Movie Review: Anita (Swedish Nymphette)

This 1973 exploitation flick tells the story of a nymphomaniac girl (Anita) who is forced to leave her small hometown because she has slept with every man in town, and once she sleeps with them, she can't stand the sight of them. So she goes to the big city where there are plenty more men to have sex with in janitor's closets and tents set up on the street near construction sites. But in the city, a young psychology student (Erik) knocks her down and then picks her up to help discover the source of her problem and seek a cure, after asking his prof if he can "do her" for his dissertation, which the prof says is fine, but he should make sure not to sleep with her until after she's cured.

It's not at all uncommon for exploitation flicks to masquerade as serious movies, but this one really struck me as a good movie about sex, although it falters toward the end, as many do. In particular, the movie succeeds because Christina Lindberg (seen here in my post about noses) wonderfully conveys the tidal pull of the addict. In particular, there is one scene that I think will resonate with any person who struggles with compulsive behaviors (like, oh, I don't know, masturbation). Anita, having just picked up a man at the train station for sex is weeping in the borrowed room when an old glassmaker comes up to get his share. Taken aback by her tears, the glassmaker sits down beside her, and she spills out how much she despises herself for doing what she does, then proceeds to unzip his pants and get on her knees.

Erik tries to talk Anita through her problem by making her see her self-worth and strictly refusing to have sex with her, despite the fact that he has fallen completely in love with her, but his words are worthless. It seems that the cause of her nymphomania is her complete inability to have an orgasm, and to be cured, she must experience one, which becomes the driving force in the second half of the movie.

The medical aspect of the movie seems pretty ludicrous to me, and I suspect it's counter to anything a modern-day sex therapist would recommend, but nonetheless I felt this movie was actually quite compelling. It's not a hardcore flick--there are no gynecological shots or steam piston sequences. The numerous sex-scenes are kept brief, even without nudity initially. The nudity increases as the movie goes on, with Anita slowly revealing her body as she bares her soul, which is nice because Lindberg really is a beauty.

A good movie, recommended for anyone who is interested in serious movies about sex. If it's not as "fun" or fast-paced as some other exploitation flicks, it also steers around the use of sexual violence. There is no rape in the movie, which contributes somewhat to then entire movie's overall sense of innocence that is a great part of its charm.

Functional MRI Detects Schwing Center of the Brain

Ever wonder what part of your brain lights up when you see a pretty girl? Turns out it's the nucleus accumbens. Where is the nucleus accumbens? you may ask. It's in the forebrain, right hemisphere (which explains why there are disproportionate numbers of left-handed jerkers). The nucleus accumbens is one of the brain's main "reward centers," the places that make you feel good. In particular, the nucleus accumbens has been linked with the reward that goes along with drug and alcohol use. So, all this time, I thought liquor and looking at hot chicks were two passions, but it turns out they're the same one.

Here's the link to the study, which was published in the same venue that brought us bat fellatio:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0009042

A couple of notes about the study. Ostensibly, the researchers were trying to test the significance of the 0.7 Waist-to-Hip-Ratio (WHR), and their title claims that they have. But, if you actually look at their results, you see that they correlated nucleus accumbens activity not with the WHR, but with subjective attractiveness ratings, which, for this sample of 14 American men (mean age 25 with a standard deviation of 6.3) happened to correlate with a 0.7 WHR. Personally, I'm a firm believer in the 0.7 WHR. I know, at least, that it pushes my buttons (that and a great pair of knockers), but I'm unsure about its universality.

On the other hand, I do agree with the statements of one of the researchers, "This research explains things like sexual harassment and whistling at the hot girl in the street. These findings could help further our understanding of pornography addiction and related disorders." If seeing a hot chick really does push some of the same buttons as drugs or alcohol, we might expect some of our higher cognitive functions to be suppressed, including good judgment and inhibition. This effect could also be heightened in an otherwise testosterone-rich environment, such as a male-dominated workplace.

I'll close with some random stimuli:

Making the World a Better Place

I'm sure there are many people who think that I am a hedonist devoted only to the study of carnal pleasure, but really Stately Pleasure Domes is devoted to a number of important causes. First of all, of course, is saving boobs:

And we remind women that regular self-exams are crucial to the early detection of cancers and pre-cancers. This can seem like a chore, but a little bit of baby oil will help your hands glide smoothly over your breasts. It's also a good idea to enlist a spotter who can help you perfect your technique and make sure you don't miss any spots: "Slower over the nipple, that's it, circle it again, just to be sure." (PS-be sure to check out the "making of" video. You get to see Aliya-Jasmine in her glasses. Not only is she hot, but she's cute and smart. After all, not only did she direct the PSA, she WROTE IT, too. Every word.)

