The G-Shot: Viagra (in a needle) for women?
October 30, 2007 1:25 PM   Subscribe

Is it "Viagra for women," or merely a placebo for women who want more orgasms? The G-shot, a little collagen injected into a sensitive place, is gaining more attention. It's not just weary working moms looking for a recharge. When a 19-year-old coed decides it's the answer to stop faking orgasms, how much longer before it's as ubiquitous as the little blue pill?
posted by sacre_bleu (205 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite

 
A panacea for women who want more orgasms? I'm a dude and I have to think that they're just entitled to as many as I am. What a weird thing to say.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:32 PM on October 30, 2007


So no way to watch the physician videos or what?
posted by puke & cry at 1:34 PM on October 30, 2007


This collagen -- it comes with nerve endings?

In a pilot study, 87% of women surveyed after receiving the G-Shot reported enhanced sexual arousal/gratification. Results do vary.

The affect can last for up to 4 months, and does vary.


So you get a more positive affect after getting the *squick!* shot, and this placebo effect lasts for months -- maybe?
posted by maudlin at 1:36 PM on October 30, 2007


A spiritually empty society inevitably overestimates the benefit of raw immediate pleasure.
posted by koeselitz at 1:39 PM on October 30, 2007 [9 favorites]


posted "When a 19-year-old coed decides it's the answer to stop faking orgasms, how much longer before it's as ubiquitous as the little blue pill? "

When it's not an $2000 injection into your junk?

Squick, indeed.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:40 PM on October 30, 2007 [3 favorites]


And while I have yet to experiment with the, ahem, actual use of the shot,

Tease. Talk about an anticlimax to her article.
posted by JanetLand at 1:41 PM on October 30, 2007


Never, ever fake an orgasm.
It's unfair to both of us.
posted by Floydd at 1:43 PM on October 30, 2007 [6 favorites]


A panacea for women who want more orgasms? I'm a dude and I have to think that they're just entitled to as many as I am. What a weird thing to say.


Ditto
posted by KokuRyu at 1:43 PM on October 30, 2007


Maybe she should have, you know, talked with her partners about alternate methods of getting her off before she spent thousands of dollars on an injection.

Granted, a lot of men like to believe that their dicks are the only thing that can get a woman off and get offended/threatened if they're told otherwise, but still.
posted by you just lost the game at 1:46 PM on October 30, 2007


A spiritually empty society inevitably overestimates the benefit of raw immediate pleasure.

Yes, if people were more in tune with the right spirituality (i.e. yours), they wouldn't want more pleasure in their lives.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:48 PM on October 30, 2007 [5 favorites]


I have to admit, when I went to my gyno and saw sh had a sign advertising that she would administer the "G-Shot" my opinion of her went down. The procedure just seems creepy and the results seem too erratic for me to even consider it.
posted by piratebowling at 1:51 PM on October 30, 2007


Maybe it would help more if the DUDE is the one who gets some collagen bumps installed instead.
posted by hermitosis at 1:52 PM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


I can tell these women how to have more orgasms: tell your boy to use his tongue.
posted by fandango_matt at 1:54 PM on October 30, 2007


DO NOT WANT NEEDLE DOWN THERE KTHX.
posted by desjardins at 1:55 PM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


If you think a 1:1 male to female orgasm ratio is acceptable to women, you are not giving your woman enough orgasms. Gotta be 1 male for every 2 female or else resentment will build up!
posted by autodidact at 1:56 PM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


There's nothing wrong with your vajayjay that I can't fix.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:56 PM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


How about a procedure to implant a small magnet underneath the nerve endings. Then the male gets a similar magnet under the skin of his penis. Upon penetration, the two magnets attract each other resulting in vigorous rubbing of the g-spot by the penis.

Or just learn to enjoy cunnilingus.
posted by smcniven at 1:57 PM on October 30, 2007


Are men really that clueless about giving women orgasms, generally? I ask this as a man, so I don't have personal experience beyond my own to go by here.
posted by davejay at 1:57 PM on October 30, 2007


Replace "giving women orgasms" with "helping women achieve orgasms"
posted by davejay at 1:58 PM on October 30, 2007


A spiritually empty society inevitably overestimates the benefit of raw immediate pleasure.

Preposterous.
posted by delmoi at 1:59 PM on October 30, 2007


If you think a 1:1 male to female orgasm ratio is acceptable to women, you are not giving your woman enough orgasms. Gotta be 1 male for every 2 female or else resentment will build up!

What if she has one and I don't? Or perhaps when she has only one, I should chase my orgasm with an anti-orgasm.
posted by davejay at 1:59 PM on October 30, 2007


Dammit. Not panacea. Placebo is the right word.

That is, in the articles there is some dispute whether the reported salutary effects have a physiological foundation, or should be ascribed to the power of suggestion.

Hope me, mods?
posted by sacre_bleu at 2:00 PM on October 30, 2007


Alexyss Tylor, please pick up the white courtesy phone.
posted by fandango_matt at 2:01 PM on October 30, 2007 [5 favorites]


Thank you davejay, that correction is much more accurate.

While I personally wouldn't try this and currently need nothing of the kind, I don't see it as much different as a man wanting to try Viagra. If a woman wants to try this, what's the harm? I would hope that she would have exhausted herself with efforts and techniques beforehand, but whatever. To each their own. And if it helps someone who has become sexually dysfunctional, terrific!
posted by agregoli at 2:02 PM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


A spiritually empty society inevitably overestimates the benefit of raw immediate pleasure.
posted by koeselitz at 1:39 PM on October 30


I'm sorry koeselitz, but I'm not high enough right now to understand what you just said.
posted by Avenger at 2:03 PM on October 30, 2007 [4 favorites]


Pope Guilty: "Yes, if people were more in tune with the right spirituality (i.e. yours), they wouldn't want more pleasure in their lives."

On the contrary, I wouldn't endorse my lifestyle to anybody. It hasn't been very successful. But the proliferation of strange drugs culminating in injections to the vagina aimed at +5 orgasms indicates to me that people have a pretty funny sense of their own pleasure. I don't believe that I'd find injection-induced orgasms that pleasurable. In fact, there's a huge number of things that are more pleasurable than orgasm, and especially squicky orgasm.

People can do whatever they want in the pursuit of pleasure. But if you can't just calm the fuck down and enjoy it, and are instead induced to get injections, medications, enlargements, and implants out of an intense need to feel something, methinks you're missing the whole "pleasure" thing entirely. As I've said before, better we fuck in the streets slowly and with great leisure than we die anxiously jerking ourselves in the pale light of our computers.
posted by koeselitz at 2:04 PM on October 30, 2007 [5 favorites]


The "affect?" Affect is a verb. Don't get a medical procedure involving needles from people who can't at least hire someone who can write English.

Also, it only lasts 4 months? I'm suspicious. A little silicone would be permanent. Repeat business, anyone?
posted by TeatimeGrommit at 2:06 PM on October 30, 2007


Have these women not noticed that the clit is great place for experimentation? Very pleasurable to many women.

If they want to try the G-Shot, then they can go right ahead as far as I'm concerned, but.... really?
I'll pass, thanks.
posted by bassjump at 2:06 PM on October 30, 2007


I guess my point was, did people decry Viagra so much? That's plenty unnatural too, and killed some people besides. I'm honestly asking, I don't really remember what the Viagra reaction was. I do still resent that it's covered by my medical insurance fully while my birth control pills (prescribed for a medical condition, not to control fertility, that's a nice side effect) are not.
posted by agregoli at 2:07 PM on October 30, 2007 [3 favorites]


And if I need to say it, then:

agregoli: "And if it helps someone who has become sexually dysfunctional, terrific!"

I agree wholly.
posted by koeselitz at 2:08 PM on October 30, 2007


Never, ever fake an orgasm.
It's unfair to both of us.
posted by Floydd


She's 19. She doesn't know any better.
posted by NationalKato at 2:10 PM on October 30, 2007


I'd like to see some doctors selling women on kegels, which are totally free, good for things other than orgasms, and last longer than a few months.
posted by stefanie at 2:14 PM on October 30, 2007


I can think of a few instances where anatomy is more the problem (like having MS or other nerve damage) than, say, poor communication with your partner, and this technique might be ideal for these cases. It seems like an icky shortcut to a destination that is much more pleasurably attained through other, sexier means. But then, I have fully functioning bits and so I'm biased towards the "hey no needles near my hoo-haa" way of life philosophy.
posted by wowbobwow at 2:16 PM on October 30, 2007


If you're a grown woman living in America, and you've never heard of kegels, then I'm quite surprised.
posted by agregoli at 2:16 PM on October 30, 2007


Calling women "coeds" seems pretty mid-twentieth century, and kinda strange.

If people want shots/piercings, let them have shots and/or piercings. Hooray for individual liberty.

For my part, I think shots-in-the-genitals are considerably more discomfiting than the term "coeds."
posted by ibmcginty at 2:17 PM on October 30, 2007


If you're a cunning linguist, your woman won't need collagen!
posted by jamstigator at 2:19 PM on October 30, 2007


Why does our viagra involve a shot to the hoo-ha?

Also, I have a sense that this whole deal is meant for women who think that they should have an orgasm immediately following penetration? Uh...enjoy your needle, ladies.
posted by SassHat at 2:20 PM on October 30, 2007


MetaFilter: Anxiously jerking ourselves in the pale light of our computers.
posted by fandango_matt at 2:20 PM on October 30, 2007 [6 favorites]


Well, when I was 19, I didn't know how to get a girl off. Not really. My advice to that girl would be to either date older, more experienced men or be prepared to spend some time training younger guys.

And by my reckoning, the proper ratio is somewhere between 3:1 and 4:1. You feel like a stud, and she's well-satisfied. Everybody's happy.
posted by LordSludge at 2:21 PM on October 30, 2007


Luckily, the only major public mishaps have come from a few Pilates classes, and one time when I was on the elliptical in Alumni.

Does she mean a When Harry Met Sally style mishap? Cause if not, I'm confused.
posted by null terminated at 2:22 PM on October 30, 2007



btw, little known fact: viagra actually works for many women... there's actually data on it now.

Me, if there are needles involved in giving me pleasure, they are going in my veins... [joke: no plan to relapse].
posted by Maias at 2:24 PM on October 30, 2007


Whatever consenting adults want to have injected into their hoo-hoos is OK by me, but this reductive, simplistic "sexual pleasure = orgasm and only that," "absence of orgasm = absence of pleasure," "absence of orgasm (or of one produced by a particular activity) = sexual dysfunction" bullshit is just so tiresome.

And for what it's worth, I did decry the Viagra fad/trend since in most cases what it "cures" is NOT "erectile dysfunction" or any sort of medical condition but simply the normal changes men's sexual function undergoes in middle age.
posted by FelliniBlank at 2:27 PM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


A spiritually empty society inevitably overestimates the benefit of raw immediate pleasure.

And a religiously obsessed society consistently undervalues it.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 2:29 PM on October 30, 2007 [4 favorites]


And a bitter old punk mistakes an urgent, anxious need to fit in by having injection-facilitated orgasms for real, open, genuine hedonism.
posted by koeselitz at 2:32 PM on October 30, 2007 [2 favorites]


Never, ever fake an orgasm.
It's unfair to both of us.


It is?

Frankly, I figure that's their business.

While it is physically impossible for me, a man, to fake ejaculation I certainly have "faked" how awesome the whole thing was. My thinking is "Why hurt somebodies feelings?" and make a big thing out of it.

Not every time you have sex does the sky split, angels sing and the earth open up. Sometimes we do do it exclusively FOR the other person. Especially after marriage.

At a certain age, say past 30, if you are still faking orgasms every time? Well, honestly, you are a big grown up and that is your problem.

I'm willing and eager to help but it's not my job to MAKE you have orgasms. I say you got other issues besides the performance of your partner that likely need to be resolved.

I've been lucky in that I have a wife and we are very sexually compatible. It just keeps getting better. But in times past I fell for that "making your self crazy trying to get somebody off business" and lo I discovered it's pretty much up to the other person to figure it out themselves.

Finally I figured if a partner wants a put on a show for me... I'm not looking behind the curtain to catch you you taking bows. Hell no. Baby. I'm going to applaud.
posted by tkchrist at 2:37 PM on October 30, 2007


G-Shot... What, CuntBump was taken?

Until these people figure out for certain where gushing comes from, I don't think injecting anything into that area is advisable.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 2:37 PM on October 30, 2007


Oh, women, when will you learn that the only injection you need for orgasms is mine?
posted by klangklangston at 2:38 PM on October 30, 2007 [3 favorites]


And a grumpy old conservative lies awake nights brooding that someone, somewhere, might be having an unapproved orgasm.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 2:39 PM on October 30, 2007 [4 favorites]



And for what it's worth, I did decry the Viagra fad/trend since in most cases what it "cures" is NOT "erectile dysfunction" or any sort of medical condition but simply the normal changes men's sexual function undergoes in middle age.


