So what did I make of the sex programme on Channel 4 recently?
Well, it was certainly refreshing to watch an entire hour of television scheduling that was concerned with the female orgasm. Let’s not take anything away from the fact that Channel 4 at least tried to consider this most important of issues.
Being a bit of a researcher myself, albeit from the comfort of a sofa or desk, I was already aware of some of the content, including the hysteria treatment and the outcomes regarding the alleged purpose of the female orgasm.
However, there were a few snippets of new things in there too.
So having watched it, what did it tell us?
· That there is such a thing as the female orgasm – yes, I think they have probably agreed on that at least
· That there is no purpose to the female orgasm other than enjoyment – more on this later
· That women are more easily aroused by less overt sexuality than men – so why do we still have this nonsense that a man thinks about sex more frequently than women, or is that a different issue?
· That there is still no real agreement about the position or even the existence of a G-Spot – can this really still be under negotiation? I’ll bloody well prove it exists to anyone who wishes to watch
· That women are aroused through clitoral stimulation –Mmmmm. Yes, I worked that one out in my teenage years
· That the clitoris actually extends further than its head which could explain vaginal orgasms – yep worked that one out too
And beyond that did we actually learn anything at all?
I’m not entirely sure that we did. And in that list above is there anything that you did not already know?
And what of this research? The couple from the USA, William Masters and Virginia Johnson allegedly discovered that there was no biological or physical purpose to the female orgasm. However what happened after their research? Did nobody query their findings? Did everyone simply accept that this incredible thing that happens to our bodies is simply ignored as being unimportant because it certainly seems that way to me.
And what of this whole thing about women being aroused by fairly insubstantial stimulation. What about that? Surely this should be excellent news to all those who are interested in female sexuality. Guess what girls – we appeared to get excited about watching animals fucking. Something actually happens within our vaginas that shows arousal – did anyone explore or even mention the erection that takes place inside a woman? A mere mention of the thickening of the walls of the vagina is not good enough. There is an erection taking place in there, and it remains there, as far as my personal experience is concerned, for much longer than a male erection.
For instance, I have just been wonderfully aroused and I am now sitting on a cunt full of erection. Must go and do something about that!
Returning to my point, isn’t the fact that women are so readily aroused open up all sorts of doors, or fannies, for further exploration? Doesn’t it say something about the brilliance of the female sexual mind that can transfer the subtlest of images into something that makes you want to fuck like crazy or finger yourself to climax or even better grab the most wonderful person in your life and demand a healthy dose of cock?
This is HUGE!
This tells us that there are far too many women suppressing natural and instinctive feelings and thoughts about their sexuality and doing precisely nothing about it. What a bloody tragedy? What can we do to empower these women to wake up to this fact and do something about it? What can we do to spread the word about this and tell these blokes all around us that we really are sexual beings and they don’t have to do too much to get us going?
Far too frequently, people ignore the most important sexual organ in the body and it appears that the woman’s brain is clearly a force to be reckoned with as far as brilliant sex is concerned.
The programme missed an opportunity here to say this. If there has been so much research on sexuality, on the female orgasm, then why are we still having debates as to whether it exists or what its function is? Why are we not concentrating on the very good news that women are clearly sexual animals that have a healthy and natural attitude to sex and yet still feel somewhat subliminal in the way that sexuality is portrayed as a man’s thing?
The programme also missed another obvious element of the female orgasm. There was not a single mention of ejaculation. Not one single word. In all the fucking that we watched, in all the finger stimulation not once did the camera capture a seepage from the cunt or even mention the possibility, and yet this is such an integral part of sex for some of us.
And if these sex researchers put their minds to it, have they not reconsidered not only the purpose of the female orgasm but also the purpose of the spunking too?
And another thing, where does all that juiciness come from? Has anyone ever tried to get to the bottom of that one?
And another thing, where does all that juiciness come from? Has anyone ever tried to get to the bottom of that one?
