Female ejaculation...

VeronicaF · 16-06-09 02:26:35

blissed wrote:

You could examine the tip of the foreskin of a dead man and conclude it's just a bit of skin, you couldn't deduce from that it's function in gaining an erection or deduce any element of feeling because the person is dead.

Wouldn't you find a higher concentration of nerve endings? I don't have a great medical knowledge but thats what I'd assume.

pcobb4759 · 16-06-09 02:44:40

More seriously, the "science" was abysmal! A sample group ten times that size would have been much more appropriate--just Big Pharma trying to make more money. Pain in the Butt having to refute the baloney.

Geez, now I have 2 ID's. I wonder if I have to post twice as much...

pmjc02

Folly · 16-06-09 04:18:27

pcobb: that device does sound pretty scary. But I guess for some women who haven't orgasmed or have trouble having orgasms, well, you can't blame them for going to such great lengths.

Gala: by pointing out that your own clips could be displaying female ejaculation as a spectacle, I was more meaning to express that I enjoy viewing the spectacle (although I agree that it also deserves to be treated as incidental). I suppose that I enjoy it because as a spectacle it is ...spectacular! (especially with good lighting ). So I guess I was more admitting that I am guilty of enjoying the spectacle and am grateful for some of the lovely ways you, and other creators have brought it to ifm. And anyway you could never show your ability to ejaculate without also showing the sensuality evident in your entire experience.

But until you collaborate on a distance competition I don't think you have really reached the levels of spectacle possible!

gala · 16-06-09 05:28:49

Yeah I get what you were saying, Folly, and I've said quite a few times here (or maybe somewhere else) that it's an act I also enjoy watching. Even when it's me doing it. I think lots of images of the act do remove it from the sensuality of its contextual experience, which is where the whole matter of 'spectacle' came from in my discussion to begin with. And perhaps in those images the meaning of spectacle is more in terms of the theatre of it, of treating it like a bit of a freak show or something really unusual and curious. Which it is - but if you're curious you need information, which is not what you get from the mainstream.

nihpuad · 16-06-09 06:35:43

pcobb4759 wrote:

...I came across a description of a remote control devicethat activates an implanted device that stimulates the spinal orgasm nerves in the woman. Remote control??...

I saw a TV documentary about a clinical trial of that gadget: It was being touted as a treatment for sexual dysfunction, not a sex toy... and in the doc, it was only successful on one out of three trial subjects; the other two had little or not effect.

Of course, I think that program was several years old, so perhaps the device (which they actually called the Orgasmotron!) has been improved, if not perfected, in the meantime.

ngaio · 16-06-09 07:32:06

Orgasmatron? Eek! That sounds like something a sleazy infomercial personality would try to sell me. It would come with a free set of kitchen knives.

blissed · 16-06-09 11:50:28

OMG! go to Blinkx the video search engine and search the word orgasmatron.
Click the top result which is this and look what it is!!

http://www.blinkx.com/video/orgasmatron … RaByV0KGjQ

I don't know what's so WTF about it I think they look great.

http://www.blinkx.com/videos/orgasmatron

.

ngaio · 18-06-09 08:55:56

Yeah, I WTFed at the WTF! Seriously, WTF is with that WTF?

nihpuad · 19-06-09 06:20:01

ngaio wrote:

Orgasmatron? Eek! That sounds like something a sleazy infomercial personality would try to sell me. It would come with a free set of kitchen knives.

It does sound like that, I agree... but it's actually a medical device.

That's not to say that it wouldn't become a toy, too, just as Viagra and such have become "recreational" drugs. Fascinating question in the article: "One woman asked me, 'Would it be considered adultery if I gave the remote control to someone other than my husband?'." Hmmm... I've had long (online) arguments about whether cybersex is cheating, or morally more similar to masturbating to porn, but this would raise it to a whole new level. Imagine this widget could be controlled remotely over the net: That would be about as close to real sex as cybersex could get!

VeronicaF · 19-06-09 06:54:36

nihpuad wrote:

I've had long (online) arguments about whether cybersex is cheating, or morally more similar to masturbating to porn, but this would raise it to a whole new level. Imagine this widget could be controlled remotely over the net: That would be about as close to real sex as cybersex could get!

It's only cheating if you break the rules. I think these are issues that need to be discussed with your partner. If they know in advance and have no issues with said cybersex then there really is no issue. If however, you know or even strongly suspect that your partner would be hurt by it then you are really taking a fairly heavy risk.

As for the remote stimulation thing...I believe stelarc's website has a bit of text about that on it. I personally can't wait until man and machine finally merge. Gonna download me alot o' knowledge and backup my memory asap.

Last edited by VeronicaF (19-06-09 06:55:04)

gala · 19-06-09 07:34:22

nihpuad wrote:

I've had long (online) arguments about whether cybersex is cheating, or morally more similar to masturbating to porn, but this would raise it to a whole new level. Imagine this widget could be controlled remotely over the net: That would be about as close to real sex as cybersex could get!

I hadn't really thought about that, that's a good question. Where did you discuss this and what came up? Another great way that the internet has blurred the boundaries we previously understood so clearly...though I dunno if 'cheating' is one of those - everyone has a different definition of 'cheating' which makes it hard for me to even take the concept seriously.

Good food for thought though.

nihpuad · 19-06-09 08:27:32

gala wrote:

Where did you discuss this and what came up?