And for what it's worth, I did decry the Reading Glasses fad/trend since in most cases what it "cures" is NOT "vision loss" or any sort of medical condition but simply the normal changes men's eye function undergoes in middle age.
posted by Richard Daly at 2:40 PM on October 30, 2007 [3 favorites]


BitterOldPunk writes "And a grumpy old conservative lies awake nights brooding that someone, somewhere, might be having an unapproved orgasm."

I think you're misunderstanding the angle he's coming from. Though, granted, he could be a little more clear.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:47 PM on October 30, 2007


People can do whatever they want in the pursuit of pleasure. But if you can't just calm the fuck down and enjoy it, and are instead induced to get injections, medications, enlargements, and implants out of an intense need to feel something, methinks you're missing the whole "pleasure" thing entirely.

I dunno, that seems pretty clear to me: do whatever you want, unless it's something that makes koeselitz feel squicky.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 2:55 PM on October 30, 2007


A spiritually empty society inevitably overestimates the benefit of raw immediate pleasure.

And a religiously obsessed society consistently undervalues it.


What do religiously-obsessed, spiritually empty societies do?

Get fat and watch Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader before some vaguely satisfying time spent in good ol' Missionary before lights out*?

* - then waking up in the small hours to pretend to be a sexy, sexy cheetah woman on the Internet while your SO's asleep
posted by sparkletone at 2:58 PM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


FelliniBlank: "Whatever consenting adults want to have injected into their hoo-hoos is OK by me, but this reductive, simplistic "sexual pleasure = orgasm and only that," "absence of orgasm = absence of pleasure," "absence of orgasm (or of one produced by a particular activity) = sexual dysfunction" bullshit is just so tiresome."

Wow. That's a pretty good way of putting it, FelliniBlank. I agree entirely.
posted by koeselitz at 2:58 PM on October 30, 2007


Ceiling Koeselitz is watching you masturbate, and he disapproves.
posted by fandango_matt at 2:58 PM on October 30, 2007 [3 favorites]


And this is me nodding and bowing out to avoid a derail.
posted by koeselitz at 2:59 PM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


Only one use of vajayjay? This thread doesn't meet my trendiness requirements.
posted by aerotive at 3:01 PM on October 30, 2007


What do religiously-obsessed, spiritually empty societies do?

Get fat and watch Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader before some vaguely satisfying time spent in good ol' Missionary before lights out*?


Not after, during. That way, if miss some Bolivian export question, you can console yourself by knowing that at least those smart-assed kids aren't getting laid.
posted by bibliowench at 3:03 PM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


She's 19. She doesn't know any better.
posted by NationalKato


She's 19. She should know better.
posted by liquorice at 3:05 PM on October 30, 2007


What. The. Fuck?

The breast implants weren't enough. The ass implants weren't enough. The injection of poisonous toxin into our faces wasn't enough, either. I thought the very last step in the tailoring of American women into living sex dolls was vulvar mutilation and post-pregnancy tightening so dudes wouldn't have to look at vaginas that looked different from what was inside a Playboy centerfold. Stupid me for thinking it would stop at looks! Now we get needles in our bits so we don't have to worry our pretty little heads about Our Man actually learning something about female arousal--now our orgasms can be as tailor-made as the rest of us!

Where is the fucking outrage to this? Where the fuck are our young women getting off thinking this is a healthy and normal way to live their lives, sculpting themselves into some pornographic male ideal, spending their lives on their backs with their legs spread waiting for the next guy to use her until he moves on to her identical-looking friend on the other side of the bed, their only pleasure derived from being able to give Random Man X the fantasy he desires?

I don't understand, America is so consumed with the selfishness of the Me Generation and yet the selfishness has utterly failed to translate to the sexual identities of women. Women are more willing than ever to throw their bodies on the altar, as if being adorned with Gucci and Manolo Blahnik and pocketbook dogs was a compensation for the destruction of self.

You! Nineteen year old girl! Why the fuck are you faking your orgasms? Why aren't you demanded your partner give them to you? Why aren't you teaching him? Why is the lack of orgasm your problem, not his inadequate skills? Ugh!
posted by schroedinger at 3:06 PM on October 30, 2007 [27 favorites]


A great many women suffer from anorgasmia, especially younger women. Many women have never had an orgasm. There's no magical technique for curing anorgasmia, not even—or especially not even—Kegel exercises. The most successful therapy I'm aware of is masturbation, which indicates that at least for a significant portion of women the problem is psychological. Not a surprise in a gynophobic, sex-hating culture where women are taught to fear their own sexuality.

Anyway, the bottom line is that anything which helps women have more orgasms is a good thing. As someone who had to learn to enjoy sex without orgasms because of medication, I agree with the sentiment that more people (meaning: men) ought to learn this. But it's more than a bit presumptuous to tell women who rarely, if ever, have orgasms that they ought to just learn to appreciate sex without them. Some might say—“some” meaning “me”—that orgasms are our God-given right (or whatever-given) and the fact that our society could spend billions on researching ways to cure male impotency while ignoring female anorgasmia is deplorable.

Many non-clitorally stimulated orgasms seem to have a lot to do with pressure on the G-spot. Collagen injections there obviously just raise the tissue around the G-spot slightly higher than the surrounding vaginal wall and increase the pressure on it during intercourse.

Also, men don't talk about women “giving them orgasms”—“men giving women orgasms” is certainly not the right way to think about female orgasms. Women should not have to—worse, told to—rely upon the skill of their partners to experience orgasms. Obviously, having a more skilled partner is preferable; but talking about “educating men” as a solution to anorgasmia is insulting to women in that in perpetuates this sense that a woman's sexual pleasure is some sort of “gift” given to them by men—an alienation from her own sexuality and ownership of it that is almost certainly playing a role's in an individual woman's difficulty having orgasms.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:07 PM on October 30, 2007 [11 favorites]


David L. Matlock, M.D., a high-profile plastic surgeon in Los Angeles, California pioneered this innovative use of collagen. Dr. Matlock specializes in what he calls “Vaginal Rejuvenation,” and runs the Laser Vaginal Institute of Los Angeles out of a swanky office on Sunset Boulevard.

I'm all for humans' right to modify their bodies however they want, as long as they're well informed about it and aren't trying to become Khan Noonien Singh. And, I think the 19 year old writer was reasonably well informed before going ahead with this experimental surgery. But I also suspect Dr. Matlock might be suffering from when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail syndrome. Or maybe it's something else. I must admit, the confluence of lasers and vaginas intrigues me also.
posted by finite at 3:09 PM on October 30, 2007


"I thought the very last step in the tailoring of American women into living sex dolls was vulvar mutilation and post-pregnancy tightening so dudes wouldn't have to look at vaginas that looked different from what was inside a Playboy centerfold."

Playboy doesn't feature vaginas, really, only labia majora. You'll have to look to other fine pornographic publications to find more, shall we say, insight.

This message brought to you by the Council for Differentiating Pornography.

(On the operation, I'm snarkily agnostic.)
posted by klangklangston at 3:14 PM on October 30, 2007 [2 favorites]


Ethereal, my statement about teaching one's partner to give one an orgasm has nothing to do with believing men have sole control over the female orgasm--I don't know why you'd think I'd be making that argument, given the rest of my post. But I also don't think men have nothing to do with a woman's ability to orgasm--I believe men can give women orgasms, women give men orgasms (even if that is not the common usage, they do), women give women orgasms, and men give men orgasms. It is quite possible for an orgasm to be the direct result of a partner's actions, and when that partner's actions are inadequate no orgasm is achieved.

Of course, the issue of a partner being inadequate in giving orgasms is entirely dependent on the assumption that the woman is comfortable enough with their sexuality to masturbate, allow orgasms to happen in the first place, and is willing to work with a partner to help figure out what feels good and what doesn't.

If the lack of orgasms is due to anorgasmia, well, even all the more reason for the psychological problem to not be addressed surgically. Enabling a woman to orgasm easier isn't going to change the fundamental fact she hates herself as a sexual being.

klangklangston, I apologize for the mislabeled pornography. In my ranting state I couldn't think of any other fully-nude easily recognized magazine titles.
posted by schroedinger at 3:19 PM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


Why is the lack of orgasm your problem, not his inadequate skills? Ugh!

Oh. Please. A nineteen year old with sexual skills?
posted by tkchrist at 3:22 PM on October 30, 2007


posted by tkchrist Oh. Please. A nineteen year old with sexual skills?

Clearly, you haven't been watching To Catch A Predator.
posted by fandango_matt at 3:24 PM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


schroedinger: "If the lack of orgasms is due to anorgasmia, well, even all the more reason for the psychological problem to not be addressed surgically. Enabling a woman to orgasm easier isn't going to change the fundamental fact she hates herself as a sexual being."

Treading lightly I say this, though I agreed with your first comment here: 'anorgasmia' just means a person can't have an orgasm. It doesn't necessarily mean a woman 'hates herself as a sexual being' if she can't have an orgasm.
posted by koeselitz at 3:30 PM on October 30, 2007


As for it being "unfair" for women to fake:

It's at least as "unfair" to be confronted with men who have been so into porn for so long that they don't even listen to a woman's needs or her requirements for orgasm. It's also "unfair" for them to have to deal with the fact that men have an EXPECTATION of screaming orgasm with every single sexual encounter, and that many men, if they don't seem to be achieving it (and even if the woman has told them this is a poor strategy) will just do whatever they were doing, but HARDER.

I guess it's the equivalent of going to a foreign country and when the natives don't understand your language, just talking louder and louder in the hopes that they will. It comes from the same expectations of entitlement: men think they're entitled to hear a woman's "performance orgasm" in the same way that the "bad American" tourist thinks he/she is entitled to folks who speak English everywhere they go.
posted by InnocentBystander at 3:31 PM on October 30, 2007 [4 favorites]


And for what it's worth, I did decry the Reading Glasses fad/trend since in most cases what it "cures" is NOT "vision loss" or any sort of medical condition but simply the normal changes men's eye function undergoes in middle age.

Touché. However, I think the StiffyPill sales figures suggest that in this case a whole lot of the people who are being prescribed reading glasses are not remotely presbyopic. But hey, if vast numbers of the American public actually think the ability to produce rocklike hard-ons for hours on end is just as important as the ability to read (and I'm sure most think it's more important), then more power to 'em, I suppose.
posted by FelliniBlank at 3:33 PM on October 30, 2007


You don't "give" or "make" anyone orgasm. That is absurd.

They "have" orgasms. And saying it the partners sole responsibility to "give" you orgasms is like saying Bob Dole couldn't get it up becuase Libby is too ugly. So is ED "epidemic" because American women are all ugly?

Discounting the physiology and psychology in the human sexual pleasure response is silly. And that is what 80% of the dissatisfaction in sex boils down to— not insensitive partners.

If you want an orgasm you have to take it. Certainly an eager and game partner helps a great deal. But it's up to NOT your partner.

You also CHOOSE your partner. You CHOOSE to lay there or not. And you CHOOSE to say "Lick my pussy, Damn it!" or not.

And holding nineteen years olds to account for lack of sexual experience is dumb.
posted by tkchrist at 3:34 PM on October 30, 2007



While it is physically impossible for me, a man, to fake ejaculation

I have faked orgasms on several occasions, while using a condom. I don't think it's that uncommon for a man to do. There are times when we, as much as women, I think, just want it to be over.
posted by Danf at 3:35 PM on October 30, 2007


This fad is its own punishment.
posted by CautionToTheWind at 3:36 PM on October 30, 2007


He didn't write anything deserving of that response.

Someone hasn't been reading either this thread or the atheism thread.

But hey, if vast numbers of the American public actually think the ability to produce rocklike hard-ons for hours on end is just as important as the ability to read (and I'm sure most think it's more important), then more power to 'em, I suppose.

What Fucking college did you get your Fucking degree in that you can tell us all about who's Fucking legitimately? And who the fuck are you to even care?
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:40 PM on October 30, 2007


The ass implants weren't enough.

Ass implants? And not as a euphemism for anal sex? I've been out of the country too long. You guys are getting ass implants?

And now some sort of collagen speed bump injected right in the twat?

I hope I'm dead before the average man has to have a foot-long lab-cultivated cock that pops to attention with a remote control implanted in his brain and giant mutant implanted testicles (pronounced tes-ti-kleez, of course) that soak the bed. Or maybe women will all get surgically reduced vaginas that make it seem like every man has a giant cock. Yay, progress.
posted by pracowity at 3:42 PM on October 30, 2007 [5 favorites]


I don't blame nineteen-year-old men for lack of sexual experience. I blame them if they are not sensitive to the needs of their partners, just like I blame nineteen-year-old women if they are not aggressive about those needs. I blame nineteen-year-olds everywhere who think surgery is a solution to what is usually a fundamental lack of communication and/or self-confidence.

I was referring to "anorgasmia" as Ethereal defined it, which he said was due to psychological issues. Psychological anorgasmia generally stems from a woman's inability to appreciate her sexuality.

Finally, I think that yes, orgasms can be a shared event, or entirely due to the partner. A more talented partner who is sensitive to the responses of the person they're with is far more likely to have that partner orgasm than someone who is just pounding away, doing their own thing, figuring you know, if the partner orgasms, it's not my business. It is ridiculous to argue someone has complete control over their own orgasms, and a partner has nothing to do with its progression. Are you arguing rape victims who orgasm during the rape are actually enjoying it, and haven't simply been betrayed by their body due to the actions of the rapist?
posted by schroedinger at 3:43 PM on October 30, 2007


Oh. Please. A nineteen year old with sexual skills?

