:08 AM on September 14, 2009 [8 favorites]

Install the firmware.

Am I right, fellas?

Huh?

Yeah?

Right?

FIRM-ware.
posted by Brosef K at 10:10 AM on September 14, 2009

Now add an inch to his cock. If (?) he can maintain the same number of thrusts (225) and put that extra inch in and out with each thrust...

Um, because vaginas aren't bottomless**, at some point, you "bottom out" -- now,many women think this is the Best Thing Evar, but some emphatically do not.
posted by LordSludge at 10:15 AM on September 14, 2009

now,many women think this is the Best Thing Evar, but some emphatically do not.

I think you got that percentage reversed. The devotees of cervix-bumping are a minority--my off-the-cuff estimate is about 1/3 of women dig cervix-bumping, 1/3 of women don't have any response to it in any way (either "Yum!" or "Ow!), and 1/3 of women are "Ow!"

It's not a majority taste by any means.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:18 AM on September 14, 2009

Might be time for a little 'multi core processing', if you know what I'm saying -- yeah!*

Because parallel processing is notoriously hard.

Like my cock.

-----
*I'm not sure I know what I'm saying.
posted by mazola at 10:22 AM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

I think you got that percentage reversed.

I read that online, so I don't doubt it, but my own experience has been quite the opposite. Or maybe they were just humoring me, I dunno..
posted by LordSludge at 10:22 AM on September 14, 2009

Some totally normal women have only clitoral orgasms, meaning any penetration with thrusting precludes orgasm. This does not mean we do not enjoy penetration. This does not mean something is wrong with us.

Yes, this is a really good point. The majority of women need some clit stimulation in order to come, regardless of how much penetrative intercourse is going on. A small but considerable segment of women don't like both at the same time.

So, in general, the "ask people what they like/be honest with people about what you like" rule is extremely important here. I imagine that most people have probably had the experience of having someone fuck you in the way that one of their exes likes to be fucked, but that you don't like very much, and it's not so fun--the only thing that makes it worse is "But So-and-so really likes that! What's wrong with you?!?"
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:27 AM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

I read that online, so I don't doubt it, but my own experience has been quite the opposite. Or maybe they were just humoring me, I dunno.

I think this is probably the magic power of Not A Statistically Significant Sample in action?

Not that I have had sex with a statistically significant sample of women myself, but I have done peer counseling and Internet sex advice writing, so the research findings seem accurate based on that experience.

Either that, or you are just the best at cervix-ramming, but sadly there isn't enough of you to go around for all of us who don't like it.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:30 AM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

I still maintain that my personal preferences are the objectively correct ones and that yours are weird and gross.
posted by electroboy at 10:31 AM on September 14, 2009 [3 favorites]

I don't know how you girls walk around with those things.
posted by Danf at 10:31 AM on September 14, 2009

The diaphragm, as I understand it, is inconvenient enough a gizmo that I doubt women would be using it in this fashion.

Either way, they're using the diaphragm to prevent a battering.
posted by surplus at 10:33 AM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

I don't know how you girls walk around with those things.

One good thing is that we don't have to deal with shrinkage.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:34 AM on September 14, 2009

Describing the infinite garden of human sexuality is a fantastic project. Trying to reduce sex to a set of recipes is at best counterproductive, and at worst stifling of a deep human need for self-expression.

Sidhedevil, I wholeheartedly agree, and I like the garden metaphor. There is so much variation in human sexuality, and such a history of humans trying to exert control over others' sexuality and dictating what is right and good and moral and acceptable, and aside from issues of consent those efforts are far more harmful than not.

Guys Girls don't have to have giant spurting orgasms, they don't have to have super-long dicks, and they don't have to come buckets from any given sexual activity. Girls Guys do not have to come from thrusting alone, they don't have to have giant boobs dicks or small labia sports cars, they don't have to deep-throat.

FTFMe.

Aside: The kids in my life are not all precocious romping cherubs who never have to throw up, never miss the toilet seat, and never get sulky.

