For A Satisfying Sex Life, Don’t Ignore What Makes You Unique

July 30th, 2021

The world is designed for the average person. It’s how we got the BMI scale and clothing sizes. Except, as it turns out, no real person meets the mythical average. That’s why clothes shopping is such a pain in the ass.

Now, I’m not naive enough to think that the sex toy industry is working with averages, at least not in the same way. People aren’t measuring the distance between the clitoris and vaginal opening or the length of the perineum. Few researchers have considered the importance of sex, let alone the majority of sex toy companies, many of which want to make a buck and don’t care if their toys are harmful or not.  Many sex toys, especially insertables, are probably based more on the average penis with some larger and smaller models offered on either end.

Why does this matter? As consumers, we’re forced to choose from items that are not necessarily designed for us and our very real bodies. Instead, we must adapt to toys. It’s lead to discomfort, buyer’s remorse, and frustration, often rooted in the idea that something is wrong if we can’t make a sex toy work for ourselves.

But I’m here to tell you that it’s not you; it’s them.

So many sex toys are poorly designed. Even those that are well-designed cannot possibly fit every body or preference. When it comes to sex toys, there is no one size fits all.

This is why I am hesitant to tell people to buy the most expensive toy out there when a cheaper one will do or when they’re not even sure if they like that type of stimulation at all. I certainly don’t want to lead people astray just because I like something. And having been the person who disliked toys (-cough-Pure Wand-cough-) that everyone else praised. I’ve also been on the other side of that; few people seemed to like Lelo’s Ora, but I did.

I keep this in mind as a blogger and reviewer, and I hope my readers keep it in mind, too. I don’t want them to end up with an expensive paperweight, a butterfly vibrator that isn’t as hands-free as the manufacturer claims, or cuffs that are too small to use as intended. Don’t get me started on vibrators. One person’s “strong” is another’s “annoyingly buzzy.”

Some toys more than others are especially difficult to recommend. Any sort of dual stimulator comes to mind; although, rabbit vibrators are among the worst culprits because they’re designed to stimulate two body parts at once. Although I’ve tried many rabbit vibrators and liked some of them, others haven’t been so lucky. When the toy is inserted, the external portion falls too short or shoots far past their clitoris. A shaft too straight, and the whole experience can be awkward.

Fortunately, we’ve seen improvements. Although I didn’t love it, the Womanizer X Lovehoney InsideOut has a nicely curved shaft that is flexible, allowing the external portion to easily make contact with the clitoris. The Crescendo, for all its faults, tried to adapt to individual bodies. Yet, it was another “Pass” from me. It goes to show that bodies are so unique that even adjustable toys can miss the mark.

Sex toys aren’t the only thing that needs to be adaptable. Sex education and advice must similarly recognize how different bodies are. That’s why the best advice is for a person to explore–their body, desires, and needs. While I can tell people what toys make me squirt or how I have clitoral orgasms, I cannot promise that the same will work for them.

Yet, the Internet is full of these types of guides that focus almost exclusively on technique without recognizing anatomy or even personal preference. The more we focus on a certain technique or spot as the key to unlocking orgasms or a better sex life, the more we overlook that’s it’s the journey, the exploration, that makes sex better, not the destination.

We need to look beyond “X marks the G-spot” and give people a foundation for a satisfying sex life, no matter what that looks like them. That way, if they try something new such as a technique or a specific sex toy, they recognize that not everything works for everyone and will be able to take it in stride and continue exploring what does work for them.

1 Comment

Categories: Everything Else

Womanizer X Lovehoney InsideOut

May 30th, 2021

It’s still masturbation May, and I am here to give you the first sex toy review in over two years and my first dual stimulator review since 2018 if you count the ridiculous toy Gvibe 2. Otherwise, you need to head way back into the archives to 2014 to find any sort of traditional rabbit vibrator (and it’s actually a butterfly).

Do you all remember the last time I wrote about air suction toys? I’ll forgive you if you don’t. It’s been almost four years! And I wasn’t particularly impressed, so I didn’t write a raving review. I quietly figured these toys weren’t for me until just recently. I figured that maybe the technology had improved, my body had changed, or I had simply used cheaper toys the first time around. This time, I was going to try a premium toy by Womanizer, one of the first companies to make clitoral suction toys, and Lovehoney. That’s how I wound up with the InsideOut, a dual stimulator that combines internal vibrators with clitoral suction, in my hands.