When I was a 19 year old young woman, I and most other 19 year old young women I knew had excellent sexual skills, and I think it's insulting to young men to suggest that they're so congenitally dim and helpless that they can't possibly be expected to have developed any sexual skills at that age unless some kindly, worldly wise female "trains" them.

I mean, yes, of course partners of whatever genders and orientations need to communicate and help each other learn. But at least among my women friends, nobody ever overtly "trained" them how to help men achieve orgasm. They learned by being curious, by paying attention, by remembering what got a good response, by developing a varied repertoire.

But there's the usual double standard in our culture: girls are encouraged to learn about men's bodies and sexual response; boys are encouraged to learn about their own and lust after idealized porn images of women but not actually to learn about women's real bodies or sexual responses. The way women's sexuality is portrayed in skinflicks, or mainstream R-rated flicks, or TV shows for that matter, is completely ludicrous.
posted by FelliniBlank at 3:43 PM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


And pracowity: butt implants.
posted by schroedinger at 3:46 PM on October 30, 2007


pracowity writes "Or maybe women will all get surgically reduced vaginas that make it seem like every man has a giant cock. Yay, progress."

Dude. You have been out of the country too long. This is the state-of-the-art. At least if the ads in the LA Weekly are to be believed.
posted by mr_roboto at 3:46 PM on October 30, 2007


schroedinger, this comment is really a mess, to me.

...their only pleasure derived from being able to give Random Man X the fantasy he desires?

WTF? My orgasm, not his. mine. If he likes that I get off repeatedly, good on him. I just like getting off repeatedly. Should I be outraged at vibrators, too?
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 3:46 PM on October 30, 2007


"klangklangston, I apologize for the mislabeled pornography. In my ranting state I couldn't think of any other fully-nude easily recognized magazine titles."

For edification, there're the other Big Two: Penthouse and Hustler. Beyond that, there're a fair number of recognizable-though-niche publications, like Barely Legal, Swank, Screw, Beaver Hunt, Juggs and Legshow (pretty sure Juggs and Legshow are extant). Still lower are ones that I hadn't known until recently, like Tight, Foxxxy, Honey Buns, Pirate, Private and XXX.

(I am wary of blaming pornography outright for all of the sexual hangups that women have, though I'm probably more cognizant than most of the balancing act that has to happen between a healthy relationship and a preponderance of pornography).
posted by klangklangston at 3:52 PM on October 30, 2007


It's at least as "unfair" to be confronted with men who have been so into porn for so long that they don't even listen to a woman's needs or her requirements for orgasm.

So porn makes men inadequate and insensitive sexual partners now? Is this based on evidence?

I feel like nobody here ever read Dr. Ruth.

Dr. Ruth said that people WANT to please their partners. She cited researched that demonstrated that men knowing their partners are pleased enhances the male sexual gratification.

Most women were too ashamed or did understand their bodies well enough to ask for what they wanted.

This article was about a nineteen year old girl. So her partners about the same age, maybe a few years older. What the fuck do they know? Hell. Sure. All those guys know about they learned from porn. Because we don't TALK about this stuff in schools. Thank god they had porn at least.

The girl in the article in a few years she likely would have evolved a more confident sexual identity and understood her needs better. And since her partner would be older so would they.

The tragedy is not that she want to have orgasms like a porn star. Who cares. It's that she has altered and maimed her body needlessly with unproven surgery. In a few years she likely would be coming out her eye sockets anyway.
posted by tkchrist at 3:53 PM on October 30, 2007


OK. Now that I think about it, maybe I haven't been out of the country long enough.
posted by pracowity at 3:53 PM on October 30, 2007


What Fucking college did you get your Fucking degree in that you can tell us all about who's Fucking legitimately? And who the fuck are you to even care?

Hold on just a dadburn minute -- talk about not reading the thread. I stated the very points you make here, that I don't care and that it's nobody's place to judge the legitimacy or priority of other people's fucking or non-fucking. Hence the "more power to 'em." I like to watch movies more than I like to go bowling, but other adults are free to bowl all night.
posted by FelliniBlank at 3:54 PM on October 30, 2007


I and most other 19 year old young women I knew had excellent sexual skills

The EGO. No you didn't. Trust me. No you didn't.
posted by tkchrist at 3:54 PM on October 30, 2007


"I hope I'm dead before the average man has to have a foot-long lab-cultivated cock that pops to attention with a remote control implanted in his brain and giant mutant implanted testicles (pronounced tes-ti-kleez, of course) that soak the bed."

Someone hasn't been reading his spam.
posted by klangklangston at 3:57 PM on October 30, 2007


I wonder if this kind of procedure might make sex more pleasurable for the transgendered. i'm glad someone's at least laying groundwork for the future. achieving orgasm is inherently selfish and personal, so its no surprise that our first forays into achieving better orgasms are selfish and personal. but from arrogant shit like this we build better treatments for those whom might actually need them. would you be outraged at a transgender-male or female seeking chromosomal re-scripting? or would that be merely useless, cosmetic alternation imposed on them by society?

she's 19, she's not a minor, it's her body, and let her do whatever the fuck she wants with it - including fuck.
posted by mr_book at 3:59 PM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


...a foot-long lab-cultivated cock that pops to attention with a remote control implanted in his brain and giant mutant implanted testicles (pronounced tes-ti-kleez, of course) that soak the bed.

Sounds like the plot for Saw VI.
posted by fandango_matt at 4:00 PM on October 30, 2007


The way women's sexuality is portrayed in skinflicks, or mainstream R-rated flicks, or TV shows for that matter, is completely ludicrous.

Wait. I'm confused. This from the 19 year olds with awesome sex-shul skeeewz? Dang how did you learn so much at nineteen if wasn't from skin flicks? Is there some training program I missed out on?

BTW. Men's sexuality is likewise ludicrous in those films. well. Except for mine. I too have a 12 inch cock and can shoot through plywood. But most men can't.

An, BTW, there are no Hobbits or Deathstars. There are no Fabios with massive pecs riding stallions to sweep you off your feet either. A likewise completely ludicrous view of the world.

Because Porn, like Sci-Fi and Romances, is FANTASY. It is over idealized.
posted by tkchrist at 4:00 PM on October 30, 2007


posted by tkchrist Is there some training program I missed out on?

Apparently you did, because you were busily telling FelliniBlank she didn't have good sexual skills at nineteen.
posted by fandango_matt at 4:04 PM on October 30, 2007


Because Ambrosia, for a number of guys, the female having an orgasm, or multiple orgasms, is just further proof of their sexual prowess and thus enhances the experience. To me, this surgery seems like not so much surgery for the woman, as surgery for the guy so she can have the multiple orgasms without him doing any work.

I'm in college. And there is pressure here for women to not only have orgasms, but have lots of them, because it is proof that they are fun and sexy and wild in bed and just loooooove sex no matter who the guy is or what he does! Maybe at one point a woman just liking good sex was enough. Now if a woman is not a crazy, uninhibited, non-stop orgasm, porn-loving, Playboy-reading, threesome-having, co-ed porn star, she is boring and not really worth dating. And I don't think there's anything wrong with reading Playboy and loving porn and having threesomes, but the idea that you aren't right if you don't love these things is reprehensible to me.

If you look at the statistics on the number of women who have one orgasm, much less multiple, and then listen to the sexual experiences of my guy friends who all wholeheartedly, truly believe that nearly every woman they have ever slept with has had multiple, practically non-stop orgasms, then there is a serious disconnect that brings one to the conclusion that many, many women are out there faking. I think the pressure to fake multiple orgasms, the pressure to have threesomes, the pressure to have surgery to get orgasms rather than actually demanding a partner work with you so he or she knows what gets you off, I see this as a part of an overall societal trend that seeks to sublimate how woman actually are sexually in favor of how society thinks we should be.
posted by schroedinger at 4:05 PM on October 30, 2007 [3 favorites]


Are you arguing rape victims who orgasm during the rape are actually enjoying it, and haven't simply been betrayed by their body due to the actions of the rapist?

What THE fuck? OBJECTION, your honor!

Is it possible to call some sort of "Godwin" thing here? This is just dumb.

Wait. No. I'll allow it.

Okay. Let me fire off something equally as logical... uh...I'm arguing that you are masturbating right now to pictures dwarfs being anally raped by unicorns.
posted by tkchrist at 4:08 PM on October 30, 2007


Lab cultivated? Mine does that when I wake up in the morning (yeah, the wife’s happy).

“but talking about “educating men” as a solution to anorgasmia is insulting to women in that in perpetuates this sense that a woman's sexual pleasure is some sort of “gift” given to them by men—an alienation from her own sexuality and ownership of it that is almost certainly playing a role's in an individual woman's difficulty having orgasms.”

Agree wholeheartedly. Usual caviats for common sense in nuance.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:08 PM on October 30, 2007


Apparently you did, because you were busily telling FelliniBlank she didn't have good sexual skills at nineteen.

Dang it.

Well in the intervening 25 years I have gotten my Masters at the Ninja Sex Academy and my PhD at the Shou Lin Temple of Get'n Bizy.
posted by tkchrist at 4:11 PM on October 30, 2007


My point is for woman, sex is yet another unreachable standard society has laid out for them. They are not only supposed to have the perfect ass, boobs, and wrinkleless faces, they also are supposed to orgasm on command as many times as necessary without any effort from the partner. And if they don't, well, that is something that needs to be surgically corrected. Sex should be about two (or three, or whatever number) people enjoying each other's bodies and learning what turns each other on. It should be relaxed, pleasurable exploration. Women shouldn't feel like failures if they don't orgasm ten times in one session, and if they want to orgasm ten times in one session they shouldn't feel like they have to have surgery to do that instead of using a vibrator or asking their partner to spend more time down there.
posted by schroedinger at 4:12 PM on October 30, 2007


It's at least as "unfair" to be confronted with men who have been so into porn for so long that they don't even listen to a woman's needs or her requirements for orgasm.

Porn gets far too much of a bad rap for what comes down to standard human psychological issues of control and insecurity for both sexes that have always been part of the human experience.
posted by MillMan at 4:25 PM on October 30, 2007 [3 favorites]


On the larger issues, schroedinger, I agree wholeheartedly: Too frequently "can" is spun as "should," and the Maxim girl as dominant female trope does distort female sexuality.

However, I do think you're open to the criticism of relying upon the "natural" as the good. If this injection is something that women want and will help them do something they enjoy, and they're willing to put up with the risks, well, I can't see telling them not to (especially as a guy—it's totally fraught).

Unfortunately, there's no real way to reach people who are disenfranchised from the dominant view of sexuality outside of giving them places to express their alternate views (like the internet), and even then, it too often comes down to force of presentation— who is "louder."

But then, the issue I'm working on for one of the magazines that employs me features a whole pictorial about a woman getting saline solution injected into her nether bits until they swell and distend, something that the talent was (to the best of my knowledge) enjoying because the increased pressure increases sensation.

Looks creepy as hell, frankly.
posted by klangklangston at 4:26 PM on October 30, 2007


“Enabling a woman to orgasm easier isn't going to change the fundamental fact she hates herself as a sexual being.”

It won't change that by itself (though it will help), but it will help her have orgasms. That's probably why masturbation is effective therapy. Having an orgasm makes it easier to have another.

Also, I carefully didn't say what was or was not the primary cause of all female anorgasmia. I think there's lot of evidence that sociological and psychological factors play a large role; but there's many causes for it and they differ among women. However, if you look at the rates of reported anorgasmia among women over the last fifty years, they have gone down dramatically—fifty years ago, the majority of women didn't regularly have orgasms. I think we've reached a stage where at least a bare (pardon the pub) majority of women regularly (though not always) have orgasms during sex (though not necessarily simply from intercourse). That shows that the problem probably isn't, for example, mostly the result of ill health or similar.

My criticism wasn't directed toward any particular person here—I took a few things different people said and combined them with, I think, an overall criticism of this procedure in this thread. I do think that there's a core of wisdom in most of the comments and in what I'll call a “suspicion” about this procedure; but the bottom line to me is that it's still the case that far, far too many are always or occasionally anorgasmic and in that context anything which helps is a boon to women. Really, I think this procedure itself and how it's approached medically and how it's received culturally both indicate how our cultural thinking on women's sexuality is screwed-up: we view male impotence (now, anyway) as a legitimate medical problem while, in contrast, a medical procedure to help women have orgasms is seen as a “lifestyle choice”...and a suspiciously “unnecessary” one, at that.