I have the hat trick today: a kid who threw up, missed the toilet, and is sulky.
posted by notashroom at 10:34 AM on September 14, 2009

MetaFilter: just the best at cervix-ramming.
posted by notashroom at 10:37 AM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

I'd just like to take a moment to say how much I am enjoying this thread. I only understand about a third of what anyone is saying, but I am enjoying it.
posted by jbickers at 10:52 AM on September 14, 2009 [2 favorites]

If you or someone you love suffers from cock-feet or hive crotch, ask your doctor if Mastuginex^® is right for you.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:55 AM on September 14, 2009 [3 favorites]

The thing about this is that if they did come up with a drug that made it easier for some women to orgasm easier, that is a good thing. It increases pleasure in the world and might just make us all happier with no harm to anyone.

But because of the fucked up relationship our culture has to pleasure and chemicals, they have to market this new drug by convincing women they are inadequate or even diseased. It's sad that can't just accept pleasure for it's own sake.
posted by afu at 10:57 AM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

Instead, we have to resort to accepting MORE pleasure for its own sake.
posted by Casimir at 11:10 AM on September 14, 2009

The thing about this is that if they did come up with a drug that made it easier for some women to orgasm easier, that is a good thing. It increases pleasure in the world and might just make us all happier with no harm to anyone. But because of the fucked up relationship our culture has to pleasure and chemicals, they have to market this new drug by convincing women they are inadequate or even diseased.

I'm....not so sure. There is a topical cream I've seen out now -- it's even advertised on national television - with the express stated purpose of enhancing female sexual response (the ad copy coyly describes it as "she says that for her, it makes the big moment like..." and then they cut to stock footage of a steamship whistle going off or a rocket taking off, or some such).
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:11 AM on September 14, 2009

why did the Scottish author limit the study to such a small and homogenous and hetrosexual group?

When you study the effect of penis length on vaginal orgasm, I dunno, but limiting it to heterosexuals seems reasonable. Kinda weird for the test subjects otherwise.
posted by msalt at 11:11 AM on September 14, 2009

Excuse me, can we stop using the cock foot as a measurement? It's positively medieval to measure something in such a crude way.



Please use the SI compatible penis meter (p m) instead. Also, for speed of sexual activity, the correct measurement is p m s^-1, also known as the pracowity.
posted by Sova at 11:13 AM on September 14, 2009 [8 favorites]

(The following joke in no way represents the opinions of the poster, etc, etc)

GUY#1 You know what is the the sure fire way to make any girl come?

GUY#2 No, what?

GUY#1 Who cares?
posted by StickyCarpet at 11:28 AM on September 14, 2009

I'm....not so sure. There is a topical cream I've seen out now -- it's even advertised on national television - with the express stated purpose of enhancing female sexual response (the ad copy coyly describes it as "she says that for her, it makes the big moment like..." and then they cut to stock footage of a steamship whistle going off or a rocket taking off, or some such).

Yeah, but how is that different than toys or any other props? If you like it use it, if not who cares. They problem is when people start making value judgments about personal preferences.

Of course this gets more complicated with the reality of actual sexual dysfunction. I'm just saying in an ideal world orgasm pills would be a purely positive thing and it sucks we don't live there.
posted by afu at 11:29 AM on September 14, 2009

And probably it is the girls that like it {cervix-ramming intercourse} that are the nasty, nasty perverts

No. They're women who like cervix-ramming intercourse. "Nasty" and "perverted" aren't in it, unless that's how they self-identify, in which case more power to them.

I meant it in a good way :)
posted by krilli at 11:36 AM on September 14, 2009

"Check it out, baby, let me show it to you. I know, it's huge. I bet you ain't never seen a man with this many favorites before."
posted by The Straightener at 11:37 AM on September 14, 2009

Yeah, but how is that different than toys or any other props? If you like it use it, if not who cares. They problem is when people start making value judgments about personal preferences.

My point is that it's a product that is designed solely for enhancing pleasure, and it doesn't imply that there is a medical need for it.

Also, another difference between it and other props is that -- well, I don't know about you, but I've never seen dildoes advertised on TV.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:41 AM on September 14, 2009

Also, another difference between it and other props is that -- well, I don't know about you, but I've never seen dildoes advertised on TV.