Womanizer X Lovehoney InsideOut
$149.99 from Lovehoney

This toy doesn’t look like ye old rabbit vibrators, of which I tried quite a few before eventually backing away, too. I am sensing a theme here. The InsideOut does look quite bulky due to the clitoral stimulator. And the shaft, while described as for G-spot stimulation, doesn’t have any texture or much contouring. There’s a very similar toy, the Duo, with a shaft that looks a bit more interesting.

This toy doesn’t come charged like so many, so I had to charge it. It’s interesting because the charging light is inside the toy and easy to miss. It turns green when charging and appears red when powered on, making no sense because the nozzle blocks the light. What a strange and unhelpful design choice!

So how is it in use?

The InsideOut runs into the same problems that separately plague both dual stimulators and suction toys: no two bodies are exactly alike. It’s why so many reviewers quickly gave up on rabbit vibrators. It’s also why Womanizer sends multiple nozzles with its toys. InsideOut came with two to ensure the best fit.

My first go ’round with the InsideOut was a bit ill-advised. I was clearly not aroused enough. I didn’t use enough lube–or perhaps the wrong kind, and the thin shaft felt.. pokey. Furthermore, while I never felt like I got the proper seal, the suction was uncomfortable and overwhelming. I figured I’d give it a second go in the future.

A few erotica stories later with my body more aroused, I was ready to give this toy a second shot. This time, I used a thicker lube, and the shaft of the InsideOut was much more comfortable.

I am happy to report that the base, which initially seemed quite bulky, does effectively rest atop my thighs if I want a hands-free experience. If this toy works for you, you can sit back and let the toy do the work. In this position, the buttons face up, which makes them accessible but not viewable to me. I do wish the buttons were more distinct, both from the rest of the toy and from each other–each function has a + and – button, and you can operate the functions separately. The + buttons are raised, but the – buttons are inset and difficult for my fingers to find easily. The diamond layout also makes it a bit harder to discern which set of buttons I’m pushing.

I still find the general shape of the shaft to be rather bland. I think this was exacerbated by the fact that this toy is supposed to be all “Set it and forget it.” Womanizer highlights the contact-less usability of these dual stimulators. Still, I’ve always liked pressure and motion, both of which are limited with the InsideOut just as they are like Lelo’s Ora and most rabbit vibrators. If you move the external portion too much, you break the seal. Although, I have to admit that I never achieved the sort of seal that I was expecting with either of the nozzles. They’re easy to swap out and remove for cleaning, however.

Furthermore, the suction of this toy is ridiculously, distractingly loud. Like, I can’t believe it made it through quality control. I would have sent someone back to the drawing board. We’re not talking Hitachi levels of volume, but you can’t hear the vibrations at all when the suction is on. Combined with the fact that the vibrations are quite weak and buzzy, even on maximum, and this isn’t a good look. I honestly had to turn off the suction to even tell if the vibrations were on.

Once aroused, I no longer found the clitoral suction overwhelming. In fact, at points, I found it to be the exact opposite, perhaps due to me preferring pressure. And while the shaft was no pokey, it didn’t do much, and it still felt uncomfortably.. long? It’s only 4.5 inches long, but it’s so narrow, and you need to ensure the base is lined up properly, too. It didn’t just completely miss my G-spot, it targeted my cervix like an expert swordsman (I guess, I’m no medieval princess) and left me a bit crampy afterward.

Now, it might be due to the distance between my clitoris and vaginal opening, which requires me to insert the toy full to make contact externally. The base of the toy runs more parallel to my body than perpendicular. Some people with a shorter distance might be able to bend the shaft more, which means the base would be at more of an angle. But then I imagine you’d have to force the shaft against the back wall of your vagina, and that would be uncomfortable, too. I just want something a little plusher and more filling.

Anyway, by the end, I managed to get myself off. Not hands-free, of course. I rocked the base as much as possible against my body to get the pressure that I needed, but my orgasm was all due to my own efforts and not because of anything the toy brought to the table. If that’s going to be the case, I might as well reach for a standard vibrator.

