Skip

male-female interactions
January 13, 2008 11:58 AM   Subscribe

YangTown, the Path of Masculine Power, [parts of the site NSFW] was created by a 25 year old guy in LA, who put together his ideas on dating and life advice. The site has a number of his articles on various topics that might be interesting to both men and women such as Are Any of These 5 Energy Vampires Draining Your Life? There are also informative links to Female Orgasm Mastery with explicit instructions on how to stimulate the G-Spot [NSFW], definitely

Female Ejaculation l when it comes to the G spot

These links not suitable for anyone under 18 and absolutely NSFW: Squirting orgasms and female ejaculation l On PornoTube, findable under “female orgasm mastery”.
posted by nickyskye (95 comments total) 7 users marked this as a favorite

 
Heh, nicky, I see you decided to go ahead and post your titillating topic. "Female Orgasm Mastery" sounds like the name of a troupe of dominatrices. I imagine them striding around in superhero costumes made of black leather -- like a passel of Catwomen carrying riding crops.

"Forget it, Jade -- it's Yangtown."
posted by GrammarMoses at 12:11 PM on January 13, 2008 [3 favorites]


*confusion*
posted by jokeefe at 12:13 PM on January 13, 2008


I would like to demonstrate my masculine power by beating this guy to death with a pool cue. And then making a 7-step list about how I did it.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 12:15 PM on January 13, 2008 [4 favorites]


JANE, dammit. One of these days I'll get these new fingers working properly...
posted by GrammarMoses at 12:18 PM on January 13, 2008


yup, GrammarMoses *blush. yikes. *cringing here. Oh God, it's Sunday too, I'll be run off of the blue. Oh noes! I was so enthralled about the orgasm info. Wish I'd known that ages ago and could've shown my boyfriends at the time. Thought it might be useful to a new generation.
posted by nickyskye at 12:23 PM on January 13, 2008


It's cute how the under 25 set believe they understand how everything works like that. Makes you just want to pinch their little cheeks, doesn't it?
posted by Hildegarde at 12:24 PM on January 13, 2008 [10 favorites]


I'm with BitterOldPunk. Call me BitterOldPunkette, or something.

Seriously, though, this site is a advertising portal for, among other things, videos purporting to provide something called 'Girlfriend Training'. WTF?
posted by jokeefe at 12:27 PM on January 13, 2008


pinch their little cheeks

oh dear, yes, it does.

Yes, dear jokeefe, there is a long way to go for males and females to have better interactions and relationships. There seems to be so much misunderstanding between the genders and, frankly, between most human beings of any gender. But, amid the misunderstanding on this site there are some insights there, I thought, and some practical info, like the g-spot orgasm info. Gee, I really wish my boyfriends had known about that. I wish I knew about that, I just didn't. So I thought the info might be useful to females as well.
posted by nickyskye at 12:34 PM on January 13, 2008


Is it too much to ask that Mr. Girlfriend Training show up for a YouTube showdown? Please?
posted by maudlin at 12:54 PM on January 13, 2008 [1 favorite]


That is an AWFUL lot of work to go through to justify a squirting fetish.
posted by LeeJay at 1:01 PM on January 13, 2008


Just when you think evolution is working....
posted by Vavuzi at 1:02 PM on January 13, 2008


Wow. The path to Masculine Power is the ample use of new age buzz words and the misappropriation of old 1970's era vagina diagrams and pop psychology? Was this written by Disco Stu?
posted by tkchrist at 1:04 PM on January 13, 2008


Wow! Dude discovered that women are attracted to strong, aware, confident and fearless men. Who knew?
posted by msalt at 1:05 PM on January 13, 2008


He's got it all figured out at age 25? Oh please. This is the definitive book for men about women (if you don't want to buy it, use the "look inside" function. That will tell you plenty).

I'm going to check out the site, mainly because I like the aesthetics of it, plus I saw a reference to PUA and that shit is almost as good as LOLcats for me. Oh, and maudlin, there would be no showdown, no one can top Ms Tylor, literally.
posted by fuse theorem at 1:12 PM on January 13, 2008


Ugh. I'm not into the comparisons between having a girlfriend and training a dog. Maybe useful for some repressed seriously confused guys or something, and I'm sure there's worse out there, but yeeech. Plus it looks awful on my browser - the picture of the temple takes up a full screen.
posted by fermezporte at 1:12 PM on January 13, 2008


Love that squirt!
posted by doctorschlock at 1:17 PM on January 13, 2008


Respect the cock!
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 1:30 PM on January 13, 2008 [2 favorites]


nickyskye writes "there is a long way to go for males and females to have better interactions and relationships."