Also, on the subject of the sexual expertise of youths: I think it's pretty indisputable that young men—say, teenagers and men in their very early twenties—are particularly incompetent heterosexual lovers, as a class. For all that I think that female sexuality could and should be as generally accessible to women as male sexuality is to men, it's still the case that there's good reason to believe that it simply will never be as automatic for women as it is for men. This requires that heterosexual male lovers have a certain level of sexual skill and empathy. Young men typically lack this for the same reason young people in general lack numerous skills and empathy. They are more narcissistic, for one thing, and they are simply less experienced in life, for another. And young men are at their own sexual peak, which can make them bad as lovers because their own sexual urgency is at its greatest. Being young and inexperienced, they may (and probably do) naively expect their female partners to be their counterparts—and young women are not. A thirtysomething woman, maybe. Young women, no.

This doesn't mean that there aren't young men who are exceptions. By my late teens, I was an exception. But not when I first became sexually active, at fifteen. I needed a couple of years to learn to be a better lover, even though I was far, far more educated and aware of human sexuality than my peers. I did, in fact, know better at fifteen—but it took me a couple of years to really care enough to be a good lover. That's just an anecdote. But, honestly, lots and lots of young men expect to just jump right into intercourse, have their orgasm after ten minutes (or much less) and expect their partners to be satisfied because they themselves are satisfied.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:26 PM on October 30, 2007


“then there is a serious disconnect that brings one to the conclusion that many, many women are out there faking... the pressure to have surgery to get orgasms rather than actually demanding a partner work with you so he or she knows what gets you off...”

I agree with you as far as the social trend thing goes. I’d have to argue it’s always been the madonna/whore thing. Which is to say, the high water mark isn’t getting higher, it’s merely morphing in form.
Strangely, I’ve always felt, and made women I’ve been with comfortable about talking about sex, their bodies, how to have orgasms, pretty much anything they wanted to talk about, acted on it, experimented and they’ve all eventually had multiple orgasms. (Some wildly so, such that I had to start riveting my jeans) But I don’t see - short of some biological impediment - why all women can’t (men can too, s’tougher to keep going with a tube rather than this mass of muscle women have backing up their sensual organs, but y’know). It’s always seemed psychological as is acceptance of someone else’s -real- sexuality.
Which I suppose augments your point, no one wants to put in the time and effort to have the actual mutual intimacy and being comfortable in their own, and someone else’s, skin, they just want the magic act.
Seems this frankenstein thing’d be part of that.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:27 PM on October 30, 2007


How did this turn into yet another anti-porn thread?
posted by tkchrist at 4:31 PM on October 30, 2007


I think that in every thread.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:36 PM on October 30, 2007


The guys who encourage their girlfriends and wives to get breast and ass implants are the same guys who buy all that Pep Boys chrome crap for their cars.
posted by fandango_matt at 4:36 PM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


Manny, Moe and Jack?
posted by klangklangston at 4:39 PM on October 30, 2007


Collagen? In MY vagina?

It's more likely than you think.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:41 PM on October 30, 2007


I don't know what to say. I had perfectly satisfactory, multi-orgasmic sex from the age of 17, but I recognize that it's gotten WAY better in the intervening 7 years due to experience and exploration. I hope the G-Shot will be a tool, not a crutch, for this girl. Nothing she wrote led me to believe that she was getting the procedure to please her partner, rather she said she was sick of unfullfilling sex, herself. The world schroedinger describes, where boys believe or claim to be such casanovas, and girls have to pretend to be engorged sluts hungry for cock to the point of surgery to be dateworthy seems pathetic and hellish as well as unfamiliar.

But shroedinger then goes on to say

if they want to orgasm ten times in one session they shouldn't feel like they have to have surgery to do that instead of using a vibrator or asking their partner to spend more time down there.

Which is, in my experience, wrong You can't just keep diddling the damn thing forever. 10 orgasms out of me would require some serious creativity and collagen injection sounds bang on, if 10 orgasms were the goal. so I think you're a little out of your depth in imagining female sexual identity as well as function.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 4:43 PM on October 30, 2007


Or just learn to enjoy cunnilingus.

I wasn't aware 'learning' to like it was neccesssary.
posted by jonmc at 4:50 PM on October 30, 2007


Some of us were born!

I can't remember how I know that.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 4:52 PM on October 30, 2007


Women want to have the best sexual experiences possible,” he says. “If they look good down there, they feel good, and if they feel good, the sex is better.” Making sex better for women is what Dr. Matlock’s practice is all about, and the G-Shot is just one way in which he is trying to achieve this goal.

What a humanist. Feh.
posted by jokeefe at 4:53 PM on October 30, 2007


You can't just keep diddling the damn thing forever

And it's not like we haven't tried, either.

That kind of thing is demonstrably a rookie mistake. As is this idea you "give" or "make" a partner orgasm. I think.. no... I KNOW.. that is all part of the problem.

AS is blaming porn for every ill from rape to "my boy friend thinks my boobs are too small."
posted by tkchrist at 4:57 PM on October 30, 2007


Dr. Matlock’s

Now I have a mental image of Andy Griffith messing around with some strange womans vajayjay.

*forages through closet for nightlight*
posted by jonmc at 4:58 PM on October 30, 2007


"Or just learn to enjoy cunnilingus."

I wasn't aware 'learning' to like it was necessary.


You'd be surprised how many girlfriends I had that thought the act was filthy and simply refused to allow it. Occasionally, during the heat of battle, you could sneak a scout party down there. Usually that turned the attitude around.
posted by tkchrist at 5:01 PM on October 30, 2007


tkchrist: "You'd be surprised how many girlfriends I had that thought the act was filthy and simply refused to allow it."

Or can't just relax and enjoy it. Christ, the number of times I've had to beg for the privilege...
posted by koeselitz at 5:09 PM on October 30, 2007


posted by koeselitz Christ, the number of times I've had to beg for the privilege...

Are you sure you're doing it correctly?
posted by fandango_matt at 5:13 PM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


Or can't just relax and enjoy it.

I don't want to speak for all women, but I think it requires just a little more concentration to enjoy cunnilingus then fellatio. Men should be understanding about this. It's not aggravating concentration, mind you, but a willful shutting out of distraction. Like that damned overhead light.

Likewise, it's been my experience that if you grab a cock, you've got it's owner's full attention, badabing, but a clit has to be aroused slowly and smoothly before total immersion in the pleasure occurs.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 5:21 PM on October 30, 2007


THAN. one handed typing. sorry.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 5:21 PM on October 30, 2007


posted by Ambrosia Voyeur it's been my experience that if you grab a cock, you've got it's owner's full attention, badabing, [...] one handed typing. sorry.

You've got our full and undivided attention.
posted by fandango_matt at 5:27 PM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


"You'd be surprised how many girlfriends I had that thought the act was filthy and simply refused to allow it."

Let me guess!!!

1?

Was the name of your act...The Aristocrats?



Grind the ax slowly there buddy.
posted by zerobyproxy at 5:34 PM on October 30, 2007


Then we come from two different worlds, Ambrosia, and I wish I lived in yours.

Finally, OK, once again with the "ten orgasms" argument I am not being specific enough. I can't have ten orgasms, certainly, no matter how much time was spent down there. If a woman can she shouldn't feel like surgery has to be the way to do it, because it would just be too much to ask a partner to work with her. But if she is happy and fulfilled having less than ten, she shouldn't have to feel like she needs to have surgery to get a higher orgasm quota.

Finally, no, I do not know the particular sex life of the nineteen-year-old. Perhaps she is an incredibly together young woman with a number of willing, exploratory partners who has found no matter the methods or patience or self-love the orgasms haven't happened, and so this is necessary. But for years and years and years the cosmetic surgery women have all said the cosmetic surgery is "for them", not for anybody else, but one wonders why they developed the need for it in the first place. And like this, I wonder why someone feels the need for this, and whether this is a choice that has come after exhausting all other possibilities or the equivalent of a sixteen year old girl getting breast implants for her birthday.
posted by schroedinger at 5:34 PM on October 30, 2007


And tkchrist--my comment about rapists giving women orgasms was to provide a counterpoint to your argument that our orgasms are entirely a result of our own actions and thoughts. A woman inadvertantly having an orgasm during the course of a rape is a very demonstrative case of her body reacting entirely to the external stimulation of her "partner", not her psychological mindset.
posted by schroedinger at 5:36 PM on October 30, 2007


Was the name of your act...The Aristocrats?

No. The Sophisticates.

Grind the ax slowly there buddy.

You use an AXE for cunnilingus!?! Slow or fast, no wonder you assume everybody only had one girl friend.
posted by tkchrist at 5:47 PM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


And tkchrist--my comment about rapists giving women orgasms was to provide a counterpoint to your argument that our orgasms are entirely a result of our own actions and thoughts. A woman inadvertantly having an orgasm during the course of a rape is a very demonstrative case of her body reacting entirely to the external stimulation of her "partner", not her psychological mindset.

Oh Jeeze.

And yet HE would be the most insensitive parter possible, right?

Okay. So orgasm during rape happens what... less than 5% of the time?

Seriously. This is a terrible way to illustrate your point.
posted by tkchrist at 5:49 PM on October 30, 2007


schroedinger: I think you're right to be wary of people's motivations for any elective surgery, especially of a sexual nature, in our highly sexualized culture. However, I think it's an important contrast that female appearance has been a commodity for ages and ages, but the status of female sexual pleasure has changed a lot over the past 50 years, thanks to birth control and women's lib. Now, I'm not claiming that it's come to the place where it belongs, really I think we may have overcorrected and have some culturally widespread caricatures of rabid female sexuality in place of moderate ones - the old virgin/whore dichotomy is certainly alive and well and going frightfully pomo. I just don't think pursuit of our own sexual release is a baby that should go out with the bigger, tanner, smoother, bathwater. It's been badly neglected.

And I went to a hippie college for sure.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 5:53 PM on October 30, 2007


My point is for woman, sex is yet another unreachable standard society has laid out for them.

For fuck's sake, women, men, everyone, stop letting society (media/advertisements) lay out your standards for everything. Look at your own fucking life and decide what fits you.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 5:53 PM on October 30, 2007


So orgasm during rape happens what... less than 5% of the time?

.05%? Ever? Cite?
posted by jessamyn at 5:54 PM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


I don't want to speak for all women, but I think it requires just a little more concentration to enjoy cunnilingus then fellatio. Men should be understanding about this. It's not aggravating concentration, mind you, but a willful shutting out of distraction. Like that damned overhead light.

Invest in candles.
posted by tkchrist at 5:54 PM on October 30, 2007


.05%? Ever? Cite?

That's what I am asking. I don't know. What you think it's common. 25% 50%? What? The poster is the one that made the claim. Not me.
posted by tkchrist at 5:56 PM on October 30, 2007


“Just three days after her injection Roberts said that she could reach a “steamy climax within minutes.” “Just like a man,” she finished.”

What’d they do for the rest of the three hours? Damn, is T.V. that fucking important? People ask me stuff like why I missed the game the other night or are agog I missed something amazing on t.v. - I have a wife dammit. I’m in shape and I used to play harmonica (an old bluesman told me when I was a kid - girls might kiss the trumpet players, but they go home with the guys that blow the harp). Do women really want to have male pattern orgasms? I mean, that’s just a waste.
Buddy of mine bought a lamborghini a bit back (and *I* got a new hat! *grin*) there’s a backlog for these things and some of the Italians are a bit reticent to sell them. Not for the money you understand, but because they build the cars to be driven. Not for status, not for looks or wild men looking for cheap kicks, they want men who will drive the car at the edge of its performance limits because they love to drive. It’s a tough thing to explain.

“But if she is happy and fulfilled having less than ten, she shouldn't have to feel like she needs to have surgery to get a higher orgasm quota.”

Same deal with breast implants, etc. If you need the surgery, you have to do what you have to do, but yeah, this seems like add on optioning...

“Others dispute the zone's very existence, arguing that studies have turned up no scientific evidence of the G-spot's location, or only highly questionable results.”

*spit take*

Huh? What the hell have I been doing then massaging that spot with my fingers and the back of my dick?
“Others” said the same thing about the clitoris.
Reminds me - there’s clitoral enlargement as well, isn’t there?
That seems a little more above board (no pun int’) than this. I’m not up on all this surgery tho.

“The G-shot does come with some risks. They include bleeding, infections, and allergic reactions, and not all women experience a benefit.”

I get a Paris Hilton kinda vibe from that whole article.

Well you went uptown riding on your vi-brator
With your fine gynecological clone
You had the Steely Dan in your hand
And the collagen in a hose
And when you wake up in the morning
With your cooch on fire
And your mons too bloody to pee
Go on and cry in your coffee
But don't come bitchin' to me

Because you have a G shot, didn't you
You had to open up your vage
You had have a G shot, didn't you
All your friends were so knocked out
You had to spend the two grand, last night
You know what everything's about
You had to have a white hot spotlight
You had to have a G shot last night...

Well, it's no big sin to stick your two cents in
If you know when to leave it alone
But you went over the line
You couldn't see it was time to go home
No, no, no, no, no, no, you had to have a G shot, didn't you (etc)

(ugh, sick, sick sense of humor)
posted by Smedleyman at 6:19 PM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


What you think it's common. 25% 50%? What?