Animal rights is another cause I completely support. After all, I am an animal. And I believe that we should all reduce our meat consumption and our use of animal-derived products so we can end cruel factory farms. I also support many of PETA's campaigns, including "Cruelty Doesn't Fly."



Not to mention its various "I'd rather go naked" campaigns:

And its lettuce bikini campaign:
A noble effort, indeed. It could have been better if a) they'd designed the bikinis a little better and b) they'd taken advantage of the opportunity to slip a veggie dog in there. But, still, the "respect" tattoo peeking out there is classic.

There are some who criticize PETA for sacrificing women's bodies to make the case for animals. I can see the point, but there are a lot of women with really great looking bodies who want to contribute to a cause. Not all of them are as smart as Aliya-Jasmine and can actually WRITE a PSA. Unlike animals, the women participating are doing so of their own free will. They could be getting naked to advertise a product that profits from cruelty to animals, but instead, they are using their assets in a positive way.

But the cause that's nearest and dearest to my heart is Global Orgasm for Peace. Make love, not war. Every day, in every way.

The Naughty Librarian

Naughty librarians happen to be one of my favorite fantasies, and I am by no means alone. The trope makes regular appearances on our buddy blog, The Larryville Chronicles. Here are a couple more examples:

Note that in the costume the skirt is made out of books, albeit without any too creative selections: Moby Dick, of course, the Joy of Sex, and The Scarlet Letter.

Anyway, this past summer Quentin Tarantino gave an interview with Elle magazine where he attacked the trope, saying, "If someone is inhibited in life, they tend to be inhibited in bed. If they have judgmental rules in life, they'll have judgmental rules in bed." On the one hand, yes, he's attacking one of our most treasured fantasies, but, on the other hand, he's not telling us anything we don't already know. And knowing it's not true gives power to the fantasy.

But the naughty librarian is not just any fantasy, she fits into a paradigm that is man's answer to the Cinderella complex. Whereas many women imagine that one day the perfect man will ride up and sweep them off their feet into a world of perfect romance, that he will love and care for them unfailingly into eternity, men have a different complex. Many men imagine that they will ride out into the world and discover a woman in whom they will awaken an unsuspected and insatiable sexual desire, a woman that will fill their days with endlessly variable, endlessly exciting, and tireless sex.

The naughty librarian, by virtue of beginning as a symbol of the proper, unreachable, and asexual that is then corrupted into a lusty voluptuary, reenacts this essential fantasy. Consider, for example, the beginning of Horny Licking Librarian:

"It was Polly Prentiss’ first day on the job. The newly appointed head librarian of the exclusive and private Hardwick School knew she ought to keep her mind on her work, but it was difficult to ignore how horny she felt.

She’d never had this problem before. Polly had always been so wrapped up in her career that she’d never had time for men and sex. Then, at twenty-eight, she’d decided to treat herself to her first real vacation, a Caribbean cruise. And on the cruise she’d gone to bed with a man for the very first time. Just a few love-making sessions with Mark Wells, and she was hooked on sex."

(Quote and image courtesy of xNovel, "classic adult novels for free")

And then, of course, Polly goes on to be the titular naughty librarian.

Although I agree with Tarantino in fact, in spirit I am more akin to Borges' narrator in "The Library of Babel": "I pray to the unknown gods that a man--just one even though it were thousands of years ago!--may have examined and read [her]. . . . Let heaven exist though my place be in hell. Let me be outraged and annihilated, but for one instant, in one being, let Your enormous Library be justified."

The G-Spot Controversy

Some British researchers yesterday released one of the biggest bombs in sexual research in the last decade, stating that the G-spot does not exist. This after significant research in recent years that have claimed to have isolated both a biochemical marker (the presence of phosphodiesterase type 5) and a physical characteristic (thicker urethrovaginal space) that correlate with women's reports of experiencing vaginal orgasms related to the presence of the G-spot.

Do I believe this new study, soon to be published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine (where you can also read about "Design and Application of a New Rat-Specific Vacuum Erectile Device for Penile Rehabilitation Research")? I do not, although I must admit that I haven't read the article or even its abstract.

The study surveyed 1800 women, making it the largest sample size of any study on the G-spot ever conducted, which is in its favor. The study took pairs of identical and non-identical twins and asked them if they had a G-spot. Researchers rationalized that if there were a physical G-spot, then there would be a higher degree of correlation between identical twins reporting G-spots than between non-identical twins, but they found no such correlation. Therefore, they report that the G-spot is likely only a psychological phenomenon and not a physical one.