I recall seeing fingertip massagers being advertised for on teevee for $19.95 + shipping and handling. I remember thinking, as the accompanying video is showing a woman massaging her shoulders with her index finger, "What the hell? You can't massage your shoulders with something that smal-....oh I get it."
posted by electroboy at 11:47 AM on September 14, 2009

That's where the hive crotch comes in. Go experiment and report your results back here!

Grinding@home. For all those extra horny cycles.
posted by rokusan at 11:47 AM on September 14, 2009

Also, another difference between it and other props is that -- well, I don't know about you, but I've never seen dildoes advertised on TV.

There were some amazing dildo advertisements on New York's Channel J back in the late 1980s. Amazing. Between those and the "extra E is for extra PEE!" ads, it's a miracle I ever watched anything else on TV.

But yeah, there's a big difference between "This is a fun sex enhancement" and "This is a medical cure for your broken vagina."
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:48 AM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

Oh yeah, that's right, give me a achy frikkin cervix.
Some girls actually like that. OK not the achiness, but the hurt.

I had a girlfriend for awhile who called it "seeing stars."

It sounds so romantic that way.
posted by rokusan at 11:48 AM on September 14, 2009

the "vagina" we're talking about here is the vaginal canal, not the entire female genitalia

yea - the word for that is vulva. And that's such a lovely, round-sounding, mouth-filling word!
say it!

vulva.
posted by 5_13_23_42_69_666 at 11:50 AM on September 14, 2009

But yeah, there's a big difference between "This is a fun sex enhancement" and "This is a medical cure for your broken vagina."


No, I agree.

The argument, though, that there were no products being marketed on the mainstream using the "this is a fun sex enhancement" angle, and that things were only marketed using the "this is a medical cure for your broken vagina." And there are "this is a fun sex enhancement" products, is what I was saying.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:55 AM on September 14, 2009

is this something i would have to have a bujina to care about?
posted by Mister_A at 11:56 AM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

All this talk just makes my coochie hurt . . .
posted by pianomover at 12:06 PM on September 14, 2009

A broken vagina is nothing MacGyver couldn't fix...for my mom
posted by psylosyren at 12:16 PM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

Yes, I was agreeing with you, EmpressCallipygos; sorry if that didn't come across. (Why does everything seem like a leering Benny Hill innuendo in this thread?)
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:17 PM on September 14, 2009

I feel like there's a team of marketing experts sitting in a basement somewhere trying to find the most evil ways to make women feel insecure about something they previously didn't think about

That's totally wrong. Totally.

They're sitting in conference rooms in multi-story buildings doing that. I've seen it.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:18 PM on September 14, 2009 [3 favorites]

I'm not sure I've ever favourited this many comments from one post before...

Since when does being a lesbian make you penis free. Lesbians aren't necessarily anti-penis, they just aren't into the men attached to them.

I'd argue it's the men that aren't into the Lesbians, not the other way round. IfyouseewhatImean....
posted by twine42 at 12:28 PM on September 14, 2009

Hey, is this the thread for subtle references to our large penises?

Because I just wanted to mention that all the ladies I've been with practically lined up to get their cervixes beaten. Cervices. Whatever.
posted by graventy at 12:30 PM on September 14, 2009 [3 favorites]

(Why does everything seem like a leering Benny Hill innuendo in this thread?)

*switches off her tape of Yakkety Sax*

Whoops. Forgot I left that on.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:36 PM on September 14, 2009 [9 favorites]

I'd argue it's the men that aren't into the Lesbians, not the other way round.

I see what you did there.

Also, cervix-ramming. I think this will be my new phrase that pays.* "What did you think of the new Keanu Reeves movie?" "Cervix-ramming!"



*Until this allergy medication wears off.
posted by notashroom at 12:43 PM on September 14, 2009 [7 favorites]

This penis, it vibrates?
posted by swift at 12:48 PM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

Researchers sifted over 500 ads on craiglist

I can't be the only one who read this as "stiffed"
posted by plinth at 12:48 PM on September 14, 2009

yea - the word for that is vulva.

Her name was Doloris.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:56 PM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

Hey, is this the thread for subtle references to our large penises?