Yes and no.

Yes, there is room for improving relationships and years of misconception, generalizations and genderizations did tons of damage, such as the ludicrous idea that a woman (or a man) isn't fit for a job because of their gender , or the idea that an unrestricted sexual desire is OK for man, but if a woman wants to fuck half the planet she is a vile bitch, or that she shouldn't look for physical pleasure.

Apparently the idea that uncontrolled desire can bring to undesiderable consequences (such as losing affection of others) still isn't well understood, while the idea that some gender can and other can't still is en vogue, apparently, possibily because it's a lot easier to genderize and blame the victim.

No, there isn't always an abyss between any man and any woman, just because of their genders. I just can't see one, but maybe we see one because we believe there ought to be one.

Take, for instance, this speech by Isabel Allende. In the speech she talks about her daughter Paola asserting that feminism is outdated, wheres Isabel replies that it is for a young privileged woman in a western society, sometimes being called a feminist is even considered an insult because "it isn't sexy" but that her being a feminist didn't stop her from flirting. It kind of made my jaw drop.

It gets more convoluted, as I get that Isabel is trying to make a point about the _abuses_ that many women still suffer all over the world, which are more than despicable imho. Yet the fact that woman are suffering these doesn't make it a WOMAN issue, it is a ISSUE regardless of the gender, BUT we shouldn't frame them as issue that are of interest only of women, as if abuses on women didn't involve men , or if they ALL were caused by man (which is, I believe, the argument of radical feminism, man being the root of all evil)

It just isn't true and it en-genders a battle that shouldn't exist, a battle of sexes that doesn't make any sense. Unless, of course, one wants to bitterly divide, like the black bs white strategy.

nickyskye writes "Gee, I really wish my boyfriends had known about that. I wish I knew about that, I just didn't. So I thought the info might be useful to females as well."

And to males as well , as a better understanding of what is pleasurable to a woman is certainly an interesting information for a man , as in some situation it can help skip all the embarassment parts that make misunderstanding so damn easy. She doesn't want to say, he doesn't know, it's a comedy of errors that ends in a "tragedy" of misunderstanding.

On a tanget: but some of that stuff, like the Cure For All Fears..seems mucho bulshito to me.
posted by elpapacito at 1:34 PM on January 13, 2008 [2 favorites]


Just when you think evolution is working....

I'm not a biologist or anything, but I think the pursuit of heightened relations with the opposite sex is probably selected for.
posted by Adam_S at 1:39 PM on January 13, 2008 [3 favorites]


The best thing about each of the Spartans in the movie 300, particularly the king, is the fact that they embody everything that makes up a real man: strength (both physical and mental), confidence, honor, courage, loyalty, and a deep unwavering sense of purpose. They have clear boundaries and values and they live completely in their own reality.

Even if you ignore the obvious pitfalls of building a life/relationship philosophy on the precepts of a live-action fantasy cartoon, it's worth noting that being a "real" man is inherently incompatible with living completely in one's own reality. The latter is in fact nearly a working definition of fantasy.
posted by gompa at 1:40 PM on January 13, 2008


gompa--

You should consider for a moment the nature of fantasy. We relate to exaggerations, not because we want to be such pure expressions of them ourselves, but because there's something in them that may be useful in the fabrication of our emotional nature. Actively managing your life, and not simply passively accepting whatever comes, is a fundamental shift in perspective from childhood to adulthood. Not everyone makes that leap.
posted by effugas at 1:58 PM on January 13, 2008 [2 favorites]


Combining the power of penises doubles their strength, and women become friends and close confidants. Magical gender relations solution!
posted by gorgor_balabala at 2:17 PM on January 13, 2008


The Human Heart Chakra - Creating Heart Centered Relationships

This track is, in my opinion, the most powerful of all audio programs I have ever heard. The reason is, not only because of the new heart-centered relationship paradigm Stephane discusses in the beginning, but due to the 35 minute heart-opening meditation at the end.