Despite every effort by Lovehoney and Womanizer, the InsideOut doesn’t manage to avoid the pitfalls of a dual stimulator. Indeed, it actually manages to make them a bit worse because you don’t simply need to press a bullet against your clitoris, you need to line up the nozzle perfectly.

This doesn’t mean that InsideOut won’t work for anyone. In fact, many people might have bodies that are just more receptive to what this toy does, and hopefully, those people who you (or don’t) will stumble across this review and find it helpful.

Comment

Categories: Reviews, Vibrators

Science of Sex: The G-spot

June 26th, 2018

This month’s Science of Sex is even later than usual, but I hope you don’t mind. I am continuing with the theme of female sexuality and contentious subject. What better topic than the G-spot?

Don’t forget to check out the Science of Sex archives if you’re new here!

science of sex the g-spot

The G Spot: And Other Discoveries about Human Sexuality by Beverly Whipple, Alas Ladas, and John Perry was published four years before I was born, and it’s still one of the most highly rated books about the G-spot. It introduced sexual people to the Grafenberg area, or the G-spot, inside the vagina. Despite over three decades in publication and a long list of glowing reviews lauding the book for its wealth of information, the G-spot is still treated by some people as a myth. This ignores thousands of reports of people who have successfully located and stimulated their own G-spots.

It’s understandable why. The science of the G-spot is frustrating at best. There seem to be more reviews wondering whether the G-spot exists than there are studies arguing either for or against its existence. Even trained scientists seem unsure what to do with the results of studies. Titles include words such as ‘myth” and “fantasy.” Have we really learned so little about the G-spot after so much time?

There have been several small-scale studies that investigated the location and the very existence of the G-spot. Unfortunately, many of them have either produced inconclusive results or declared that the G-spot does not exist as an entity. One of the most notable of these studies was released only in 2014, 32 years after Whipple published her book! One study looked at twins and stated simply that there is no “genetic” basis for the G-spot. Many people rely on these reports to scream, ‘See!? The G-spot doesn’t exist!”. But they’re not looking at the bigger picture.

You’ll find some sex educators remarking that this is technically correct because the G-spot isn’t distinct, an orange unto itself and the researchers understand its form and function (as well as that of the clitoral). Rather, it’s a location within the vagina through which the clitoris can be stimulated internally to elicit a sexual response. That is, the G-spot isn’t a spot, after all. This also goes to show that people misunderstand the clitoris and underestimate how large and impressive the entire structure is.

Some studies do suggest the existence of the G-spot, including one from 2012 that described it as “a distinguishable anatomic structure that is located on the dorsal perineal membrane, 16.5 mm from the upper part of the urethral meatus, and creates a 35° angle with the lateral border of the urethra”.

But just because some women experience a response through the front vaginal wall in a location identified as the G-spot doesn’t mean that others do — or even that this response will be positive or lead to orgasms or squirting (remember that I covered female ejaculation in a previous installment of Science of Sex). My own responses vary and are sometimes surprising. To expect that every person with a vagina will have a G-spot or enjoy G-spot stimulation oversimplifies the issue.

Further research is clearly necessary, and I am glad that researchers continue to look into the G-spot. I also encourage my readers to continue their own experimentation into G-spot stimulation as part of a healthy sex life.

Further Reading

1 Comment

Categories: Science of Sex

Science of Sex: Female Ejaculation

April 28th, 2018

Guess what guys?! I’ve been writing the Science of Sex once a month for over a year. That’s pretty awesome! I am definitely glad to take suggestions like I did with this post. Just leave a comment, and it could become next month’s topic!

science of sex female ejaculation

To be honest, I didn’t really want to write a post about female ejaculation, but this is a request from a friend, so I decided to dip a toe into the water — if that’s what it even is.

Therein really lies the issue with female ejaculation, FE for short. Researchers have yet to prove what exactly is it; although, at least one study have claimed it’s just pee. Whenever a science team makes this claim, however, women are not so happy about it. It’s similar to when reports arise claiming that no G-spot exists.

