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

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

Bijoux Indiscrets cosmetics for better 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

Get up to 30% off at MysteryVibe

Fun Factory Bouncer

July 28th, 2015

Fun Factory Bouncer
$105 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 comfortably inserted about halfway, I was able to hold the base and move it in circular directions or quickly from 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 that 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

Mona Wave

March 2nd, 2015

Mona Wave
$179 from Lelo

Listen, guys. Lelo is trying really hard to be innovative. It’s not enough to make toys of silicone that are rechargeable. They did that. And then everyone else did that. They’ve got to get a couple steps ahead of the game.

It certainly wasn’t cutting it for them to try to revamp some of their most-loved items. The sophomore versions of most toys, including the Gigi, just fell short. Perhaps the second Mona was an improvement.

And Lelo took heart, maybe? Because they tried to do something completely different with Ora, which was met with disdain from almost the entire sex-toy-buying community. I liked it, but the original obviously wasn’t ready to be released. And Siri 2? Props on increasing the motor for one of my favorite clit toys, but that whole “music vibe” thing is a joke.

So what else can Lelo do? Fun Factory has already done something interesting and relatively successful with the Stronic line, so I guess Lelo’s going to stick to mimicking manual g-spot stimulation.

That’s where this whole Wave thing comes in. Lelo picked two popular toys, Mona and Ina, to “upgrade.” Rather than just creating another g-spot vibe, Lelo has allowed the head of Mona to wag back and forth — like the “come hither” motion. There is also vibration, and you can use them together or separately if you’d like.

The vibration alone isn’t any better than the original Mona or Mona 2. The original has been discontinued, but you’re going to save a chunk of money if you buy Mona 2. To be honest, this is probably the best option for anyone who isn’t entirely sure that Mona Wave isn’t for them. Unless you’re comfortable throwing away money. And this is why.

The problem, I think, with Mona Wave is that it’s one size fits most. And if it fits me fairly well, that means it’s going to fall short for a lot of other people.

The back-and-forth motion performs at a uniform pace. If it works for you, that’s great. It’s just kind of boring. And there’s no increase or decrease in intensity to get you to the point where you’re going to have a g-spot orgasm or squirt. This is going to mean that “one size fits most,” results in some pretty unhappy customers.

As far as toys go, the Mona Wave is all about providing the same sensation instantly. Maybe you’ll reach for it after another toy has gotten you almost there.. but why would you? You could use the vibration and curved shaft to stimulate your G-spot and then turn on the wave function, but that seems kinda fickle, and you may find yourself removing the toy to look at the buttons.

This is always an issue with me when I’m using toys that have more than one function. I can never just switch between them, and I’ve never thought that Lelo’s standard 4-button control panel was quite as intuitive as it could be.

Mona Wave might have 10 speeds, be waterproof and come with a warranty, but none of that is going to mean much to disappointed sex toy lovers who aren’t able to successfully cater their masturbation style to the Mona Wave rather than the other way around, which I think many people argue is the better way. So Lelo’s claims that Mona Wave is the first of its kind that will revolutionize vibrators is just a claim the company can’t back up.

 

2 Comments

Categories: Reviews, Vibrators

Bijoux Indiscrets cosmetics for better sex

Ceramix No. 5 & 6

October 9th, 2014

Ceramix #5 and #6
~$15 from Amazon

I don’t typically combine reviews, but I’ve already written about a Ceramix dildo. I liked it. I liked it enough to try others in the line, which really isn’t typical for me. However, I didn’t figure that three reviews would be useful, especially when one of those reviews are of two very similar toys.

Ceramix #5 is a purple, white and black toy with ridges and a G-spot curve at the end. The other is a ridged, black-and-white toy with a contoured smooth head. Since I’d already tried a Ceramix piece with warm water, I wanted to experience one with cold water. I set about popping about the stopper at the end.. and broke my nail and a pair of tweezers. Like, my tweezers is now all jacked up because it’s damned near impossible to get the stopper out.

I gave up and only filled one with warm water. I simply ran the other under color water for quite a bit. And the thing is? The way that ceramic holds temperature, this was enough to keep it cold for around fifteen minutes at least. My masturbation sessions wasn’t super long and it stayed cold for the whole time I needed it to, which says to me that the whole water thing isn’t so necessary. Either way, I will refrain from filling and simply use water on the exterior in the future.

In fact, I still have water in one of the dildos because omg-I-have-to-pull-out-that-damn-stopper-again!?

I started with the #6 with its contoured head. I think I like the look of this dildo better. Sure, it’s a little reminiscent of Beetlejuice, but maybe that’s not a bad thing. The contoured head looks a bit like, well, modern art. This thing should be on a mantle somewhere, and I find the strict black and white stripes to be rather appealing, too.

But during use? It was underwhelming. I couldn’t feel the ridges. The overall rigidity felt nice but less effective than I’d like. It felt just okay. I was bummed. The site lists this as 1.75 inches in diameter, but that’s actually the side of the base. The actual diameter is closer to 1.25 inches give or take, and it’s definitely smaller toward the tip, which is part of the reason the ridges were harder to feel, I think.

So you can imagine my surprise when the Ceramix #5 turned out to be much more noticeable. I think the ridges are a little deeper, but the toy is also larger by about 1/4 inch through the length of it. The #5 is less visually appealing to me. It’s less sophisticated, but it feels much better with its lazy “S” shape. Very loose S, but the G-spot curve hugs my pubic bone almost freakin’ perfectly when it’s not fully inserted. It’s like this thing was made for me specifically.

I also preferred the slightly shorter length — Ceramix No. 5 is 7.75″ long and the other is 8.25″ in length. The base takes up about 1/2 inch on both. I think the generally straighter shaft on Ceramix No 6 means I try to insert more, while the curve on the $5 prevents me from “over” insertion ad bruising my cervix.

Perhaps a difference was that the  Ceramix #5 was filled with warm water, which created a gentle but noticeable heated sensation. I had run the other under cool water. It didn’t feel better or worse necessarily, but it may have caused me to be subconsciously more rigid. But while the Ceramix #6 might have been more pleasing to the eye, it was the other dildo that I preferred actually inside of me.

Either piece will be harness compatible thanks to the flat base, which also works quite well a sa handhold. Ceramic is slick like glass, but I used both with lube. Turns out it was a silicone-based lube when I expected it was water (and the session included two silicone toys — oops!). This wasn’t problematic when it came to grasping and controlling the toys.

Unlike glass, Ceramix is much lighter, especially without any water in the hollow.

Both can be easily cleaned with oil and water, but I’m finding the silicone lube is being extra stubborn. You could boil or toss in the dishwasher with your other dildos.

Neither comes with any storage option, so you might want to invest in a storage pouch or a sock or something to keep these from clinking around noisily in your drawer or toy box. You could store them in the foam insert that comes inside the box, but it’s going to need more space, of course.

 

Comment

Categories: Dildos, Reviews

Image © MisterUnlucky; used with permission.