If you really want to literally leap up a level of consciousness, do this exercise whole-heartedly. I recommend doing it with good headphones in nature, by lush plants and running water if possible. If you want to make the changes ever more drastic, do it everyday for at least a week straight in a place that you have never been before (like a nearby park). Some of the concepts include:

* The underlying issue with most relationships
* Understanding the heart chakra
* How to "spank" with compassion
* An exercise to give your bratty girlfriend
* How a closed heart affects your health
* The phenomenom of "walk-in" souls
* A 35 minute tuning fork meditation to open your heart


I think this is all we need to know about this site.
posted by stagewhisper at 2:20 PM on January 13, 2008


YangTown isn't too far from Paradise City.
posted by Tube at 2:28 PM on January 13, 2008 [1 favorite]


Wow! Dude discovered that women are attracted to strong, aware, confident and fearless men. Who knew?

That may more-or-less reflect the current reality, but I wouldn't mind seeing a day in which that kind of taken-for-granted truth is seen as being as silly & outdated as a statement like "men are attracted to women who are demure, not outspoken or strong-headed, are good nurturers & are compliant to the wills of their husbands".

I think it's quite unfortunate that masculist theory is so pathetically under-developed that the two most prominent offerings in recent times from masculists have been the SNAG model & the Iron John bollocks, and little or no attempt has been made to attack these kinds of essentialist ideals & stereotypes.

Just as I would broadly define a feminist woman as one who asserts & exercises her right to behave & define herself exactly as she pleases (especially, but not necessarily, contrary to normative stereotypes), I think a truly masculist man should also be able to define himself as he wishes, which could include rejecting parts of the "strong, aware, confident and fearless" stereotype. Paradoxically, the apotheosis of that stereotype could even be somebody strong enough to admit their weaknesses without feeling less of a man, aware of his ignorance, and confident & fearless enough to admit uncertainty & fear.

As such, regurgitating the "strong man" stereotype as a given, unchangable truth of what men should be like & what women want, is destructive to the masculist cause & should be condemned, not supported.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:03 PM on January 13, 2008 [12 favorites]


I was sent to snicker at the site, then I read a few things, then I snickered. Which is a shame, 'cause men could use some positive role models and methods for defining masculinity.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:10 PM on January 13, 2008


it's worth noting that being a "real" man is inherently incompatible with living completely in one's own reality. The latter is in fact nearly a working definition of fantasy.

What on earth are you talking about? The entire misandronist system places so much pressure on men to have "strength (both physical and mental), confidence, honor, courage, loyalty, and a deep unwavering sense of purpose" that the only way for men to live up to these unrealistic & unattainable ideals is to warp their psyches in such a way as to end up living in their own realities. Until misandrony is completely dismantled, "real men" will remain nothing other than the comic figures in which, viewing themselves in mirrors, they see an Adonis reflected back at them, when in reality they're more like a Homer.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:11 PM on January 13, 2008 [2 favorites]


Beautifully said UbuRoivas. wow. Thanks.
posted by nickyskye at 3:12 PM on January 13, 2008


The entire misandronist system places so much pressure on men to have "strength (both physical and mental), confidence, honor, courage, loyalty, and a deep unwavering sense of purpose" that the only way for men to live up to these unrealistic & unattainable

I wouldn't call them unrealistic or unattainable.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:19 PM on January 13, 2008


I don’t mean to sound crass or bitter, but the fact is that ALL women are biologically and socially conditioned to fluctuate in self-esteem levels, to have mood swings, to “test” their man over and over and over, to push away love, AND they are literally biologically programmed to promote sperm wars!

FACT: Would you like to know how a pick up artist can tell if a woman in a bar has a boyfriend waiting for her at home?

She will often be his EASIEST TARGET.

I know how this must sound to some of you. But, I assure you that I am no misogynist. If anything, I am a true FEMINIST. It’s guys like me who do whatever they can to try to make women feel happy and fulfilled in their core that are the TRUE feminists…

posted by cytherea at 3:23 PM on January 13, 2008


"Unrealistic & unattainable" was meant to be an echoing of the language of feminist critiques. The point is more that it's unrealistic to expect people to go against their natural inclinations in order to conform with a stereotype, and it's largely unattainable because at most they will only appear to fit the stereotype on the outside.

It really should be perfectly OK for a man to be a coward, for example, in the same way as as it's perfectly OK for a woman to not feel any motherly instinct, and a man should only be required to be physically strong to the same extent as a woman is required to be slim & busty.