I think in typical boy-rapes-girl rape it almost never happens (who would be collecting that data?). I also think it's a weird bizarro world argument, same as you.
posted by jessamyn at 6:21 PM on October 30, 2007


In my experience -and conversations with other women- most men are not that satisfying in bed and it's really difficult to try and discuss with them about doing anything other than *just what they want*. Hell, even after asking for the 50th time, most men won't pick up their laundry off the floor, much less really put some thought, understanding or effort into pleasing their female sex partner.

The men I found who were spectacular in bed were very rare and always dogs, guys who were players, cheaters, liars, sex addicts and in no way trustworthy as partners. But they knew their sexual stuff.

I think this injection idea rocks.
posted by nickyskye at 6:23 PM on October 30, 2007


I think in typical boy-rapes-girl rape it almost never happens (who would be collecting that data?). I also think it's a weird bizarro world argument, same as you.

I couldn't find any hard statistics on the topic but it seems to be an occurance (don't know how common) if all the links on google are to go by.
posted by liquorice at 6:27 PM on October 30, 2007


"I also think it's a weird bizarro world argument, same as you."

It's an argument against an absolutist stance that everyone is solely the author of their sexual experience (which makes sex seem more like jerking off). It doesn't have to be prevalent.
posted by klangklangston at 6:44 PM on October 30, 2007


nickyske, please don't base your opinions of a huge class of people on preconceptions and anecdotal evidence. Prejudice is self-reinforcing.
posted by contraption at 6:47 PM on October 30, 2007


oops. Sorry, nickyskye, should've put more throught more though, understanding and effort into my response.
posted by contraption at 6:50 PM on October 30, 2007


HAHAHAHAHA
*slinks away*
posted by contraption at 6:51 PM on October 30, 2007


The men I found who were spectacular in bed were very rare and always dogs, guys who were players, cheaters, liars, sex addicts and in no way trustworthy as partners. But they knew their sexual stuff.

Understandable. The girls who did more than just lay there like a dead fish were huge sluts. All the guys I know agree with me.
posted by Snyder at 6:51 PM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


klangklangston clarifies my point. Like liquorice, I can find no statistics, only that it's prevalent enough to earn a spot on many rape prevention-and-treatment websites "Facts and Myths" section, where the "Myth" is that having an orgasm during a rape means you enjoyed it.

nickyskye, I am pretty sure my current partner isn't a player or a dog. Perhaps he is secretly cheating on me?
posted by schroedinger at 7:02 PM on October 30, 2007


Anecdotally, I know two people who have had to deal with the psychological aftermath from involuntary orgasm during violent rape or nonviolent but coerced sex. These people were understandably reluctant to talk about this.

Scientifically, I can only rely on my own poor understanding of others' work. I don't know if it's good science, but it contains estimates of rates of involuntary orgasm as high as 20%.
posted by Richard Daly at 7:06 PM on October 30, 2007


“The men I found who were spectacular in bed were very rare and always dogs, guys who were players, cheaters, liars, sex addicts and in no way trustworthy as partners”

Weird. Y’know tho, you dance with a lot of people, you become a better dancer. But you develop no rapport with any given dance partner. If you really want to be world class, it has to be a team effort and you have to practice together constantly until you know each other’s needs instinctively. Big difference between those people and folks driven by ego or obsession.

Still, there must be this sweaty, egotistical, nasty mass of guys making the rest of us look really, really good.
Someon told me today that according to some study (a while ago) that most people ignore animals on the road and will just drive right over them. A significant percent will actually swerve to hit and animal and a small percent will try to swerve to not hit the animal.
I routinely swerve away and in fact slammed my car into a tree to miss a cat (not, so much, aiming at the tree).
And it strikes me that most of us (and I’m talking humans) with any degree of depth, sensitivity and feeling, must be rare birds, man.

Which is why I jerk off to banjo music.
....well, it doesn’t necessarily follow really. Sort of a ham fisted segue really, but I didn’t want to come off as maudlin. This touchy feely sort of....look, I can jerk off to Roy Clark if I want to.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:12 PM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


The girls who did more than just lay there like a dead fish were huge sluts. All the guys I know agree with me....

LOL! Touché (pun intended).

Since I grew up in pre-AIDS NYC, was a runaway at 15, I am definitely of the slut variety and no doubt deserved the dogs. Frankly, glad I at least had fun satisfaction with somebody :) Just wish the nice guys had been better in bed is all.

And schroedinger...he may be one of those super rare great in bed guys who aren't dogs. Congratulations! Maybe this new generation is better in bed than the old one? I hope so for both the men and the women. But, in the meantime...this injection rocks.
posted by nickyskye at 7:19 PM on October 30, 2007


“So orgasm during rape happens what... less than 5% of the time?

.05%? Ever? Cite?”


Be careful with bringing your intuitive assumptions to the table on this. I don't know about orgasms specifically, but I do know that in rape crisis and counseling the phenomena of “body betrayal” and the issues surrounding it are well known and very serious. When people claim that sex happens in the brain, they're making a good point but they're overstating the case. A whole bunch of sex happens at the genitals and is part of an involuntary response. It is fairly common for female rape victims to lubricate during the rape, as well as exhibiting other examples of involuntary sexual response. I don't doubt that orgasm is among these, though I have no data or even anecdotal experience on the relative incidence of orgasm during rape. I'd guess, though, that it is highly dependent upon how automatic and involuntary is the individual woman's orgasm during sex—the more automatically orgasmic she is, the greater the likelihood of orgasm as an involuntary sexual response during rape.

Rape survivors usually know nothing about body betrayal, and the false common intuition about this is that it doesn't happen, or that it is freakish. But it's not, it's quite common, and rape survivors who aren't aware of this will be very confused about it and feel self-loathing, question their own judgment about the rape, and certainly they rarely mention this to anyone except their counselors.

Commentators sniffing their noses at the mere possibility of involuntary orgasms of rape victims are unwittingly perpetuating the myth that body betrayal doesn't happen or that it is rare or freakish.

There are so many awful psychological repercussions of surviving sexual violence—this self-doubt, self-loathing sort is, in my opinion, among the worst and it tears people up inside, tortures them. In child sexual abuse, especially in incest situations, body betrayal and similar, deeper emotional responses deeply confuse the survivors and fill them with guilt and self-loathing. The effect isn't as pronounced in rape, but it's still present, common, and deeply confusing and hurtful to the survivors.

So many things about the pain that survivors of sexual violence suffer from just break my heart—but body betrayal does especially because it's a perfectly natural, physiological reaction that nevertheless fills survivors with guilt and shame and self-loathing that, if the only knew they weren't alone and knew it was natural, they'd not be feeling (at least not as intensely). I always try to speak up loudly whenever body betrayal issues comes up or where body betrayal is relevant, so that just a few more people find out that they're not alone and what they experienced is normal.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:28 PM on October 30, 2007 [5 favorites]


agregoli writes "If a woman wants to try this, what's the harm?"

Well this is a pretty impressive list of side effects: Especially these:And these three would probably be hard to live with: jessamyn writes "So orgasm during rape happens what... less than 5% of the time?

".05%? Ever? Cite?"


Man I so would not like to be the grad student who had to collect the data for that study.
posted by Mitheral at 7:52 PM on October 30, 2007


“Still, there must be this sweaty, egotistical, nasty mass of guys making the rest of us look really, really good.”

Of course there are. For example, I've known a number of men who have heatedly claimed, in response to my skepticism, that they have never slept with a woman who didn't have an orgasm. And it wasn't a trick response where they'd had sex once, or something. These men believe that all fifteen or so women, every single time, had orgasms. And the thing is, if you know about the prevalence of anorgasmia among young women, and the simple fact that most women do not have an orgasm every single time they have intercourse, then what does this say about the men whom I'm referring to? Either they are Cassanovas, world-class lovers (which they'd probably like to believe), or they dissuade honest communication and also lack empathy. They pride themselves on their technique and their partners are well aware of it—they know that they're not getting out of that bedroom until they either have an orgasm or fake one.

I'd like to believe that I've never had a partner fake an orgasm, although I'm sure it's happened. But all my partners have been so frequently matter-of-fact about not having orgasms, that it's hard to imagine they'd feel the need to fake one. And my last two (long term) partners were both women around the age of 30 who, at that point of their lives (not earlier, though) pretty much did have automatic orgasms. As my ex-wife, who was the long term partner previous to these two, was an incest survivor and thus had many complications in her sex life and was completely anorgasmic, this was an interesting, and enjoyable change for me. And partners I'd had when I was much younger, in my teens and very early twenties, typically weren't usually orgasmic, either.

Not that our lovemaking wasn't enjoyable—I recently got together again with an old flame from when I we were both about 20, and she recalled our sex life then almost as magical, as my openness and communication and tenacity introduced her to the idea of how pleasurable sex could be, even though she didn't yet begin to have orgasms. I recall that she was intensely shy, the very thought of me going down on her embarrassed her terribly—though the pleasure of it was one thing she remembered most clearly. She grew up in a very conservative family in a Bible-belt town.

As I mentioned previously, my first couple of years of being sexually active were not my best years as a partner, not by a long shot. By the age of 11, I had read many books on sex, including some popular titles of the day cadged from my parents' bookshelf like Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex... (an unreliable book, but I didn't know that at the time) and The Joy of Sex, as well as some books of my own on teen sexuality. By the time I was wooing my first sexual girlfriend at the age of 15 and talking about sex with her, I was promising that I'd be a fantastic lover because I knew all the things to do. As it happened, though, we didn't do any foreplay, she guided me into her with her hand and I ejaculated after about thirty seconds, whereupon I jumped out of bed and excitedly asked her if I could call my cousin and brag to him that I had lost my virginity. Not my best moment. I could have savored the experience, but, you know, I was one of the many boys who actually prayed at night to God not to let me get killed or something before I lost my virginity—that's not just a Hollywood cliche.

Finally, my middle-aged cumulative sexual experience is about average, I think. I've not been promiscuous, but I've had more than a handful of partners. And, you know, I'm skeptical of the general idea of a technically good lover. My experience has been that all my partners have almost radically varied. Preferred clitoral stimulation, for example, has greatly varied (which I think women who advise men and talk about this publicly don't realize and they tend to recommend what works for them, not realizing that other women prefer exactly what they themselves don't like). I don't know what makes for good lovemaking other than empathy and good communication. A technique I learned from a book when I was young was the basic “signal if you enjoy what I'm doing” technique—which really isn't a technique, it's just a form of communication. It's all really about communication and both partners feeling comfortable enough to express, verbally or non-verbally, what they enjoy. But even that has a relationship with youth and aging and experience. Young people are more burdened with expectations and peer-pressure about sexual performance and all sorts of things than are older people, and all those things get in the way of simple and honest communication during sex.

In a way, sex and love are both wasted on the young—it's a shame that it's when we're young that we're most obsessed with it. We you get older it becomes much less a part of one's public identity and settles into being what it really is and should be: just an important component of a natural, healthy life and the treasured experiences with those closest to you.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:57 PM on October 30, 2007 [4 favorites]


I think in typical boy-rapes-girl rape it almost never happens (who would be collecting that data?). I also think it's a weird bizarro world argument, same as you.

Good. Because otherwise I thought the world was going crazy.
posted by tkchrist at 8:03 PM on October 30, 2007


Lot of intersting point in this thread concerning the "politics" of this type of surgery, but I'm really curious as to the relative mechanical efficiency of it.

I have a lot of trouble believing that this surgery could be more effective than a little bit of anatomical education, a little bit of confidence building, and a few well designed toys.

It seems to me that no matter what your sexual politics, this procedure strikes me as eqivalent to getting liposuction before giving dieting and exercise a shot. This is a mentality that can't be blamed simply on porn and gender inequality. Sure those things play a part, but there's a wider problem within our society.

We're lazy, and we're scared to fail.
posted by billyfleetwood at 8:14 PM on October 30, 2007


Wait, wait, slow down.

What's a vagina?
posted by Rangeboy at 8:16 PM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


But it's not, it's quite commonBe careful with bringing your intuitive assumptions to the table on this. I don't know about orgasms specifically, but I do know that in rape crisis and counseling the phenomena of “body betrayal” and the issues surrounding it are well known and very serious.

EB I am going to have withdraw a long standing rule I have about asking for cites buuuuuuut...

I want cites. Solid stats.

Yes. I have heard of women having orgasm during rape.

But you know after six years of teaching self-defense to abuse and sexual assault survivors in conjunction with various crisis centers and city sponsored LEO programs... I never heard of one person or statistic refer to it as COMMON. Ever. You must be privy to some cutting edge research.

Not only that but I deeply resent the overall tone of your reply. It was was so fucking accusatory like we are being insulting to the Rape Victim Who Has Orgasms Demographic. It's fucking bullshit.

Until you PROVE this so called "common" demographic exists in anything but some statistical anomalous number I'm calling bullshit on you. And "common" better be a fuck load more that 5%-10% percent. Even THAT I suspect is astronomically gross.

And the entire subject of rape as brought up by schroedinger was totally not germane to our conversation in any way. It's a crappy tactic to drive the conversation to idiot shrill emotional extremes. It doesn't prove shit that rape victims have orgasm occasionally. Nothing. It's Stupid.
posted by tkchrist at 8:19 PM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


It's an argument against an absolutist stance that everyone is solely the author of their sexual experience (which makes sex seem more like jerking off). It doesn't have to be prevalent.