Let’s start with what we do know:

  • All women are able to squirt a small amount of liquid, prostatic secretion, which contains prostate-specific antigen, that’s created in the Skene’s glands, also known as the paraurethral glands. The fluid is milky and white.
  • Some women are able to ejaculate a larger amount of liquid. It also comes from the urethra but is much greater in volume. This liquid is stored in the bladder before ejaculation.
  • Some women may be able to ejaculate but do not, so the liquid moves backward. This is known as retrograde ejaculation.

Here’s something else we know: FE in porn is often fakes. A woman’s vagina is filled with water, and she pushes it out. It looks good from the camera, but it’s not coming from the urethra.

But let’s back up. There’s one survey that I cannot ignore when talking about female ejaculation. In this survey, researchers used ultrasounds to view bladders. The women used the bathrooms to empty their bladders, and this was verified by the ultrasound. The women began stimulating themselves. After these women had orgasms, researchers collected samples from the liquid. Researchers used the ultrasound to show that the bladder was again empty. Although, we aren’t aware of how long it was between scans.

Some of the liquid contained PSA, but researchers determined there was also urine by looking for urea, creatinine, and uric acid (although, there were no trends between levels measured before, during and after FE). They concluded that squirting prostatic fluid and gushing were two different activities. This was not the first study to come to this conclusion.

However, at least five previous studies have also looked for these chemical markers and found no sign of creatinine in FE.

The one thing that struck me, assuming the newer French study is accurate, was that perhaps any fluid in the bladder would contain trace amounts of the chemicals that scientists tested for in the FE. Could it be not that this means these chemicals are markers of urine but simply markers of fluid that has been contained in the bladder? If that were the case, how would we absolutely define what is urine and what isn’t?

According to Dr. Debby Hebernick, female ejaculate is very diluted urine. This is backed up by anecdotal evidence that FE has a different smell/taste from urine. Dr. Grafenberg also described FE as having “no urinary character.”

I’ve also read from medical professionals that this diluted urine has not been filtered by the kidneys and perhaps could not be due to the volume of fluid.

I don’t know of any studies have that tested the following claim, but it’s worth mentioning. Medications that affect urine do not necessarily affect FE, perhaps because it’s not filtered by the kidneys.

The only thing that remains for sure after the 2015 study is that more research must be done, especially with a control group larger than seven women. And scientists must ask more specific questions than “Does FE contain these chemical markers?”.

Some studies have asked better questions than this one. For example, the writers ponder whether FE might serve an antimicrobial purpose, which could spell good news for people who struggle with UTIs from sex.

Other papers remind us that female ejaculation was readily accepted as a sexual function thousands of years ago, but society seems to have forgotten this a time or two.

But as it the case with so many aspects of female sexuality, we need to spend more money and time to learn more.

More information about female ejaculation

5 Comments

Categories: Science of Sex

My G-Spot Makes Me Cry

February 24th, 2017

Well, there you go with a sensational title. Sorry that the rest of this post will be logical and reasonable (sorry not sorry).

So the last time I masturbated (with a unicorn dildo, no less. It was pretty awesome), was the first time I’d experienced penetration in a while. A while might be quite the underwhelming way to describe it, in fact.

Regardless, it was the first time. And my body stretched and groaned against it, but it all worked out swimmingly. I enjoyed new toys and a few orgasms, and I squirted for the first time in (don’t say “a while”).. you-don’t-what-to-know-how-long.

It was altogether a pleasing experience if it was slightly less than toe-curling, but it was also followed/joined by an onslaught of tears. I posted about it on Twitter — briefly.

And discovered that I’m not alone, but I can only tell my story.

There’s a lot of hokey new-agey type stuff about the G-spot, but it certainly seems a quick button for catharsis. I’m certain it’s rooted in biology, and oxytocin specifically causes all sorts of emotions when it rushes through your veins.

But I temporarily forgot this. There wasn’t any way for me to be contained. I was both squirting and crying, and if this sounds like a bad thing.. it’s not. It was a cathartic cry like when you watch a chick flick, perhaps with ice cream, and just let it go.

It was primal and unedited and perhaps just what I needed. It was unexpected only because it’s inconsistent. But hindsight is 20/20, and why wouldn’t I have an intense reaction the first time I experience penetration in months?