And the world would probably be a much better place if many of those with a "deep unwavering sense of purpose" felt a little more uncertainty & lack of resolve from time to time.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:27 PM on January 13, 2008 [4 favorites]


include rejecting parts of the "strong, aware, confident and fearless" stereotype.

I am weak, shy, and fearful, so I am doing well, there. I am also single.

So very, very single.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 3:53 PM on January 13, 2008 [2 favorites]


The best thing about each of the Spartans in the movie 300, particularly the king, is the fact that they embody everything that makes up a real man

Apparently that means real men also throw weak babies from cliffs; set children against each other in bloody fistfights; and send teenagers off to hunt wolves in freezing weather with nothing but a loincloth and a sharp stick.

I saw the movie, too, you know. I guess only some of us have developed senses of history and artistic irony (Spartans betrayed by one of their own that they had previously cast aside for ugliness? who'd a thunk it?).
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 3:53 PM on January 13, 2008


Oh, the Yangtown ladies sing this song,
Dildo, Dildo,
The Yangtown ego's five miles long,
Buy a dildo today...
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:57 PM on January 13, 2008 [4 favorites]


to promote sperm wars

aka bukkake?
posted by matteo at 3:59 PM on January 13, 2008


CLOUDCHASER! Crywalk with us! ...Manhug!
posted by puddnhead at 4:04 PM on January 13, 2008 [1 favorite]


UbuRoivas writes "And the world would probably be a much better place if many of those with a 'deep unwavering sense of purpose' felt a little more uncertainty & lack of resolve from time to time."

Know who else had a 'deep unwavering sense of purpose'?

That's right, zombie jesus.
posted by mullingitover at 4:10 PM on January 13, 2008 [3 favorites]


UbuRoivas writes "It really should be perfectly OK for a man to be a coward, for example, in the same way as as it's perfectly OK for a woman to not feel any motherly instinct, and a man should only be required to be physically strong to the same extent as a woman is required to be slim & busty."

Well, but do we like coward man or woman ? Not at all, because many like self confidence, and cowardice usually negates self confidence. Obviously, one could be at different times in life a coward and self-confident, as we are not continuous being without shortcoming.

More often then not many like traits that are often represented in the "stereotype of man" as "bold, daring, assertive, competitive and knowledgeable" and a list of desiderable traits. The problem was the the stereotype of woman was (and still is somewhere) the class containing all the opposite, undesiderable traits such as "timid, weak, gullible, unaware"

Whereas a stereotype that better resembles, at least to me, feminine qualities are "empathic, attentive, caring, delicate, collaborative and nurturing"..but that still remains a stereotype that doesn't represent reality, as both the stereotyped classes can be found both in a man or in a woman.
posted by elpapacito at 4:12 PM on January 13, 2008


Damn, there really is a g-spot?
posted by cjorgensen at 4:23 PM on January 13, 2008


Damn, there really is a g-spot?

You know what they say ... if you have to ask ...
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:34 PM on January 13, 2008


300 was enjoyable as a movie, sure, but it would have made a good Abercrombie and Fitch ad as well. All those exposed midriffs. Just sayin'.
posted by wastelands at 4:39 PM on January 13, 2008


More often then not many like traits that are often represented in the "stereotype of man" as "bold, daring, assertive, competitive and knowledgeable" … feminine qualities are "empathic, attentive, caring, delicate, collaborative and nurturing"
I'm not sure what you're getting at. One of the major points of modern feminism is that an individual ought to be able to reject those qualities and still accepted as a member of their sex for what they do display; i.e., that being "attentive," "collaborative," and "nurturing" aren't preconditions for being a successful woman. Although I think our society is still a long way away from that mark -- women who aren't nurturing are often socially sanctioned for it in other areas, for instance -- I think the demolition of those stereotypes is a worthy goal.
posted by Kadin2048 at 4:49 PM on January 13, 2008


Apparently that means real men also throw weak babies from cliffs; set children against each other in bloody fistfights; and send teenagers off to hunt wolves uppity serfs in freezing weather with nothing but a loincloth and a sharp stick.

FYP; didn't see the movie, doubt that made it in.

there are some insights there, I thought, and some practical info, like the g-spot orgasm info. Gee, I really wish my boyfriends had known about that. I wish I knew about that, I just didn't. So I thought the info might be useful to females as well.