Here's what I believe are the flaws in the survey. First, although twin research is a widely-accepted method of establishing a physical vs. psychological distinction, it's not flawless. Although twins are genetically identical, they can (and often do) develop differently, with many lifestyle factors influencing their physical development.

Second, it's just a survey, and it depends on women knowing about their G-spots. Just because a woman has one doesn't mean she'll have sexual experience of it, and the survey didn't take into account the numbers and types of partners that twins had, which can make a big difference in their subjective experience. Once you take this into account, the study only says that women's experience of their G-spots is subjective. I'd be more convinced if the study were more comprehensive.

Third, I'm not sure but the researchers seemed to be setting out to establish that there was no G-spot, and I'm always suspicious of science that merely confirms what the researchers already believed. Some of the quotes from the researchers show them to be anti-G-spot advocates.

Personally, I am convinced that all women have some of the physical characteristics of the G-spot, although not all women are capable of orgasm through G-spot stimulation. Not all women who are physically capable of G-spot orgasms know how to do it or instruct their partners to do it. Even fewer women are with partners who are capable of stimulating the G-spot during intercourse.

But it doesn't matter whether you or your partner is capable of G-spot orgasms, there's still a nearly infinite universe of sexual pleasure to explore. So whether you are among the lucky few who enjoy this conjugal bliss or whether you are not, fuck on and ignore the research!

Commentary on a Bettie Page Video

I saw this Bettie Page video on Harem Girl and thought it was very interesting:



The video is divided into two very distinct sections, one a longer-shot that gives an entire sense of the set and the situation, with a second section of close-ups and slightly pulled-back video focused on Bettie's face. The transition between the two sections is just an abrupt cut, disappointing, no doubt, for modern viewers, but important to the way the video works. This is a striptease video, with much more tease than strip.

In the first section of the video, Bettie and her co-stars move with exaggerated gestures, like silent movie stars, which makes sense because this is, essentially, a silent movie. At first, I thought Bettie was dancing, and I thought, she's a terrible dancer, but then I realized her movements aren't dancing at all, but coordinated pageantry that approaches but never really wants to be dancing. Instead, it is a ritualistic performance designed to display and promote certain fetishistically important features, especially her legs. She most reminds me of a Barker's Beauty, only the prize on display is herself. It would be easy, I imagine, to let the gestures become mechanical and tired, but she keeps them fresh and playful. Even in these distant shots we see a little of the personality that will be the main feature of the video's second section.

The far shots are okay, but what really makes this video is the close-up section. Of course, she's beautiful, with her wide, white smile, her bright red lips, her black hair framing smooth white skin, and her eyebrows that are pronounced enough to be almost masculine, but hover instead at the line suggesting enhanced sexuality. Her face is strong, but all that power is in abeyance here, as she engages in play. And when she looks at the camera, her eyes look through it at me, and I feel that special sense of "golly-gee"ness that makes men blush when a beautiful woman singles them out for attention. But instead of pushing that line, she pulls back. There is no stress here. This is play, this is fun. And then she winks at me. Wow. Just wow. Now I've got a smile to last all day. Really nice.

Dr. C's Science Corner, Plus a Correction

Some months ago, you may remember a post on our friend's blog that included an allusion to Willem Defoe's stage show that included leading an anthropomorphic duck around by its genitals . . .

No? Well, here it is: Larryville Chronicles

In response, I made a comment about ducks having no penis at all, which, as it turns out, is incorrect. Although about 97% of all bird species have no penis (or phallus as biologists prefer to refer to them, since they're not actual penises), ducks are different. In fact, some ducks have ridiculously long phalluses, sometimes as long as the rest of the duck's body. In addition, the duck can shoot its phallus out in an attempt to aggressively deliver its sperm during forced copulation. If you dare, see the slow-motion video here:

Duck Phallus Eversion (WARNING: It's pretty gross.)

Of course, no duckess is going to just take this kind of behavior, so female ducks have evolved an oviduct (analogous to the vagina) with all kinds of counterscrews and dead-end pockets. The female ducks can relax or contract the structures in the oviducts to either allow or deny intromission.

If you want to read a longer summary of the research, look here: Kinky Science

For the original research in all its scientific glory, see here:

Coevolution of Male and Female Genitalia Morphology in Waterfowl

PLOSone is a favorite journal of mine. You may also remember it as the source of the first documented non-human fellatio. Missed that one? Here's the link to that exciting story:

Bat Fellatio