An argument that was never made.

Everyone is ultimately responsible for who with and how they have (consensual) sex. If your partner is insensitive to your needs. Tell 'em. Or. Dump his or her ass.

You people are nuts. Bringing this rape bullshit up. I swear. Shame on you.
posted by tkchrist at 8:23 PM on October 30, 2007


“Until you PROVE this so called ‘common’ demographic exists in anything but some statistical anomalous number I'm calling bullshit on you.”

I didn't say how common it is. I don't know how common it is and neither do you. You're going on your gut instinct here and, hilariously, claiming your experience teaching self-defense is any sort of expertise. It's not. The only person with any expertise in this subject in this thread, so far, is me. And I can tell you that the phenomena of body betrayal in general is very common in rape. What portion of that are actual orgasms? I don't know. But I damn well have more competency to guess than you or jessamyn do. You guys are just going with your gut instinct. I don't know what specific training she's had in sexual violence, but unless there's some you haven't mentioned, you don't know squat.

Again, I'm not the one here claiming to know the rate of involuntary orgasm during rape. You are when you say it's a very, very low number. The onus isn't on me to disprove your out-of-your-butt estimate, it's on you. Out of respect for the women who have experienced this, I'd suggest you refrain from making wild guesses about how prevalent it is. That's what I'm doing.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:33 PM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


But I damn well have more competency to guess than you or jessamyn do. You guys are just going with your gut instinct. I don't know what specific training she's had in sexual violence, but unless there's some you haven't mentioned, you don't know squat.

If I were you, I'd step off of that topic. If we're trotting out bona fides, I'll take a pass. All I said was that I didn't know, I'd like to see stats, I thought it was unlikely that the number was high, and that the data was probably uncollectable. You have an educated guess, maybe, but no one actually knows afaict.
posted by jessamyn at 8:47 PM on October 30, 2007


If your partner is insensitive to your needs. Tell 'em. Or. Dump his or her ass.

Can't recall dumping any man, whose company I cherished because he was lousy in bed or speaking with another woman who did that. It would, imo, be like dumping a friend because they can't play the piano, it's not the entire value of a person. And that's why I think this injection thing could be a great boon to certain women who are living with a good man who is lousy, or under par, in bed. Or for women who find it it difficult to achieve orgasm with a man and who would like to.
posted by nickyskye at 8:53 PM on October 30, 2007


The only person with any expertise in this subject in this thread, so far, is me.

Just like every other thread.

The onus isn't on me to disprove your out-of-your-butt estimate, it's on you.

Up is down. In is out.

YOU said common. Not me. I took a guess. And clearly it was a guess. Becuase I was ASKING shroedinger how many women report this? Was it X% or X%. I'd really like to know.

You are too chicken shit to put out a number to defend. But you still want to derail and digress like you like to do. So you say "common."

Dude. I ASKED. Did you see the "?" in my first statement? It looked allot like the "?" at the end of that last sentence.

Here is another one. Are you out of your fucking mind?

Yes, my gut instinct says orgasm is rare among rape victims. Do I need a PhD to think this? No. Because 99% of people on this planet would think this. Common sense would dictate that it would be low.

If it's common and let's say common is 20%.

Well. Holy Shit. Becuase that is nearly more "common" than women reporting to have orgasm with CONSENSUAL sex. THAT number I can find.

Put up or shut up. For once.
posted by tkchrist at 8:54 PM on October 30, 2007


It would, imo, be like dumping a friend because they can't play the piano, it's not the entire value of a person.

nickysky... you saw the "tell em" part? Right? If once you communicate your needs and you discover your SO is either inadequate by nature but is otherwise lovable, or rich, or awesome, or what have you... then sure— till death do you part.

I wasn't issuing an edict. Just re-iterating, like happiness, fitness, health, success, and just about everything else in life your sexual satisfaction ultimately rests with you. Other people play supporting roles.
posted by tkchrist at 9:01 PM on October 30, 2007



Here's a citation. It's not great, but it is both the best that I've found and deals with an obviously fraught topic.


I'll try to lay out the careful methodical version of this argument. I'm going to do this once to try to re-rail this derail that is rapidly becoming personal between several members of this site I respect. After this I'll bow out, we're generating more heat than light.

1) Human sexuality is complicated and varies greatly between individuals.

2) Some sexual response is self induced. Some other sexual response is a direct consequence of a partner's actions. It is likely that most sexual response falls between these two extremes.

3) As evidence of 2) it has been shown that orgasm can be an involuntary response to stimulus, the same as a sneeze.

4) And, as revolting as it is to contemplate, in at least one published meta-study of human sexual function it has been claimed that orgasm can occur involuntarily at a frequency of 1 in 5.

5) The study proposes that orgasms are regulated by an stimulatory function and a inhibitory function, and that a number of factors influence and can override either.

6) The final claim is that what can happen accidentally in violence and horror is also possible through dexterity and disinterest (for example).

To recap, it does seem that from a purely physical standpoint, orgasms can be "given" in-so-far-as they don't have to be "taken." Sometimes they occur because of the actions of the non-orgasmic participant, and the orgasmic participant need not exercise any effort to experience that orgasm, and has no control over that orgasm's experience.

Now, all of this isn't to say that women shouldn't own their orgasms, or that men bare sole responsibility for their heterosexual partners' orgasms; only that it is at least mechanically possible for women to have the responsibility subcontracted.

Now, having followed the argument, done my research, come to my decision, made my attempt at communication, and said my peace, I'm going to go wash my brain out with caustic soaps.

I don't know if we're tired, if we have a personal stake of ego or psychology vested in this, or if the combined pool of sex, violence, politics, argument and snark has got our fight or flight reflexes tweaked out hard, or what, but lets all take a couple of steps back?
posted by Richard Daly at 9:14 PM on October 30, 2007 [2 favorites]


All right, tkchrist, here is the progression of our argument as I saw it:

Me: A "G-spot" enhancer is a method of making it easier for females to orgasm so their partners get all of the ego-stroking of giving her an orgasm without having skills or sensitivity to her needs.
You: Orgasms aren't given! They are only had because the person who has them wants them and wills them to occur!
Me: That's ridiculous. A partner's activity certainly has a place in initiating the physiological response of an orgasm. The very fact that some rape victims experience orgasm is proof that the desires of a mind for an orgasm and the body's response to physiological stimulation are not connected.

So from reading your following comments, it is quite possible I misinterpreted your original comment. My point was simply that physical stimulation by another person does have a place in the creation of an orgasm, it is not all in someone's head, so in that way I see that orgasms are "given."

Anyway, as I said, I don't have statistics on rape victims having orgasms. Rape is underreported, so God knows how underreported orgasms resulting from rape would be. The study Richard Daly cites is a review of the already spotty literature out there. One study within the review says 5% report orgasm, in another 20% of sexually-assaulted females report "bodily response" (which is not necessarily orgasm). Among sexually-assaulted men that figure seems to be slightly higher. What the review does try to make clear is that the anxiety and fight-or-flight response initiated by sexual assault may in fact make the body more likely to positively respond to sexual assault, despite the mental revulsion of the victim.
posted by schroedinger at 9:14 PM on October 30, 2007


“YOU said common.”

NO I DID NOT. I said that body betrayal is common. I never made a statement as to how common orgasm is during rape, even in general. You did put forth a number, based upon nothing more than you're gut instinct. Which is bullshit, even if you put a question mark at the end of it. It isn't up-is-downism for me to not need to defend an estimate I never made while you ought to defend the estimate you did make.

And, no, this isn't like any other thread. I have had extensive training and have worked in rape crisis. And you know what? A lot of what “99% of the planet” things about sexual violence is wrong. So don't try to use common sense as some sort of defense. (Or, actually, as an offense.)

Also: you're way out of line with your “chikenshit” and “are you out of your fucking mind” comments. Tone it down. You overreacted to my comment—which did not address you directly—and you're even more badly overreacting now. You're being a jerk, as you have been without provocation in several threads lately.

“You have an educated guess, maybe, but no one actually knows afaict.”

I haven't put forth an educated guess. All I've said is that body betrayal in general is very common—much more common than people suppose—and that therefore there's reason to believe that this specific form of body betrayal is also probably more common than people suppose. I haven't offered a number, or even a general estimate, but both you and tkchrist have. That's incompatible with both of you claiming that nobody knows. It's weirdly hypocritical to criticize me for making an estimate when I haven't and when you say nobody knows while offering an estimates yourselves.

“If I were you, I'd step off of that topic.”

That's very ominous sounding. Whatever do you mean by it?

Look: I've personally seen how hurtful it is to women when they've experienced body betrayal and they believe, and other people believe, that this somehow means that they “enjoyed” being raped. It's probably been used as a criminal defense. It's been a long time since my training in rape crisis, but I vaguely recall something like a 50% rate fo body betrayal in rape. That exact figure could be, and probably is, wrong, but I know that it's well into the double digits and is generally well-known to people who work in rape crisis and counseling. And yet typically uninformed people believe that it's not possible and react to discussions of it exactly as you are reacting here: with skepticism and disbelief. This skepticism actually hurts people. I don't have any idea what portion orgasm accounts for of body betrayal. It could be 1%, it could be 10%, I just don't know. I have not offered a number, nor even a general estimate, because I simply don't know.

But what I do know is that lacking any information whatsoever, and knowing what I know about body betrayal in general, that any estimate I offer has a too-high chance of being low and thus committing the same error as people do with body betrayal in general. My complaint against you and tkchrist was that you automatically took a very skeptical position and offered a very low number, all without any evidence and, apparently, lacking any expertise in the subject. That's irresponsible.

You also wrote:

“I think in typical boy-rapes-girl rape it almost never happens (who would be collecting that data?).”

Are you kidding? This data is collected. It may be second-hand via counselors and such. But there's a lot of sociological interest in rape and as much data as possible is collected about it.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:15 PM on October 30, 2007


Whoops, should have previewed.
posted by schroedinger at 9:16 PM on October 30, 2007


“One study within the review says 5% report orgasm, in another 20% of sexually-assaulted females report ‘bodily response’ (which is not necessarily orgasm). Among sexually-assaulted men that figure seems to be slightly higher.”

Yeah, I think the 20% number is probably body betrayal in general. And the male rape victim thing is something I didn't mention, but body betrayal, as you say, is a very big problem for men. It's also how men can be raped by women, even though that, too, is something that common sense says isn't possible and it's often made light of.

Ironically, I don't really agree with the essence of your point in your argument with tkchrist. Of course sexual response is physiological. But I really don't think that most men think of women as “giving” them orgasms and I think it's very revealing that they (we) don't, while, in contrast, society typically does think this way with regard to women.

It's ambiguous, of course, and I and many men will occasionally talk about that great orgasm some woman gave us. But it's not a general sense of orgasms being the product of what a woman does—with the implicit idea that, without women, there'd be no orgasms. In contrast, there is that general sense of orgasms and women, culturally. The phrase “gave an orgasm” is much more often applied to men with regard to women's orgasms. Basically, culturally there's this sense that sex is something men do to women, in general.

I think that I and tkchrist are reacting strongly against this, and for good reason. I don't think it's an accident that our culture doesn't allow women to be truly sexual beings (without condemning them for it, anyway), does allow men to be sexual beings, and sees sexual pleasure as something men give to women. Women are being alienated from their sexuality in a very literal sense. It's being removed from them and placed, literally, in other peoples' hands.

I'd like to see people thinking about women and their sexual pleasure in the same way they think of men and their sexual pleasure. Men are expected to be responsible for it, mostly; men are seen as “owning” their own sexual pleasure and selves. That doesn't mean that we discount the mutuality of sex, we don't. But we're quite aware that men are sexual in the absence of partners. We should be just as aware of this with regard to women. The language of ”men giving orgasms to women” greatly interferes with this.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:31 PM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


My hump, my hump, my lovely little lump.
posted by Tube at 9:43 PM on October 30, 2007


I'm starting to think I might be weird.

With the few ladyfriends I had in high school, (four years ago) neither of us ever had any problems communicating or getting each other off after some practice and doing some investigating.

How come I communicate with my partner? Why does my partner communicate with me? Why are we constantly trying new things? Are the people I hang out with weird? Am I weird?

How come I don't resign myself to failure as a man if ONCE I don't manage to help my lady get off, and awesomely? Why do I do what she tells me to do, and why am I not just mindlessly pounding away?

I think something is wrong with me. I'm going to try to think of some way I can physically prevent myself from using my brain. I'll start a blog too.
posted by bam at 9:44 PM on October 30, 2007 [1 favorite]


Yeah, you should, and then we could all marvel at your virility collectively.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 12:21 AM on October 31, 2007


The only person with any expertise in this subject in this thread, so far, is me.