On that note, this site might be of interest.
posted by BigSky at 4:56 PM on January 13, 2008


Well, but do we like coward man or woman ? Not at all, because many like self confidence, and cowardice usually negates self confidence.

I'm not exactly trying to promote cowardice as a virtue. I was thinking of situations in which a man might be smeared with a taint of cowardice & lose face for refusing to do something personally risky, like walking away from a drunken idiot trying to goad him into a fight, or not wanting to go to war.

These things might be intellectually justifiable because the risks outweigh the potential benefits, but the more traditional male stereotype would probably be expected to put on a brave face & charge into the fight, whereas the more sensible man would have to struggle with accusations of cowardice. That's the thing: I just don't see why it should be so necessary to be all bluster & bravado, especially when that requirement probably actually causes more problems than it solves - would there be so many fights & wars if boys weren't constantly conditioned by the patriarchy to aim to be so damned self-assured, fearless and strong all the time?
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:03 PM on January 13, 2008 [5 favorites]


*hugs UbuRolvas*

Thank you, from a Mom of two boys.
posted by misha at 5:24 PM on January 13, 2008 [1 favorite]


UbuRoivas writes "would there be so many fights & wars if boys weren't constantly conditioned by the patriarchy to aim to be so damned self-assured, fearless and strong all the time?"

I agree on the conditioning part, but I don't necessarily see it as a derivation of patriarchy, as if father figures were necessarily brutal , violent and incompent as opposed to tolerant, intelligent and not conditioning mother figures. Authority and authoritarian regimes may be embodied by males, but can't do without the support of females, usually operating in much more substle ways ; not mentioning the females who reached and surpassed millions of men in obtaining extraordinary amounts of power, just to behave exactly like a man would , but not because they become somehow males : they just had the power.

For instance, look at the brainwashing done with the notion of "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" , with complete disregard of a more complex reality that can't be boiled down to obeying or disobeying the rulers. Look at how even females are now in the military and some of them completely buy into jingostic rethoric and how some of them are even "proud" that their baby "gave life on duty to protect and defend..." ...while many of them cry fountains of pain. It's a learned behavior, it's not built in, but it is not only effective on males.
posted by elpapacito at 5:38 PM on January 13, 2008


include rejecting parts of the "strong, aware, confident and fearless" stereotype.

Well, I picked my examples carefully -- didn't include silent, stoic, macho, promiscous, remote, ruthless, etc. -- as did yangtown, surprisingly. I'm a guy who's emotional, talkative, likes to gossip, hates cold water, demands strong lovers, plays lots of fantasy games with my daughters, and can process a relationship with anybody. Proudly.

But I don't think weakness, being lost in your head, insecurity or fearfulness is attractive. In men or women. And I'm OK with that.
posted by msalt at 5:45 PM on January 13, 2008



What evidence do you have that this is learned behavior?

You don't need to resort to "conditioning" to explain why men *cross-culturally* and *cross-historically* aim to be self-assured, fearless and strong. It's because it's an evolutionarily sound strategy most of the time. Evolution doesn't work to make us emotionally healthy or to have us avoid conflict. It selects those who reproduce most successfully and a man who is insecure, cowardly and weak simply isn't the kind of mate that our female ancestors tended to choose.

You don't need brainwashing to create war-- just the human tendency to have "in groups" and "out groups." The sad thing is that we may have evolved cooperation in order to better kill our neighbors :(

Thankfully, we aren't slaves to our evolved tendencies, but pretending they don't exist doesn't help us deal with them better, I think.
posted by Maias at 5:52 PM on January 13, 2008 [4 favorites]


When I was 25 I was a douchebag also.
posted by cazoo at 6:21 PM on January 13, 2008 [1 favorite]


NickySkye, I love you and - as of now- almost all of your posts, but this guy reads like a slightly more suave version of Mystery with a misbegotten rhetorical infusion of Robert Bly.

It is a man with his hands in his jacket pockets, has brown unwashed hair, dark circles under his eyes, and his skin is aged beyond his time. He is eying you as he walks closer, his hidden hands possibly carrying a weapon. You tug on your boyfriend, who slowly turns around, squints his eyes and stares directly at this man as if to say "I dare you to try something."