Because I just wanted to mention that all the ladies I've been with practically lined up to get their cervixes beaten. Cervices. Whatever.

You saw what I did there!
posted by krilli at 1:08 PM on September 14, 2009

i've had bad sex. i've had good sex. if no one had ever told me better sex was possible, i probably would have kept having bad sex for the rest of my life. Sex research might be exploitative...but eventually there will be a way for women to choose to have certain kinds of things happen or not happen in their bodies, and that's cool, no matter how much money they try to make off of it.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 1:13 PM on September 14, 2009

*switches off her tape of Yakkety Sax*

That's why I was chasing people around in fast motion.
posted by electroboy at 1:14 PM on September 14, 2009

You know, if I saw something advertised as "This will help you get better sex," I would - in fact, I do - dismiss it out-of-hand as pure spammy snake oil. If it's a regulated chemical thing treated as medical in nature, I'm willing to believe it actually does something.
posted by Tomorrowful at 1:22 PM on September 14, 2009

Excuse me, can we stop using the cock foot as a measurement?

The funny thing is that some modern theories ascribe some proportionality here, thereby arriving at cockfoot = cock^2 * constant.
posted by qvantamon at 1:31 PM on September 14, 2009

Sex research might be exploitative...but eventually there will be a way for women to choose to have certain kinds of things happen or not happen in their bodies

There seems to be an awful lot of ways to choose different things to happen in my body right now, and I happily avail myself of many of them. I would prefer wide availability of cool things that I know work for many people and demystification of them (yes, vibrator ads on TV) before I would be all psyched about the medicalization and pathologization of the range of female sexual response, especially in order to sell commodities.

Fuck, I would rather have frequent acknowledgments in mainstream media that women enjoy sex in lots of different ways and that penis-in-vagina intercourse isn't "real sex" with everything else being "not really sex" long before I was remotely interested in Magic Instant Orgasm Cream.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:35 PM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

And thus, a new, disturbing trend in Nike+ competition was born.

Yes, but only for men with foreskins. Gotta put the transceiver somewhere.

Yes, I know lay people (ha ha) say "vagina" to mean the whole cunt...

My kids (boy and girl) know the proper word, and we've caught their pre-school teachers "correcting" them, and had to fill 'em in.

uh, on what the proper word is, not...well, I'll just stop typing now
posted by davejay at 1:45 PM on September 14, 2009

I would rather have frequent acknowledgments in mainstream media that women enjoy sex in lots of different ways and that penis-in-vagina intercourse isn't "real sex" with everything else being "not really sex" long before I was remotely interested in Magic Instant Orgasm Cream.

I promise that some women would prefer the magic O cream first, then the nationwide establishment of healthy views of women's sexuality (if possible, but definitely the cream asap) (especially if it was pancake flavored). And can you really blame them for wanting it? That's what happened with men--they may be ashamed, but at least they're happy and ashamed, unlike before. Science (at its best) goes before culture, not after it. This study might not be that, but scientists and informed otherpeople should be pawing through it making sure it's right, not examining the premise to make sure it confirms positive messages.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 2:07 PM on September 14, 2009

My kids (boy and girl) know the proper word

I thought the fact that there wasn't a proper word for the whole is one of the reasons the word vagina is so widely used for this.
posted by ODiV at 2:12 PM on September 14, 2009

No, men can orgasm from many different kinds of manipulation of their sex organs

Yep- glans, shaft... but men can also have orgasms via direct prostate stimulation (which doesn't necessarily mean getting fucked) or, if you're like me, by having your nips played with. I knew a guy who'd come by having his ears nibbled on, and plenty who come while kissing. Lots of roads to orgasm out there, men.
posted by ethnomethodologist at 2:15 PM on September 14, 2009

What a shame that this was a survey-based rather than experimental study.

If only there was some sort of "artificial man-penis" that could be manufactured with varying widths, girths, bumps, and vibration speeds to determine female preferences, free of confounding variables.
posted by benzenedream at 2:17 PM on September 14, 2009

However the study authors dismiss this view as "clitorocentric" and blame it for the "destruction of human pleasure."