The problem with sex research is that it has been limited to a certain aspect of sexuality and never seems to look at the whole thing – holistically, and once hypotheses have been founded or unfounded, then the whole thing seems to grind to a terrifying halt, and meanwhile there are women all over the world who still hide away from their own wetness and still feel ashamed at the arousal they seem to get from the softest of images.
There was one other element of the programme that somewhat got my back up. There was talk of the G-Spot and the clitoral orgasm. It turned out that feminists of the 70s were rather perturbed by this bollocking rubbish about there being a G-Spot. Why? Because apparently one needed to rely on a bloke to get to the spot and hit it (or touch or tickle) in order to achieve this very different sort of orgasm.
Marches were arranged, probably the forerunner of the SlutWalks where feminists decried the whole notion of a G-Spot because of this involvement of the man. They argued that the clitoral climax was the most significant because of the fact that it could happen as a DIY. Those girlies didn’t need a man and they did not like the idea of an orgasm being reliant on the fingering or the cock-shoving of another.
Talk about cutting your nose off!
Had they not considered the fact that they could get their own fingers up their cunts with the infamous beckoning motion? And if they didn’t want to do that or didn’t want to be reliant on a man, then why not ask their female buddies to have a go? It still exists whether it be touched by a male or a female. Personally I think the males do it rather well with the longer and stronger fingers.
And anyway, even if it is better for a man to stimulate the G-Spot, so bloody what? Surely the ultimate pleasure of climax far outweighs the alleged reliance on another to help you to the place?
Madness!
.................................................................................
In looking at this whole programme and researching for this article, I came across a couple of comments within the newspapers and blog-sphere that I would like to now pay a short amount of attention to.
Here is the first one, taken from the Daily Telegraph after the transmission of the first programme. It starts by saying “The past, in the end, is an innocent place.... how comically naive they (the research outcomes) are revealed to be”.
Are they naive? Wasn’t there something in that hysteria treatment? Wasn’t it true that the research on arousal pointed to what we still haven’t fully accommodated about female arousal?
The article goes on “What can one do but shake one’s head at its bumpkin ignorance, and congratulate oneself on having had the wisdom to be born in a spotlessly enlightened time like the present?”
The writer is joking isn’t he?
No apparently not. He continues. “Such was the self-satisfaction that washed over me as I enjoyed The Sex Researchers, the first episode of a documentary series reminding us how hopeless previous generations were about sex, compared with today, when we all know everything and are sexually fulfilled”.
So he is joking then. Phew!
Only he’s not. He seriously seems to think that all of this research is a done deal, job completed and we can steer well away from the complex issues of female sexuality for good.
I wonder if he has ever experienced a torrent of female ejaculation. Do you think he would be so smug and complacent if he had and there was no valid explanation, scientific or not to account for this wonderful phenomenon?
Here is the next one
Written by a woman, is it going to be any more enlightened?
Here is a great quote.
“Meston [one of the researchers] wants to find out why women don’t have more orgasms, which seems to me to be a futile project; I’m not sure that most of us feel such a lack and, even if some do, it’s hardly a matter of life and death”.
Well I would actually be very interested in why I do have lots of orgasms. And why after having so many orgasms I still have an insatiable need for further ones. I mean once I am in a sexual zone, there is no stopping me. Once I am aroused, I am aroused. Even feeling like a hopeless mess cannot take away from the physical feeling between my legs.
It’s all just pointless titillation to some.
The final clip comes from Dr Petra Boynton who is writing prior to watching the programme, hoping that it will provide interesting viewing and also give some sensible credence to those in the field who are genuinely dedicated to learning about sexuality for the benefit of our poor, confused race.
My only hope is that Dr. Petra and her colleagues take on board some of my points regarding next steps for research and also this whole issue about the female ejaculation, and maybe Mr. Bod from the Daily Telegraph will realise that we have hardly scratched the surface on the knowledge, the experience and the amazing diversity of sexuality that we haven’t even begun to consider.
No comments:
Post a Comment