That's not a great way to show your Female you're big manly man. It is, however, a great way to provoke an unnecessary fight and get your ass kicked, which women find extremely unattractive. Oh, and later on in the essay he compares people to dogs. This guy says he's 25? I'll bet my g-spot he's running this gig from his dorm room. Or maybe even his parents' basement.
posted by foxy_hedgehog at 6:46 PM on January 13, 2008


Damn, there really is a g-spot?

I can only cite anecdotal evidence, but yes, I believe there is. =)
posted by Doohickie at 6:55 PM on January 13, 2008


would there be so many fights & wars if boys weren't constantly conditioned by the patriarchy to aim to be so damned self-assured, fearless and strong all the time?

Probably. Wars and fights aren't little plays, they're usually about someone wanting to take something from someone else or someone wanting to impose their will on others.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:02 PM on January 13, 2008


Wars and fights aren't little plays, they're usually about someone wanting to take something from someone else or someone wanting to impose their will on others.

Conversely, you can just as easily see wars and fights as little plays writ large. Why is it so difficult for Bush to turn around & say that Iraq was a mistake, or to admit defeat? Why is flip-flopping in politicians so looked down upon? Isn't it largely because politicians are expected to be "big men", who are strong & resolute & have a deep unwavering sense of purpose? And even if the invasion was about oil, didn't the whole Bush v Saddam tension over the weapons inspectors leading up to the war resemble nothing more than a playground Mexican standoff over taking the other boy's lunch?
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:41 PM on January 13, 2008


You don't need to resort to "conditioning" to explain why men *cross-culturally* and *cross-historically* aim to be self-assured, fearless and strong. It's because it's an evolutionarily sound strategy most of the time.

Just don't forget those of us who stay at home, taking good care of all those lonely women while their self-assured, fearless, strong men are off fighting stupid battles. If they eventually do make it back, they'll be raising our little cuckoos in their post-war nests.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 7:51 PM on January 13, 2008


Why is it so difficult for Bush to turn around & say that Iraq was a mistake, or to admit defeat? Why is flip-flopping in politicians so looked down upon? Isn't it largely because politicians are expected to be "big men", who are strong & resolute & have a deep unwavering sense of purpose?

No. It's because of the power of image. The vast majority of our decisions are made with limited information. 'Intangibles', that have a rather limited connection with reality, like morale, or sense of mission, have a disproportional effect on outcome. Someone who is steadfast and assured of purpose is a more fearsome and credible threat; it plays into our expectations regarding deliberate action. We also know that uncertainty is psychologically uncomfortable and in times of emergency, particularly dangerous. Since he doesn't seem very susceptible to doubt, even if he should be, he is easier for the herd to follow. He provides an easier path to follow than someone who is open about the future being unclear (and I mean being open beyond stating that as a rhetorical trope). It's a confusing world, we all long for certainty.

The cultural expectation didn't come about randomly. These qualities confer advantage.
posted by BigSky at 8:14 PM on January 13, 2008


foxy_hedgehog, first of all, just because I link to a site doesn't mean I espouse the philosophy of the site owner. Nor do I think that is a requirement of making an FPP. I thought parts of the site might be interesting to both males and females. And maybe some parts very interesting.

The main thing I liked from this site was the link to how to have and induce a g-spot orgasm, in simple, explained, video detail. When I was in my 20's very few young men I knew were that expert sexually. I wasn't either. So I figured that video might benefit a new generation of young men and women. Honestly, I thought the g-spot was a fiction, that's how ignorant I was before this site. I was genuinely amazed and delighted to find a video about it.

Next, people with Axis II, Cluster B personality disorders are commonly called emotional vampires. I like this guy's description of the emotional vampires he encountered: The POOR ME, The Aloof, The Interrogator, The Intimidator, The Boaster and Bragger. Concise and insightful. If I were to translate those into personality disorders they might be: Dependent, Schizoid-Narcissist, Borderline, Antisocial and Narcissistic. Useful types to know about in love, friendship or career relationships.

He has some very practical and wise insights in his essay on Ten Stages Of Releasing Fear.

A hypnotist friend of mine recently wrote about EFT. I'd never heard of it before and had only heard of EMDR as a technique for healing traumatic memories. I liked reading his essayHow to Overcome Any Fear in Minutes (Intro to EFT), with practical images. I am interested in the usefulness of that, thought I'd bring it here and maybe somebody had positive or negative experience with EFT and might discuss it. I felt the same way about his essay How to Let Go of Any Emotional Trauma (Intro to TAT).