I'm way way late in this crazy thread, but I claim expertise on the topic. I just had a study published about female ejaculation, and I've written a text book chapter on female genital cosmetic surgery. There is zero evidence to support the g-shot, and I think it's shocking that anyone would offer it in good faith. Matlock does a lot of procedures with minimal evidence, but I believe the g-shot really steps over the line. It's cynical dishonest commercial minded medicine, and the FDA should crack down on it now. It would take minimal evidence, even just a case control study to make me re-evaluate the procedure, but right now that evidence doesn't exist.
posted by roofus at 2:39 AM on October 31, 2007 [1 favorite]



Exactly, roofus, the fact that any doctor can introduce and advertise surgery without having to prove it safe and effective is something that people should know a lot more about (and frankly, something the FDA should do something about).

Only drugs need to be proven safe and effective (and even that process has clear issues but at least it exists and mostly works)-- talk therapies, surgeries and anything else that goes on on a doctor's office can be done on basis of anecdote and most patients haven't a clue that this is the case.

To me, anything medical that permanently alters your body shouldn't be done unless it can be proven safe and effective.

And since there is no plausible reason *why* this surgery should work, I would avoid it. Viagra had to go through the FDA. This doesn't. They are not comparable as a result-- and also because if you have a bad experience once with Viagra, you just don't take it again, but if this does harm, it's done.
posted by Maias at 5:23 AM on October 31, 2007


roofus, Interesting title, Do Women with Female Ejaculation Have Detrusor Overactivity?

Didn't think a woman could be with ejaculating. Thought it was have one.
posted by nickyskye at 7:06 AM on October 31, 2007


You know, you can increase pressure on the g-spot by pressing down on her belly, just above her public bone, while you're inside her. And, yeah, it works like a charm; no needles required.
posted by LordSludge at 7:28 AM on October 31, 2007


haha, public pubic!!
posted by LordSludge at 7:29 AM on October 31, 2007


(new band name: Public Bone)
posted by LordSludge at 7:30 AM on October 31, 2007


roofus: THANK YOU. Can you tell me, since my amateur scouting online has been inconclusive, whether the tissues/structures that produce female ejaculate (the precise names and locations of which seem to be in some dispute) could themselves be violated by these injections?
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 9:21 AM on October 31, 2007


Questionnaire surveys suggest that 40–54% of women have experienced an expulsion of fluid at orgasm.
...
Women who report female ejaculation, in the absence of other lower urinary tract symptoms, do not require further investigation, and may be reassured that it is an uncommon, but physiological, phenomenon.

If the self-reported numbers are that high, should it really be called uncommon? Based on those stats it might be more uncommon for a woman not to have experienced the "phenomenon."
posted by contraption at 10:19 AM on October 31, 2007


pressing down on her belly

Wow does that sound unpleasant. I guess YMMV.
posted by desjardins at 10:31 AM on October 31, 2007


Mitheral, duh there are side effects. Guess what? Women are capable of consenting to procedures for themselves after having being informed of said side effects. So again, I state, if a woman wants this, what's the harm? It's her body, her life.
posted by agregoli at 11:01 AM on October 31, 2007


"Granted, a lot of men like to believe that their dicks are the only thing that can get a woman off and get offended/threatened if they're told otherwise, but still."

You mean that all the issues of Cosmo/etc saying that you should dump a guy if he can't last 30 minutes and get you off 5 times doesn't have anything to do with it?

I'm just sayin, there's a lot of stereotypes on both sides of the coin.
posted by drstein at 11:18 AM on October 31, 2007


Wow does that sound unpleasant. I guess YMMV.

Rave reviews so far, but maybe I date freaks. Give it a try! Works best in missionary position, with him kinda upright on his knees. Have him press down with his fingers just above the pubic bone. Tell him you read it in Redbook or whatever.

And hey, if that doesn't do it for ya, there's always that needle thing.
posted by LordSludge at 11:22 AM on October 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


I do, however, believe that such procedures should be reviewed by the relevant medical board. I had no idea that surgical procedures aren't privy to the same testing as drugs are.
posted by agregoli at 11:35 AM on October 31, 2007


agregoli writes "So again, I state, if a woman wants this, what's the harm? It's her body, her life."

Just because someone is willing to play the odds doesn't mean no harm is being committed. It's like asking what's the harm in cigarettes if a person chooses to consume them.

Of course it's hard to make an informed decision from the facts on the website because we don't know the frequency of the side effects. If there was a 9 in 10 chance of say Intractable pain or a Urethral vaginal fistula would there still be a question of where the harm is?

But hey, feel free to whack off an arm or your lower left leg if you'll find it sexually fulfilling. I'm not going to try to stop you.
posted by Mitheral at 12:05 PM on October 31, 2007


Metafilter: This thread doesn't meet my trendiness requirements.
posted by Mental Wimp at 12:16 PM on October 31, 2007


I have no expertise, but I have read a book that was published more recently than The Joy of Sex. It was somebody's exhaustive lit review of every single study and every single book in the history of western letters on sexuality and it was called The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution. The premise of The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution is that the science is not yet in on the female orgasm and that which has hitherto passed as science has been male mythologizing. Including the crap about the bonobos, sorry all. That book says a dispassionate review of the studies available indicates that orgasm or no orgasm in female primates is likely determined in the womb by chance. (Making anorgasmia NOT in all cases a PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEM in need of the Gentle Ministrations of the [always better informed than the laydeez 'bout science things] Sensitive Male.) (Which is the bright side in all this: less of the G.M.s by the S.M.s. A boon.)

A woman's orgasm is, the book claims, not evolutionarily determined. A male's is. A woman's orgasm is the (luckily frequently) occasional and unnecessary offshoot of the necessary development: the male orgasm. So those of us who have read Desmond Morris and believe in our hearts that women have mams that look like asses for purpose because of EV"OLUtion and that a dude's ability to produce a woman's orgasm increases the likelihood that she will slingshot that dude's genotype down the ages because her orgasm will incapacitate her in a prone position 'til his sperm can achieve the ovum or because it will open wide the cervical os or because it will change the unwelcoming vaginal mucus to sperm funjuice or etc. x ninebillion made-up reasons--those people have been filled full of crap. Desmond Morris! Is full of crap! I know: disappOINTing. Nonetheless convincing if you read The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution.

That doesn't mean we primates male and female shouldn't try to learn to have orgasms or that we shouldn't try to learn to give orgasms--quite the opposite. It does probably indicate that we could stand to be a little wary of doctors who think they have women's hoohaws or pop-stylings all scienced up and understood to the point where they know what expensivepainfulpotentiallyruinous procedures we need. And we should maybe not think we all know so very much about it, either, based on our own experiences and consciousness raisings we attended in the 1970s and that movie with Liam Neeson.

Would it be possible to desist using the emotionally loaded and irritating phrase "Body Betrayal?" I don't care if it's protocol at the rape crisis center, it's still nauseating. If someone pries my mouth open and forces something in it, I'm going to salivate. I have not been betrayed by my salivary glands jesus christ.
posted by Don Pepino at 12:42 PM on October 31, 2007


Not buttsecksist--I meant horizontal not prone. Some of my best friends are supine.
posted by Don Pepino at 12:55 PM on October 31, 2007 [1 favorite]



That book says a dispassionate review of the studies available indicates that orgasm or no orgasm in female primates is likely determined in the womb by chance.


I'm not convinced by most of the claims in that female orgasm book however, I'm pretty sure it doesn't say that female orgasms are determined by chance. What it claims is that female orgasm is an evolutionary byproduct of male orgasm, not something that was naturally selected itself.

I know for certain that female orgasms in my N of 1 do not occur by chance-- they occur due to specific stimulation either occurring or not occurring. I do not walk down the street and randomly come. However, if my boyfriend does certain things, the chances of me coming are virtually 100%, barring pharmacological interference, as he will attest.
posted by Maias at 12:56 PM on October 31, 2007


Com'on Mitheral. You're being purposely dense about my meaning. These are grown adults engaging in this procedure - they have a right to decide what, if any, harm they are willing to accept.

I said above I think this procedure should be subject to the same testing as drugs. But beyond that, it's the same as any other "unnecessary" procedure one might want to do to oneself. Meaning, it's her decision. But I think I'm wasting my time cause I believe the intent of my statement is obvious.
posted by agregoli at 1:02 PM on October 31, 2007


Don Pepino, what's your pOINT - that this won't work for anorgasmia or that it will?
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 1:11 PM on October 31, 2007


Sorry, Maias. Yet more clumsy by me. One's physical capacity or incapacity to orgasm is random genetic luck-o-the-draw. Ditto the ease with which one can. What I read is that a lot more should be chalked up to nature than to nurture, and that it wouldn't be all bad to hear less of the usual "it is because you are uptight/messed up in the head/unawakened" line. (Although I think everyone anorgasmic should proceed with the idea that they're unawakened and try to wake up.) The book did not say and I did not mean to say that individual orgasms are random.

My POINT is neither that it will work or that it won't work. My POINT is that the science is not in.

I claim no expertise, of course, but being as how I have been alive for a while and semi-sentient most of the time, I think no one thing will "work for anorgasmia" because anorgasmia is caused by a lot of different things.

I don't know this in any expert way, but I'm pretty sure it's commonly reported, post reign-of-Freud, anyway, that vaginal orgasms are relatively rare compared to "immature" clitoral orgasms. If that's true, then somebody entirely anorgasmic who starts trying to change that with a $2,000 jab in the g-spot is starting at the wrong end of the risk/cost continuum not to speak of the wrong end of the canal. But I did not RTA, and maybe the 19-year-old in Q. tried everything in the world already. In which case, go for it, I guess, if you don't want to wait a decade or so to see whether your testosterone levels kick up naturally and change your whole O outlook.
posted by Don Pepino at 1:50 PM on October 31, 2007


“And we should maybe not think we all know so very much about it, either, based on our own experiences and consciousness raisings we attended in the 1970s and that movie with Liam Neeson.”

You're conflating two different arguments. The existence of body betrayal is real and documented. It's called “body betrayal” because that describes the emotional experience of those who experience it. I do have expertise, such as it is, on the subject of sexual violence. I do not claim expertise on the subject of female orgasm, or sexuality in general beyond that of an informed layperson, like, say, yourself.

I respect any attempts at looking at the subject of female orgasm, er, dispassionately and without bias. However, the argument that the book you describe makes, as you've presented it, simply isn't true. We know that anorgasmic women can be taught to have orgasms. M&J reported something like an 80% success rate using masturbation therapy. More to the point, many of us know this from personal experience. And surveys of sexuality show that rates of female anorgasmia in the last fifty years have gone down drastically. The last doesn't contradict the book's argument—something in the fetal environment may have changed in this time (particularly, say, the mother's ingestion of artificial hormones). But it does call it into suspicion.

On a personal note, I'm really friggin tired of this derision of the “PC, sensitive male” sort. I just happen to be male. My interest and activity in, say, rape crisis is because I'm a human who cares about other people. My interest in human sexuality and sexism is for the same reason. These are issues I care about just like I care about other things, many of which are politically charged. Fifty years ago if I were to talk about racism like I do today, there'd have been much more (because there still is some) derision of the “you're just some guilt-motivated white person trying to save all the poor black people” sort. These days, white people who care about the problems of racism aren't responded to in this way—it's understood that racism is a problem all of us should be concerned about. So why is a male caring about sexism or anything related to women treated as something weird and unnatural? Because, sadly, it is still quite rare. It shouldn't be, for the same reasons that a white person caring about racism shouldn't be rare.

Every time you feel the need to make “sensitive, new-age male” snarks, consider what they are really saying: sexism and women's issues are not important enough for everybody to care about.

I know it's also the case that some people think that a man caring about sexism is motivated by a desire, to put it bluntly, seduce women. But that's based upon a completely ignorant misunderstanding of the social dynamics of the situation. In reality, women, too, feel that there's something strange about a man being involved in feminism. They mistrust him, they are uncomfortable with him, they feel that he's intruding or being patronizing. It certainly doesn't, in my experience, increase one's chances of getting laid. At any rate, it's a pretty insulting thing to accuse something of.

Also, people have reacted badly to my claiming expertise. Did it come out snotty? Yeah, it did. But it was restricted to the topic of rape and sexual violence and not beyond that; and it was in response to two people making specific claims about something in that topic. It didn't come out of nowhere, nor was it irrelevant.

Finally, it should be mentioned that there are a whole bunch of side-effects associated with Viagra. I was wrong to be so sanguine about this medical procedure for the reason that it's wrong to be sanguine about any medical procedure or medication. They all have risks. It's usually best to seek some other means of solving the problem before you go and inject things into yourself. But given that Viagra is a generally accepted response to male impotence, I think the unusually hostile response here to this procedure indicates a bias that female anorgasmia either isn't that important or that it's a problem that the right partner should fix.

Especially because there's still lots of women who suffer from anorgasmia, I completely agree with the sentiments of those who worry about social pressure on women saying that they must have orgasms and that there's something horribly wrong with them if they don't. I agree that emphasizing ways of alleviating anorgasmia perversely runs the risk of heightening many women's feelings of insecurity. Somehow we need to make sure the message is that whatever an individual wants from their sex life is okay, whether it's lots of orgasms or an indifference to orgasms. Finding ways to help women who want orgasms shouldn't mean that those who don't are marginalized.