(In Atlantis, it was "Numbers: Nothingarian Squid-Trap in Our Schools." The same drivel eternally.)
posted by anigbrowl at 2:23 PM on September 14, 2009

I thought the fact that there wasn't a proper word for the whole is one of the reasons the word vagina is so widely used for this.

The word is cunt. Vagina is a phallocentric/heterocentric word that reinforces the whole "the purpose of this body part on a woman is to give men pleasure by acting as a sheath to their love swords" crap. Not that the latter can't be a perfectly good usage of a cunt, but it's not unique in that.
posted by notashroom at 2:24 PM on September 14, 2009

No, men can orgasm from many different kinds of manipulation of their sex organs

There are more than a couple of examples on XTube of men who can achieve orgasm by doing pullups.

damn, I would have been SO much more interested in P.E. during high school if this were the case with me.
posted by hippybear at 2:27 PM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

Ooh yeah, or climbin' the rope. Man, there's a reason I was good at climbin' the rope.
posted by Mister_A at 2:30 PM on September 14, 2009

I used to could take one rope in each hand and go up Kong style. I was bad-ass! Nobody knew I was gettin' all tingly though. I am looking into GMOFB, BTW.
posted by Mister_A at 2:31 PM on September 14, 2009

Vagina is a phallocentric/heterocentric word that reinforces the whole "the purpose of this body part on a woman is to give men pleasure by acting as a sheath to their love swords" crap.

Likewise, Vulva is a phallocentric word that reinforces the whole "the purpose of this body part on a woman is to give men pleasure by acting as the bun to their love hotdogs" crap.
posted by Sys Rq at 2:31 PM on September 14, 2009

Tomorrowful: "You know, if I saw something advertised as "This will help you get better sex," I would - in fact, I do - dismiss it out-of-hand as pure spammy snake oil. If it's a regulated chemical thing treated as medical in nature, I'm willing to believe it actually does something."

That's kind of the problem though, isn't it? Because of our weird views on sex, which have for so long meant that only spammy snakeoil salesmen are marketing sexual-enhancement products, someone who has a product that actually works—a new drug, or a particularly well-designed toy, whatever—have to sell it as some sort of medical device in order to get people to take it seriously. It's not enough to say "hey, this thing will make sex better," you have to say "this product treats a legitimate and serious medical condition! You might be suffering from it right now and not even know it!"

And because a medical product can't, practically by definition or in order to qualify as legitimate, be an enhancement even if that's how it's nearly always used, the baseline for what's 'normal' has to be redefined to put as many people as possible into the "in need of treatment" camp, so that they can be marketed to. Whereas if we just chilled the hell out a bit, and were upfront about selling sexual enhancers as enhancers and not as medical devices or treatments, it wouldn't be necessary to convince everyone that they're broken in order to sell them stuff.

It'll be great when a pharmaceutical company comes up with a 'female Viagra,' but it's unfortunate that instead of being able to just sell it as an enhancement for women who want more orgasms or to have better sex, they'll instead need to convince a lot of people (including, perhaps most importantly, the FDA) that a lot of women are having bad sex or are in some way broken, and that this drug is a legitimate and very serious treatment, and in no way an enhancer. Which is exactly what they did with men in order to market the original Viagra. (Who had ever heard of "erectile dysfunction" as a condition before they started marketing a treatment for it? It was just part of aging—admittedly, a part that sucked, a lot, but basically something everyone accepted. They could have just said "here's a pill that lets you have sex at 40 like you did when you were 18! Go nuts!" but instead they had to redefine the baseline in order to create a treatable illness.)

I'm not sure exactly who's to blame; in part it's the pharmaceutical companies' desire to extract lots of money from consumers (which they can do more easily with a medication covered by insurance than with an un-covered OTC pill), but I also think our squeamishness about sex and the de-legitimization of anything that's purely a sex enhancer is a big part of it.
posted by Kadin2048 at 2:32 PM on September 14, 2009

TMI.
posted by Brandon Blatcher

That was a lowercase "L", right?
posted by turgid dahlia at 2:34 PM on September 14, 2009

worries about the motivations of research that emphasises vaginal over clitoral orgasms, arguing that it is part of the increasing "medicalisation of sexuality". She argues that women who can't achieve vaginal orgasms are basically treated as sick and this, in turn, allows drug companies to sell them a pill.