I took what I liked and left the rest. It's rare I happen on a site that is entirely satisfactory or entirely unsatisfactory. Usually there is something there to enjoy, learn from, be amused by. I hoped that might be the case with this site for others. It was the best of the web as far as I've seen about mastering female g-spot orgasm with free instructional videos.
posted by nickyskye at 8:14 PM on January 13, 2008


The cultural expectation didn't come about randomly. These qualities confer advantage.

OK, I might be putting the cart before the horse & then going around in circles, but the system might work something like this:

* it's advantageous for leaders to be stubborn steadfast
* leaders have traditionally been men
* leaders have traditionally been seen as the strongest / most complete / alpha men
* therefore, all men try to emulate the leaders so as to bask in their reflected glory or be like them or whatever
* recursively, the leaders, in order to retain their image as alpha men, have to act like alpha men, which means emulating the internalised "masculine" behaviours
* rinse & repeat

But I think we're digressing a bit.

Anyway, nickyskye, I don't see this as a blot on your posting history in any way. For me, reading the thoughts of some 25yo gobshite is not unlike browsing Pravda or some Hollywood celebrity gossip rag - an interesting sociological insight, or something. And I'm sure that others will find untold value in those instructional videos.

posted by UbuRoivas at 8:30 PM on January 13, 2008


You know what they say ... if you have to ask ...

It cost too much...?

The more PUA literature I read, the more I am not surprised at how this type of machositic BS is flourishing in that community. What does surprise me is how well it seems to work.

UbuRoivas - I pretty much agree with everything you've posted, but if this stuff does work then I really can't blame these guys for pushing this crap.
posted by P.o.B. at 9:04 PM on January 13, 2008


P.o.B - don't mind me; I just thought I might make it a bit of a personal mini-crusade to push the masculist envelope this year, or at least until I get bored of it or everybody tells me to shut up. The very fact that I had to coin a term for it says, to me at least, that "mens' theory" is pretty badly neglected.

A few personal experiences recently added a few grams of weight to this resolution, such as a quite grrl-powery feministy type saying that some Jim Rose circus-type female contortionist was "every man's fantasy" without apparently caring or being conscious of the reductive sexism in a statement like that, or the fact that a gay guy I've known socially for more than a couple of years turns out to believe that I'm gay, presumably because I don't feel compelled to behave like a stereotypical male. Or maybe I just have awesome personal style; I'm not sure which.

Anyway, it's been a bit of a derail, but if this stuff does work then I really can't blame these guys for pushing this crap to achieve a certain limited result, but I can blame them for putting forward views which are basically the male side of the coin to Marge's advice to Lisa:

Well it doesn't matter how you feel inside, you know? It's what shows up on the surface that counts. That's what my mother taught me. Take all your bad feelings and push them down, all the way down, past your knees until you're almost walking on them. And then you'll fit in, and you'll be invited to parties, and boys will like you, and happiness will follow.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:48 PM on January 13, 2008 [1 favorite]


Hm, this thread turned out disappointingly.
My private prediction was that a post on the g-spot would
- lead to a long thread since most people would have experience with g-spots.
- lead to a lot of "ladies I sure do love cunnilingus" type of advertising

Turned out to be another thread on gender studies. Boo!
posted by jouke at 10:08 PM on January 13, 2008 [2 favorites]


Hey guys, Ryan here from Yang Town.

I'm flattered that there are some many comments and new perspectives mentioned here about my blog, especially this one: "Honestly, I thought the g-spot was a fiction, that's how ignorant I was before this site." Glad to have helped!

The blog captures my own realizations along my journey and much of what I write is simply me speaking my current truth. My blog has gone through many changes (see this video for short blog history and how I designed it: http://www.yangtown.com/general/video-on-the-making-of-yang-towns-illustration-design/ ) and will continue to as I learn and grow.

If it's helped any of you then I'm am grateful to be of service. If it doesn't resonate with you, that's cool too.

Cheers,

Ryan
posted by ryanrandolph at 11:14 PM on January 13, 2008


Say hey Ryan, welcome to MetaFilter! I think you'll have fun here.

I was the one ignorant of the g-spot. And thanks a lot for the education, appreciated the free video! As you can see by my comments above I also liked your Emotional Strength & Awareness essays. Wishing you well on your journey.
posted by nickyskye at 11:20 PM on January 13, 2008


Hi Ryan!