I don't recall exactly how we got 'round to this subject, but it was part of a long comment thread at my favorite blog, Pharyngula. I took the position that if you're interacting with another person in real time, and in the course of that interaction one or both of you reach orgasm, that's a sexual encounter, regardless of the lack of direct physical contact... and if your partner would consider a sexual encounter with an outsider "cheating" (your and VeronicaF's points about the relativity of that term are well taken), then cybersex is just as much cheating as any other extracurricular sex.

The counterargument, which I admit is not without merit even though I disagree, was that wanking to words on a screen is just wanking, and it's no more "cheating" than wanking to porn would be.

There's a real-world test (which can be done as a thought experiment): In my case, I know if my wife walked in on me wanking to an IFM video, she might or might not be somewhat upset, but it wouldn't be a marriage-threatening crisis. If she caught me having cybersex (remember this is a hypothetical; I don't actually do that), I'm pretty sure it would be. YMMV.

And giving someone else direct, personal control over your orgasm seems like the sort of thing that anyone would recognize as a form of sex, however remote the control is. It's the ultimate (you should pardon the expression) extension of teledildonics, IMHO.

blissed · 19-06-09 12:40:12

VeronicaF wrote:

It's only cheating if you break the rules.

and we and our sexual partners make the rules between us.

nihpuad I wonder what your wife would say if she walked in on you having a Skype conference call orgy

.

sensualmaitre · 21-06-09 13:31:17

ngaio wrote:

I would certainly like to see female ejaculation not being fetishised or put on display as if it's some amazing, hyper-sexual thing but rather simply being shown as a part of the woman's overall sexual experience.
I once watched a video where this man claimed to know how to teach women how to squirt... he claimed they had to be thin, comfortable in their own bodies and with "squirters dimples" on their lower back. He claimed to have spent years trying to find out how to do it and to make a women squirt was this amazing, ultimate sort of goal for him. He seemed to have this idea that women who could squirt were somehow more sexual, enjoyed their sexuality more, than other women. Do you think this is a common perception?
Hell, for a long time I didn't even -feel- it when I ejaculated so it was never even a huge deal for me personally. I still isn't, really, it's just something that happens sometimes, is fun... but it's just one small part of my experience.

In my experience, not every woman can ejaculate; it depends whether she has, in the first place (as I understand it), the physical characteristics to gather and hold this (ejaculatory) fluid within her vaginal area. Then, secondly, can it be found (by herself or her lover) and acted on!
Certainly, in my experience women that do have the capacity, have a noticeable "pouch" located near the "g" spot and, when rubbed with fingers, or fisted, this will issue forth fluids... the copiousness depends, again, on the physical capacity and can, also depends, be replenished quickly... or slowly.

As to "education" (the word I prefer rather than "training" which I apply to submissives) of a woman, I view as a process of putting her sexual (mental) psyche in touch with her physical being. This process can take time, depending on how quickly one can ascertain her mental erotic proclivities and then "educating" her to associate her physical response to these (or to act on them physically with my "help"). However, there is certainly reward for the woman in that the process inevitably heightens the senses, she discovers things about herself she may not have known and the resulting climaxes can be significantly enhanced in sensation and mental gratification. A reward for her lover too, to say the least :-)!
The whole mix, of mind, ambiance, build-up, fetish can then turn into an orgy of the senses where everything takes off and results in ecstasy!!
I did know a woman who certainly had the capacity to ejaculate (as I felt it when finger-fucking her soon after meeting) but it took a while, and the right combination of circumstances, before she ejaculated. Thereafter, she was easy to "coax" once the "taboo" had been broken and she craved the repeat of the experience.... so not only does the normal "education" of mental and physical responses play a part but the "shame" or "taboo" issue has to be conquered as well in certain cases.
Of course this all takes a willingness to be open and trusting with one's partner, to explore, discover and coach.

VeronicaF · 22-06-09 03:28:52

blissed wrote:

VeronicaF wrote:
It's only cheating if you break the rules.
and we and our sexual partners make the rules between us.

.

That was kinda my point.

blissed · 22-06-09 07:55:16

Yep and I'm agreeing with you adding a clarification.

.

VeronicaF · 22-06-09 08:09:47

blissed wrote:

Yep and I'm agreeing with you adding a clarification.
.

That you are....my bad. Monday morning madness

#26 16-06-09 02:26:35

Re: Female ejaculation...

#27 16-06-09 02:44:40

Re: Female ejaculation...

#28 16-06-09 04:18:27

Re: Female ejaculation...

#29 16-06-09 05:28:49

Re: Female ejaculation...

#30 16-06-09 06:35:43

Re: Female ejaculation...

#31 16-06-09 07:32:06

Re: Female ejaculation...

#32 16-06-09 11:50:28

Re: Female ejaculation...

#33 18-06-09 08:55:56

Re: Female ejaculation...

#34 19-06-09 06:20:01

Re: Female ejaculation...

#35 19-06-09 06:54:36

Re: Female ejaculation...

#36 19-06-09 07:34:22

Re: Female ejaculation...

#37 19-06-09 08:27:32

Re: Female ejaculation...

#38 19-06-09 12:40:12

Re: Female ejaculation...

#39 21-06-09 13:31:17

Re: Female ejaculation...

#40 22-06-09 03:28:52

Re: Female ejaculation...

#41 22-06-09 07:55:16

Re: Female ejaculation...

#42 22-06-09 08:09:47

Re: Female ejaculation...

Board footer