She doesn't explicitly say how this relates to her worries about the "motivations of the research". Is she suggesting that Stuart Brody is getting funding from the drug companies? It certainly seems that way, so why not make an explicit accusation instead of an insinuation.

And contradicting this, the text states that the authors believe that a certain kind of sex education can lead to more fulfilling orgasms for women. It seems like a strange idea to me, but this is an empirical question, not an ethical issue. Contradictory evidence is always worth more than finger-wagging.
posted by dgaicun at 2:46 PM on September 14, 2009

And then take her out the next day for pancakes.

Er...so, uh...you and cortex went out for pancakes the morning after the meetup, right?
posted by little e at 2:49 PM on September 14, 2009

I promise that some women would prefer the magic O cream first, then the nationwide establishment of healthy views of women's sexuality

Potomac Avenue, I'm sure you're correct that there are some women who would prefer that.

But I think the majority of women would prefer to have their sexuality taken seriously rather than a shortcut that enabled their male partners' fantasies to be more fun for them.

Obviously, neither you nor I have the resources needed to do a statistically significant survey of all women in the world to come up with a data trend that would bear out either of our point of view.

But as a 45-year-old woman and as someone who's been involved in sex education and writing about sex in one way or another for 26 years this month, I find your argument not very convincing.

There are women who have labiaplasties every single day because somebody made them feel bad about their labia; I doubt that the Magic Orgasm Cream would be as risky as unnecessary elective surgery, but I also doubt that it would be as risk-free and generally beneficial as getting in touch with one's own sexuality.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:51 PM on September 14, 2009

Er...so, uh...you and cortex went out for pancakes the morning after the meetup, right?

A gentleman never tells.
posted by Afroblanco at 2:53 PM on September 14, 2009

Also the "medicalisation of sexuality" (i.e. sexual health) doesn't seem like an inherently bad thing to me. Neither does the medicalization of mental health for that matter. There is no a priori reason to think drugs are inferior to other methods of improving or maintaining human health. That is largely an empirical matter as well. If a drug is better at keeping people happy enough to function normally better than, say, letting them yak at a shrink three hours a week, then thank god for the drug.

If a drug can give the bonerless boners, or the orgasmless orgasms, or the bored unemployed guy something to smoke while watching Gilligan's Island re-runs at 4 AM, then praise dope-dealing Jesus.
posted by dgaicun at 3:00 PM on September 14, 2009

>> You could duct tape a pedometer to your hip.

To my HIP, you say? Because I have that thing installed in a COMPLETELY different place.

>> And thus, a new, disturbing trend in Nike+ competition was born.

It IS nice keeping track of my "progress" on my iPhone.
posted by Brosef K at 3:16 PM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

Hey, is this the thread for subtle references to our large penises?

I'd been looking for this thread earlier, but had trouble seeing it because of the gravitational lensing produced by my huge wang.
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 3:19 PM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

Here's the thing about vaginal orgasm... It's not something *I* get to experience. And I'm the man. My primary focus is on orgasms that happen to MY body. That's always how I've done it. That's how my dad did it. His dad. And his dad. It's kind of our thing. And doing it a different way will include books, and manuals, and all kinds of other information that is just one more thing I have to do.

Some people will say: "But the reward is you get to share in her pleasure. See the expression of satisfaction on her face." To which, I reply... that is why I own a laptop. To watch a compressed 38-second clip of that moment and then to get back to playing Halo Wars on my Xbox 360. And if I'm going to watch a woman express satisfaction from orgasm, why would I want to do it in anything less than high definition and THX surround sound? You can't fast forward or freeze frame real life. And real women talk. Women on screen do not talk. Unless you want them to. Which I don't.

Signal-to-noise ratio. See what I gotta see, do what I gotta do, and then get back to my life and the things in it I do.

Listen, I like real women and I like to have real sex with them. And they like to have sex with me (like you would not believe, let me tell you). I just find it inconvenient that they have a list of wants and needs that take time away from important things. Women like to be with me and some times I will eat a meal with them in between sex, and that should be enough.