As he pointed out, roofus does have considerable expertise on the topic of this procedure and I, for one, am taking his opinion as the most authoritative in this thread. It casts this procedure in a very doubtful light and I have revised my opinion of it accordingly.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:30 PM on October 31, 2007 [5 favorites]


But given that Viagra is a generally accepted response to male impotence, I think the unusually hostile response here to this procedure indicates a bias that female anorgasmia either isn't that important or that it's a problem that the right partner should fix.

Amen. Much better than my "Did Viagra get the same response?" comment earlier.
posted by agregoli at 2:42 PM on October 31, 2007


agregoli writes "Com'on Mitheral. You're being purposely dense about my meaning. These are grown adults engaging in this procedure - they have a right to decide what, if any, harm they are willing to accept. "

Exactly. Accepting the risk of harm associated with a procedure they desire. Accepting that risk doesn't make that potential harm go away. And it's deceptive at best to imply otherwise.

This is a hot button issue with me as people, random acquaintances even, try to convince me to get LASIK and it ticks me off when they dismiss my concerns about side effects. You'd think they were getting a kick back from the clinics or something. They seem total oblivious to the not insignificant (3-6%) complication rate of the procedure. Many of the ways things can go wrong result in permanent degradation of a person's sight. Degradation that can't be corrected for.

Obviously the procedures here are only related in that they are elective procedures with risks of complications. And glasses work just fine for me where someone unable to orgasm may not be able to change that with an appliance. So the risk assessments will be different. But I find their faith somewhat disturbing.
posted by Mitheral at 3:11 PM on October 31, 2007


Exactly. Accepting the risk of harm associated with a procedure they desire. Accepting that risk doesn't make that potential harm go away. And it's deceptive at best to imply otherwise.

Ugh. DUH. Big fat, freaking duh. Where did I imply otherwise?
posted by agregoli at 3:18 PM on October 31, 2007


The assumption is that these responses are from people who didn't have a problem with Viagra.
posted by koeselitz at 3:19 PM on October 31, 2007


yebbut M&J precedes the book I read that was written on purpose to debunk M&J. You know. Obviously.

The book I read may or may not be successful in its debunking, but saying "M&Jfullstop" to refute a debunking of M&J is, like, that thing? circular? OMG, I think it may be begging the Q. A genuine sighting of that rarely spotted oft-named bird.

Strawpersoning all feminist men is wrong, of course, but hell. of. tempting. You must see that minutely argued, well-informed sympathies and encouragements offered at great length from people inclined to name bits of theirselves "dametamer" do get tiresome, particularly if one is already... Uh. Frustrated. (Just to straw the other person in the spirit of friendship and evenhandedness.)
posted by Don Pepino at 3:21 PM on October 31, 2007


(I mean I stated three comments ago to you that duh, there are side effects. Who cares? If someone makes an informed decision, that's all that matters. Never did I imply that harm couldn't be done by side effects and if you thought I did, I cleared it up long ago.)
posted by agregoli at 3:22 PM on October 31, 2007


agregoli writes "Ugh. DUH. Big fat, freaking duh. Where did I imply otherwise?"

First you asked what is the harm:
agregoli writes "If a woman wants to try this, what's the harm?"

And then when I posted the side effects off the site as a demonstration of potential harm you responded with:

agregoli writes "Mitheral, duh there are side effects. Guess what? Women are capable of consenting to procedures for themselves after having being informed of said side effects. So again, I state, if a woman wants this, what's the harm? It's her body, her life."

Maybe the last statements there aren't intended to imply there is no harm. If so I apologize for misconstruing your statements.
posted by Mitheral at 3:29 PM on October 31, 2007


"It certainly doesn't, in my experience, increase one's chances of getting laid. At any rate, it's a pretty insulting thing to accuse something of."

You haven't been to a college lately. When I make fun of that trope, it's because I've seen the facile "Hey, baby, I'm, like, into you rights, and stuff." Or the frequent, as mentioned by hmsbeagle somewhere else, internet guy proclaiming prowess, generally by describing how enthusiastic he is about cunnilingus.

This stuff does work, usually on stupid, young and naive women.

More to the point, due to the limitations (especially here), it's hard to gauge the truth (which differs from the sincerity, since there are many sincere men who do this, and that might, in fact, be their primary attribute).
posted by klangklangston at 4:08 PM on October 31, 2007


So are these the guys who are also awesome in bed while being total dogs, or are they a total sub-category all on their own? I need to get my stereotypes straight!
posted by liquorice at 4:48 PM on October 31, 2007


Can't say, though I'd imagine them to be tentative and limp in bed.
posted by klangklangston at 4:55 PM on October 31, 2007



The opposition here is to an untested, potentially irreversible surgical procedure-- if someone brought out a Viagra for women (and, as I posted above, research suggests Viagra itself can help many women) properly tested, I'm sure all of us would be saying "Bring it on." I certainly would.

And I don't imagine anyone else who raised objections was thinking... gee, improving male sexuality, cool, improving female sexuality, trivial.
posted by Maias at 5:00 PM on October 31, 2007


“The book I read may or may not be successful in its debunking, but saying ‘M&Jfullstop’ to refute a debunking of M&J is, like, that thing? circular? OMG, I think it may be begging the Q. A genuine sighting of that rarely spotted oft-named bird.”

That's funny, I missed the part where you described the section of the book which mentioned M&J, or, worse, when you described how the book debunked the claimed success of M&J's masturbation therapy. Or maybe I didn't miss it because you didn't write it. In that case, it was not a genuine sighting of that rare bird, the tautology.

“You must see that minutely argued, well-informed sympathies and encouragements offered at great length from people inclined to name bits of theirselves ‘dametamer’ do get tiresome...”

Talk about a bad-faith argument! You know perfectly well I have not, in fact, ever named a part of myself dametamer and that threatening to do so was sarcastic, with full awareness of its sexist and offensive nature, for the express purposes of making the point that what people name parts of their bodies can, in fact, legitimately offend other people.

When do I get to ridicule you for not making sense and arguing in such bad faith? You know, because I'm finding you tiresome and I'm frustrated?

“You haven't been to a college lately. When I make fun of that trope, it's because I've seen the facile ‘Hey, baby, I'm, like, into you rights, and stuff.’ Or the frequent, as mentioned by hmsbeagle somewhere else, internet guy proclaiming prowess, generally by describing how enthusiastic he is about cunnilingus.”

Personally, I think you are showing your own youth, here, about this. Or not. But I think you're revealing more about how you view the world than you are understanding the motivations of others.

For example, your cunnilingus thing. If a woman writes somewhere on MeFi that she loves fellatio, do you automatically assume that she's only saying that because she wants to get laid and that she really doesn't enjoy it? I doubt it. Maybe if you were to enthusiastically claim that you loved cunnilingus, you'd be being insincere and have ulterior motives.

Something about this just strikes me as being typical teen and twentysomething bullshit. That, admittedly, some people never outgrow. But, you know, for many of us by our thirties and beyond, we're not really playing all those stupid boy/girl games that once obsessed us. I'm not the least interested in finding out the best way to seduce a woman. Most woman over 30 could care less whether people think they're sluts or not. Grown people meet each other, have sex or don't have sex, and enjoy their sex or they don't. There's very little of all that bullshit man versus woman, how and how often I have sex defines what kind of person I am, and similar crap. If I say I love cunnilingus, it's simply because I love cunnilingus. I'm middle-aged, bald, short, and crippled. You think that I would think that saying that I love cunnilingus is suddenly going to make me attractive to women who didn't already find me attractive? Please.

To me, all these suspicions about why people believe things, or, more to the point, cynicism about why they might believe strongly in something political, just reeks of the kind of cynicism that's relevant and necessary for teens and college students who try on new identities the same way they try on new clothing. But, you know, everyone in the world aren't teens or college students. Some of us have long, long ago settled on an identity, we're secure with it, we're not trying to be anyone other than who we actually are because, frankly, it doesn't matter much anyway.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:38 PM on October 31, 2007


a woman writes somewhere on MeFi that she loves fellatio

*pops head out of cubicle, wiping icing from mouth*

somebody call me?
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 5:53 PM on October 31, 2007


Icing??
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:04 PM on October 31, 2007


Y’know tho, you dance with a lot of people, you become a better dancer. But you develop no rapport with any given dance partner. If you really want to be world class, it has to be a team effort and you have to practice together constantly until you know each other’s needs instinctively.

Well stated and, IMO, very true.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:36 PM on October 31, 2007


Icing, frosting, accidental crossposting, whatever.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 7:30 PM on October 31, 2007


Maybe the last statements there aren't intended to imply there is no harm. If so I apologize for misconstruing your statements.

I can't believe you've taken so long to even suspect that your strange premise about my very-easy-to-understand statements might be wrong, when, you know, I've told you that you were wrong several times now, but thank you for your apology. Christ, that was boring.
posted by agregoli at 7:12 AM on November 1, 2007


"Personally, I think you are showing your own youth, here, about this. Or not. But I think you're revealing more about how you view the world than you are understanding the motivations of others.

For example, your cunnilingus thing. If a woman writes somewhere on MeFi that she loves fellatio, do you automatically assume that she's only saying that because she wants to get laid and that she really doesn't enjoy it? I doubt it. Maybe if you were to enthusiastically claim that you loved cunnilingus, you'd be being insincere and have ulterior motives."

The temptation is here for me to do what I feel you're doing—an intentionally uncharitable reading, framed for argument. Instead, let me point out a couple things that I think are germane:

—The social contexts for expressing sexual behavior are fairly different, something that I know you are aware of.

—I am aware that as a guy, my enthusiastic praise of cunnilingus could rightly be read as creepy and evidence of cyber-leering, which is why I tend to avoid such sincere professing. I would wager that you're aware of this too.

—I'm reading what I feel is defensiveness coming from you, and would point out that I don't necessarily put your comments in the same category, but that's mostly because I've been reading your comments for a while now and know that your frank discussions don't seem self-serving. But I think you're the exception, rather than the rule.

—The discussion of age is only tangentially relevant, because, you know, there are a lot of twenty-somethings on the internet (though I don't believe this is a phenomenon restricted to them).

—I'm not the only one to notice it, and it's come up before, usually mentioned by women, which tends to submarine your argument that it's all simply me projecting.
posted by klangklangston at 7:35 AM on November 1, 2007


But, klangklangston, if you didn't know me, you would think those things of me. That's what's annoying. I don't know why I can't simply say what I believe or what I feel without people assuming that I'm not really being honest and imputing all sorts of nefarious motives for saying it. And accommodating a particular bias where people generally make such assumptions when someone of class A says something on topic X just makes that context worse. It means that honest people who want to avoid misunderstanding don't say these things making it that much more likely that those who do are lying. Meaning that no one of class A can say something that happens to be true about topic X, ever. Which is absurd.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:14 PM on November 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


That makes me think of pilots for some reason 
posted by five fresh fish at 11:26 PM on November 1, 2007


EB, I understand your reasoning, but I have to point out that there are many instances, of which I believe this is one, where people's purported honesty has to be greeted with skepticism even if that mean unfairly tarring people who hold those views without subtext.

The most immediate reference may be those who put up self-links to good pages. They may both be absolutely sincere in their appreciation of the page, and posting something of quality, but because of the prevalence of folks who would abuse that public trust, their links must be treated with skepticism.

Or when white people loudly protest against affirmative action—they may genuinely believe that it's better for minorities to get rid of affirmative action, but it's hard to take their statements at face value.

Unless, of course, you "know" them, or have had communication with them before, at which point their views may seem less like talking points and more like genuine expressions.
posted by klangklangston at 9:48 AM on November 2, 2007


Those two examples are not comparable. The first, the self-link example, is a pragmatic rule that is necessary because there's intolerable consequences in allowing self-linking. There's not intolerable consequences in giving people the benefit of the doubt in terms of your suspicions of their motivations when evaluating their statementsof belief and the like. I don't automatically assume a white person loudly decrying affirmative action is a racist or merely self-interested. I think, rightly, that it's more likely than not. But I wait until I see evidence before I accuse them of it. I don't start attacking them immediately on that basis. And while I probably do think badly of them because of my suspicion, I regret that and try to avoid doing it.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:27 AM on November 2, 2007


E.B., I didn't! I didn't know perfectly well: I really did think you named something dametamer (har!). Either I misunderstood in the original (in which case I should probably be institutionalized for safety of self/others) or the truth eroded in the years since because the fictional scenario was so much more hilarious. I'm going to go with the latter, only slightly more charitable, dametamer read. There is actually some evidence that that's the right one--this happened to me with Roy Orbison Wrapped in Clingfilm, too, when it re-appeared recently. In the years since it first was posted I conveniently forgot that it was a joke, which allowed me to think for years that there really was a Roy-in-Saran fetishist publishing his musings on the web. I also believe in elves.
posted by Don Pepino at 11:29 AM on November 9, 2007


Ah. That puts your comment in a whole new light. Yes, I can see how you thought me a hypocrite. But, no, it was joke intended to make a point.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:26 PM on November 9, 2007


…… But now you do call your dick "dametamer," right?
posted by klangklangston at 1:21 PM on November 9, 2007


« Older Alarmingly, these are not lovesick zombies....  |  SquatRx is a series of videos ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments