Was listening to Masterpieces of ancient Greek literature. David J. Schenker, Lecture 14 Agamemnon and noted an absence when he discussed the imagery in Clytemnestra's speech lines 1390-92. Elizabeth Vandiver suggests that the language here connects vegetable fertility symbolism with human sexuality. There was nothing remotely like that in David J. Schenker's lecture.A.Ag 1389-1392
κἀκφυσιῶν ὀξεῖαν αἵματος σφαγὴν
βάλλει μ’ ἐρεμνῇ ψακάδι φοινίας δρόσου,
χαίρουσαν οὐδὲν ἧσσον ἢ διοσδότῳ
γάνει σπορητὸς κάλυκος ἐν λοχεύμασιν.
So there he lay and as he gasped, his blood
spouted and splashed me with black spry, a dew
of death, sweet to me as heaven's sweet rain drops
when the corn-land buds.
— Edith Hamilton (1937).
And when he sputters out his life in blood
he sprays me with black drops like dew
gladdening me no less than when the green
bud of the corn feel showers from
— Ann Carson (2009)
Went off looking for third opinion and found John J. Peradotto who cites E. Fraenkel:
I am wondering if Elizabeth Vandiver is just doing a feminist thing here or if some others have argued that Clytemnestra is alluding to something pretty obscene at this point.Orestes is envisioned by Cassandra as a "mother-killing plant" (1]μητροκτόνον φίτυμα, 1281), while his mother Clytemnestra, in what is perhaps the most violent of these images, compares her- self, spattered with the bloody " dew" of her murdered husband, to the crop that "rejoices" in the rain of Zeus (1390-2):
 E. Fraenkel, Aeschylus, Agamemnon: Commentary (Oxford, 1950), ad loc.: " The horror is unescapable when the sweet miracle of carefully tended sprouting and growth of crops becomes a symbol of inhuman gloating over murder. Nothing can bring out the fury of hate more strongly than the loving detail of κάλυκος ἐν λοχεύμασιν, in which, as in the words of Aphrodite in the Danaids, the birth of all created life is seen as a homogeneous process."
 Some Patterns of Nature Imagery in the Oresteia, John J. Peradotto
The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 85, No. 4, (Oct., 1964), pp. 378-393
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
postscript: Elizabeth Vandiver's lectures where aimed at a much more sophisticated audience than those of David J. Schenke who sounded like was talking to an elementary school group. I found Schenke almost impossible to listen to. Perhaps the difference in target audience was the reason for the difference in treatment of the topic under discussion here.