And it’s not at all like crying and masturbation or sex don’t go hand in hand for me. When I was with my ex, I discovered that I would sometimes cry from sex. It was because of overwhelming feelings of love and connection, but it pushed the experience to an intensity that I desired. With more recent partners, I’ve achieved a similar intensity through rougher sex.

After I stopped having sex with The Bartender, my poor broken heart was unable to think of anything else when I jacked off, and this resulted in all sorts of crying as I came. It wasn’t pretty, that’s for sure, and it wasn’t always wanted. But it ushered in all sorts of feeling, and sex is one of the few times when I am relaxed enough, stripped bare enough and out of my head enough to just feel. To be.

It’s more difficult, of course, if I’m dealing with unresolved feelings in addition to hormones. Although, that wasn’t the case this time around. I was in a place where I could just notice and feel both amused and impressed with my physiology. It’s a pretty neat thing.

Sometimes my G-spot makes me cry, and that’s always okay even if it’s inconvenient.

Comment

Categories: Masturbation

Embrace G Wand

August 11th, 2016

Embrace G Wand
$85.99 from SheVibe

Do you know what California Exotics is good at? It’s not really making amazing sex toys; although, you certainly could argue that the company is pretty good at churning them out. Henry Ford would be proud.

No, I think California Exotics is good at some other things, including:

  • Being late to the gate (rechargeable toys and silicone)
  • Designing toys that look premium and charging slightly less for them than those who did it first
  • ..but ultimately disappointing me

The Embrace line pretty much embodies all of these frustrations, and I should know better by now. This isn’t even the first toy I’ve tried from the line!

So you probably wanna know why I tried another one? I guess I’m just a glutton for punishment.

Okay, there’s at least one improvement over the G Wand from the Beloved Wand: it’s rechargeable and doesn’t just use AAA batteries. This should be a win, but if you thought that means it’s any stronger, well, you’re wrong. Probably. I no longer have the Beloved wand in my collection, but I can absolutely confirm that the power output of the G Wand isn’t what I expected because, you guys, there are three fuckin’ motors in here.

There’s one in the bulbous portion of the shaft, one in the neck and one between the clitoral nub and handle. The latter two are definitely smaller and weaker, but I can distinctly feel them in the setting that simply goes through each motor separately. But the overall impression on the steady vibration modes is just bland.

Seriously, though. It’s been a while since I’ve used a toy that just felt so “meh.” It’s odd because it feels stronger and deeper in my hand. The higher setting is noticeably buzzier, but it feels like it should do a decent job once inserted. It doesn’t, though. It may be the way the silicone absorbs the vibrations.

The G wand having a much more drastic curve than the Beloved wand. It reminds me of my Rondo, which I still have somewhere. In fact, I think the curve combined with the handle made it look like it would please me, and that was one of the main draws.

But I haven’t had a ton of success with G-spot wands that share this general shape. I’ve liked some, including the aforementioned Rondo and a toy by Ophoria. You may recall that I didn’t like the Pure Wand or the Comet, however, and many women have found those to be excellent G-spotters. To be fair, the Embrace G Wand is going to be a better tool for G-spot stim if you like those curves; although, there’s more flexibility than the Comet. So you may not be able to get a lot of intense play out of it.

To be fair, the Embrace G Wand is going to be a better tool for G-spot stim if you like those curves; although, there’s more flexibility than the Comet. So you may not be able to get a lot of intense play out of it.

As for the shaft, my favorite part was the rounded head, which I found to work decently for clitoral stimulation. However, the clitoral nub on the base of the shaft didn’t do it for me. In order to get it into the right position, the inner portion of the toy would cause pain. And the three ridges on the clitoral stimulator didn’t do it for me, anyway.

Is there anything I did like? I like the layout of buttons, which were easy to find. A single button switches through the seven settings (and powers the toy on/off), and each has six speeds. The other two turn the intensity up or down. I find it strange that the toy would start on the middle setting, however. It makes me think you’ll have a lot more power than you actually do. Who starts on medium and goes back down, anyway? But I was trying to be kind..

The loop in the handle was just big enough for a single finger, which I foud more useful than a toy whose loop is just shy of fitting two fingers. It feels pretty natural to slip my index finger through the hole and press buttons with my thumb.