If any of this sounds appealing to you, drop me a line. But you'd better be VERY attractive (and female) and bring a friend (also female).
posted by Brosef K at 3:30 PM on September 14, 2009

Dmitri?
posted by qvantamon at 3:57 PM on September 14, 2009 [2 favorites]

...when you read Lady Chatterly's Lover, and you think, "why the hell couldn't Clifford just go down on her? ..."...

The whole time I just thought, "why am I reading this?"
posted by jeffamaphone at 4:01 PM on September 14, 2009 [5 favorites]

f a drug can give the bonerless boners, or the orgasmless orgasms, or the bored unemployed guy something to smoke while watching Gilligan's Island re-runs at 4 AM, then praise dope-dealing Jesus.

True -- but it's when we get into the realm of "here's a drug that's going to give you the right kind of orgams -- because, yeah, you know those orgasms you've been having? they're totally wrong and bad" that we're having the problem.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:04 PM on September 14, 2009

Female orgasms rely on penis size and mental focus, but not the duration of foreplay, according to a new study.

By Michael Slezak

I just presented this statement to my peer review group of 1, and she suggested that there was evidence of bias on the part of the author. Then we sorted the recycling, that's not foreplay but it's very important.
posted by deliquescent at 4:10 PM on September 14, 2009 [6 favorites]

Also the "medicalisation of sexuality" (i.e. sexual health) doesn't seem like an inherently bad thing to me.

"Sexual health" does not mean "having an orgasm like the ones in porn" to me. YMMV and so may YO.
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:33 PM on September 14, 2009

Bah, everyone knows the female orgasm is a myth, like dinosaurs and lesbians.
posted by JustAsItSounds at 5:20 PM on September 14, 2009

I thought that female lesbian dinosaurs having orgasms was why the dinosaurs died out.
posted by pianomover at 5:43 PM on September 14, 2009

Lesbian Dinosaurs? Are you proposing a new extinction theory?
posted by Effigy2000 at 5:43 PM on September 14, 2009

Dinosaurs did not go extinct until the lesbian dinosaurs started marrying.
posted by Brosef K at 5:52 PM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

During the Dontaskdonttellazoic Era, the dinosaurs ruled.

But then the gay ones started picking out china patterns.

We mammals saw our chance, and took it!
posted by Brosef K at 5:56 PM on September 14, 2009

Have you read Danny and the Dinosaur? Obviously part of the Gay Agenda.
posted by pianomover at 6:04 PM on September 14, 2009

Wait, can't a surgeon operate on the vaginal wall without anaesthetic? I thought it didn't really have nerve endings. God, this thread is too long (NOT IN A GOOD WAY OR SOMETHING).
posted by unknowncommand at 6:09 PM on September 14, 2009

Why does everything seem like a leering Benny Hill innuendo...

In your what?
posted by turgid dahlia at 9:32 PM on September 14, 2009 [1 favorite]

Tyrannosaurus Regina.
posted by pracowity at 11:46 PM on September 14, 2009

"here's a drug that's going to give you the right kind of orgams -- because, yeah, you know those orgasms you've been having? they're totally wrong and bad"

The claim is that a certain kind of orgasm leads to more fulfillment and psychological well-being. It's an empirical question. It's odd to dismiss it on the grounds that now that idea is in the air some wicked corporation might now make a drug that can facilitate having said species of orgasm.

Not least, because I don't understand why an orgasm drug is a bad thing.
posted by dgaicun at 12:17 AM on September 15, 2009 [1 favorite]

I can't read this thread without thinking of this scene from Manhattan. 2:40 to 3:40 is the relevant part.
("Relevant part"... huh - uh huh huh! /Beavis)
posted by zoinks at 12:27 AM on September 15, 2009 [1 favorite]

The claim is that a certain kind of orgasm leads to more fulfillment and psychological well-being. It's an empirical question.

But the flip side of that claim is that all other orgasms aren't also just as fulfilling.

You say "it's an empirical question" -- but exactly what makes it empirical? How on earth do you quantify that question?

I'm all for helping people have orgasms too, but what's wrong with expanding the umbrella to include "all orgasms, no matter what button you push to get them, are damn good"?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:55 AM on September 15, 2009

"But the flip side of that claim is that all other orgasms aren't also just as fulfilling."