It’s waterproof and recharges via USB. It’s not all that loud, so I might recommend it to someone who was looking for a vibrator of this shape but wanted more flexibility than the Comet and similar toys offer.

As for me? I really can’t quite put my finger on why the Embrace G Wand seems so lackluster. It has a less severe curve than toys that I really dislike, and the flexibility means I should at least be able to work with it. Perhaps I need to give it another go ’round before I toss it in the swap drawer. I’m just not looking forward to it.

SheVibe

1 Comment

Categories: Reviews, Vibrators

Fun Factory Bouncer

July 28th, 2015

Fun Factory Bouncer
$99 from SheVibe

An Adriana is a weird thing, what with her ability to squirt but her lesser ability to orgasm from vaginal stimulation. In fact, G-spot stimulation is typically neutral to her and many times uncomfortable, even as it’s making her squirt.

Perhaps it’s more than fitting that I set my eye on the Bouncer, one of the newest Fun Factory toys on the market. This dildo, from the outside, looks like any Fun Factory dildo. It’s got the suction cup base with triple rounded lobes. It has the same velvety texture as other FF toys, including the Boss dildo, which presents the same problems and need for lube.

The smaller size of the Bouncer means this is less of an issue, but that’s not the appeal. The folks at Fun Factory have created a dildo with hollow compartments where inner balls provide a vibration-like movement. It’s a hybrid kegel-ball dildo.

This means there are three noticeable bulges, one for each of the balls. It’s not a design that’s entirely foreign, but it’s different from most of the dildos I’ve tried, many of which tend to be glass with smaller textures, or smooth silicone. The bulges create a slight curve, perfect for stimulating all of your spots.

As a G-spot dildo, this works as well as any of them. It made me squirt — and how! It was evident that the shape and firmness were doing this. The ridges that house the inner balls seem rather firm, much firmer than some FF dildos and more like many of the vibrators that are plastic housed in silicone. It also works well for the long, slow thrusts I use to “milk” my G-spot. Plus, it would hold up to short, shallow thrusts that are quite rapid. However, this isn’t what my vag likes.

To get the full extent of the Bouncer, I experimented with the dildo in a variety of ways. Holding it at the base and shaking provides plenty of vibration to your hand, but you can’t quite translate the movement internally. With only the first ball inserted, most of the “bouncing” can be felt near the entrance of my vagina and vulva in a vibratory way. Long, slow thrusts don’t provide a lot of this sensation at all.

Two methods seemed to do the best job at creating the vibrations with the balls. The first I discovered quite accidentally. With the dildo comfortable inserted about halfway, I was able to hold the base and move it in circular directions or quickly side to side. The quicker you move it, the more vibrations. My G-spot was very receptive to this sensation, which reminded me somewhat of being fingered at just the right angle.

Secondly, I used short, fast “strokes.” By strokes, I mean the movement was less than 2 inches back and forth, but this was also good for making the balls bounce internally and squirting. Through either movement, I couldn’t really “separate” the feeling of bouncing versus thrusting internally, but the addition of the balls made the sensation feel so much bigger, pronounced and and enveloping.

The interesting thing about Bouncer is that the balls continue to bounce around a bit after you halt movement, so you feel the residual “vibrations.’ And while I use this word, the Bouncer isn’t like a vibrator because the balls move in a more erratic and less consistent way. It’s less powerful and fast, and human variation/error comes into play, of course. In fact, it reminds me a bit of the Stronic “vibes,” which have a back-and-forth mechanism to create a sensation similar to but not entirely the same as vibrating.

Bouncer is kinda like that.

So yea, it’s a weird hybrid of kegel ball, dildo, vibrator, whatever. I didn’t get a chance to try it against a wand vibrator, but I bet that will be interesting. I’ve described many toys as “interesting” when I didn’t mean it in a positive way. In the case of the Bouncer, it’s a toy that encourages me to play in new and unique ways.

I can’t promise if you’ll like it, but even if you don’t feel much from the balls, it’s still a good G-spotter in terms of shape and size (over 7″ long and a max diameter of 1.57″). Fun Factory, unlike some companies — I am talking to you Lelo! — seems to be looking for quality over quantity in innovation!

1 Comment

Categories: Dildos, Reviews

Image © MisterUnlucky; used with permission.