Yep.

"You say "it's an empirical question" -- but exactly what makes it empirical? How on earth do you quantify that question?"

How do you quantify subjective states? You ask people to rate their subjective states. You ask them how they reach orgasm. You ask them to rate their sexual experiences. You give them mental well-being questions.

If the authors are correct that people can be coached to have different paths to orgasm, especially, you can do a double-blind where people are randomly assigned to different coaching video sessions, and given periodic questionnaires to see if their path to orgasm has changed, along with questions about their satisfaction with sex or life in general.

I suspect the authors are wrong, but their ideas appear fully testable.
posted by dgaicun at 6:35 AM on September 15, 2009

But who is to say that the authors are correct about whether people can be coached to have different paths to orgasm?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:58 AM on September 15, 2009

Well, the way to refute a badly designed or poorly executed study is with a well designed, well executed study.
posted by electroboy at 8:05 AM on September 15, 2009 [1 favorite]

Well, the way to refute a badly designed or poorly executed study is with a well designed, well executed study.

That sounds suspiciously like science. We'll not be having any of that here.

Seriously, though, there's a question of ethics involved here. I see no pressure being exerted on men to have prostate orgasms (no pun intended), if they are only having orgasms from head/shaft stimulation and/or wet dreams. Why not? Prostate tissue is analogous to g-spot (and may be essentially the same bundle of nerves with a slightly different location, hence references to it as "the male g-spot").

Clitoral head and shaft are analogous to penile head and shaft. Why would it surprise anyone if most orgasms for most people are linked to that same nerve bundle? And why should anyone care if woman A prefers or has an easier time achieving clitoral orgasms versus woman B who prefers or has an easier time achieving g-spot orgasms? And why wouldn't those same people be pressuring men to have prostate orgasms (gosh, maybe because of a heterocentric viewpoint?)?

I'm all for everyone being able to achieve orgasm and being happy with the quantity and quality of their orgasms. I think if people can be taught methods to access orgasms that they're not currently achieving, that's a fine and dandy thing. I just think it's unethical and unkind to privelege vaginal orgasms over clitoral orgasms, to make women feel as if they are inadequate or broken if they do not have vaginal orgasms, to treat this as if it's a problem requiring a solution.
posted by notashroom at 9:28 AM on September 15, 2009 [4 favorites]

What you need to do is hold her, kiss her on the neck, run your fingers through her hair, and sleep the sleep of the satisfied. And then take her out the next day for pancakes.

But what if she made pancakes for me the next morning?
posted by mrbill at 10:44 AM on September 15, 2009

Related search from a helpful new semantic search engine:
medical pros and cons of orgasm
posted by idiopath at 2:59 PM on September 15, 2009

Hancock, not Footpenis!
posted by asok at 1:30 AM on September 16, 2009

Petra Boynton looks at Brody's study: The clitorocentric conspiracy - new study argues we’re discriminating against the vagina
posted by homunculus at 8:46 AM on September 19, 2009

That Petra Boynton link certainly helps put this paper in context. It seems as if there's an agenda to "scientifically" assert that heterosexual penis-in-vagina pentrative intercourse is superior to all other forms of sexual activity, solo and partnered. Taken as a group, these studies suggest a backlash of sorts against feminist and queer-positive sex research.
posted by notashroom at 7:02 AM on September 21, 2009 [1 favorite]

Is this hyperbole? Was mainstream sex education actually teaching that the vagina was unrelated to sexual pleasure? Are they treating any attention given to the clitoris as anti-vagina propaganda? This is reminding me of some kind of messed up political manipulation. "you are either with the vagina, or against it! there is no middle ground!".

I notice that the options given in the survey listed "vagina, clitoris, or both" as the options for the kinds of stimulation needed for orgasm, as taught in sex-ed. How about either? Because that is what I learned in sex ed - than women can orgasm from vaginal OR clitoral stimulation. Since then I have met women who have orgasmed from things like shoplifting and peeling an orange (or so they claimed).
posted by idiopath at 7:27 AM on September 21, 2009