Welcome to MetaFilter - hope you stick around!

(and don't mind any of the heavy-handed rhetoric - it's what we do all the time here)

If you're completely new to this place, can I suggest that you take a look at the "human relations" category in Ask MetaFilter? There are plenty of good discussions of the whole dating, sexuality & romance thing there that should provide a bunch of interesting perspectives & material that you might be able to use as seeds for your own site.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:50 PM on January 13, 2008


Hm, this thread turned out disappointingly.
My private prediction was that a post on the g-spot would
- lead to a long thread since most people would have experience with g-spots.
- lead to a lot of "ladies I sure do love cunnilingus" type of advertising


You forget: mefi is no longer tolerant of such boyzone bollocks.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:52 PM on January 13, 2008 [2 favorites]


Ubu, you rock!
posted by nickyskye at 11:55 PM on January 13, 2008


oooh, Ryan! Have you done a piece on the male g-spot yet? It's (apparently) up the arse, adjacent to the prostate gland. Or something.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:57 PM on January 13, 2008


(wow, hugs from misha & thanks & rockingness from nickyskye! i might stick with masculist theory for a little longer yet...)
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:59 PM on January 13, 2008


Maias writes "It selects those who reproduce most successfully and a man who is insecure, cowardly and weak simply isn't the kind of mate that our female ancestors tended to choose."

You'd be amazed to see the number of insecure, coward and weak males who reproduce succesfully, but just look around you to disprove that pseudo-darwinistic nonsense that has the idea of "strong male" reproducing all the time. If indeed it was the case, we wouldn't have had a number of sissy dictators, twats like Edgar Hoover and above all a number of males going to "make me supermale" sites, who basically sell the idea that if you ACT like a mythical "male" females will drop like flies before you.

Notice also how some religion sells the idea that the FaithFull will find a bazillion virgins waiting for him in the afterlife :D ! Ahahah , it's exactly the same tirade, replace "faithful" with "strongman"

Maias writes "You don't need brainwashing to create war-- just the human tendency to have 'in groups' and 'out groups.' The sad thing is that we may have evolved cooperation in order to better kill our neighbors :("

Utter complete bullshit. Look at the number of minor tribes who survived for dozen thousand years in harsh environments without killing each other all the time, save some occasional quarrel. It is exactly because of brainwashing that some "leader" convinces a number of people that they are elite, better, choosed by some god or some fate, superior....and you don't need to look too past in time to find such a group that was annihilated.

You really need to be completely out of whack to chase a bullet for somebody else, for "glory" or for "honor" or for some invisible being that might or might not exist, but that speaks through the voice of some "priest" who tells you that God Wants to Kill. You follow that out of pure outright fear, and if all that pseudodarwinistic shit was true the "pest" of fear should have been eliminated a long time ago.

Except that fear is what helps us keep alive, as it prevents us from doing a number of dangerous things such as staying too close to a fire or stay put if a very big object is moving toward us at high speed.
posted by elpapacito at 12:14 AM on January 14, 2008


Ubu, I like your masculist theories. It is a word in Wikipedia by the way and discussed in some ways along the lines you've been talking about.

Now you had me googling in curiosity about the male g-spot. Didja know In the beginning of the 20th century, many wives used a steel device that was sold at the time to manually massage their husband's prostate during lovemaking. And during World War II, military medics gave prostate massages to soldiers who hadn't been with a woman for months as a treatment for "pelvic congestion." ?

Wondered if there were a video, so I put male g-spot into GoogleVideo and got this result, Sex With Devon #4. It's likable. Dang, recorded live at Bard College. wow, so they're teaching this stuff in college now. Way to go.

Apparently the male g-spot is called the P-Spot. Found a vid: anal sex and the prostate - sex ed
posted by nickyskye at 12:37 AM on January 14, 2008


Kadin2048 writes "One of the major points of modern feminism is that an individual ought to be able to reject those qualities and still accepted as a member of their sex for what they do display; i.e., that being 'attentive,' 'collaborative,' and 'nurturing' aren't preconditions for being a successful woman. "

Some feminists (self proclaimed so, actually so, whocares how so really) may claim that "success" comes from "being accepted" as "female" without having to conform with a stereotype. Firstly, I question the mere idea that one needs to conform (or to NOT conform) to what some people say to be qualities of "female" in order to be succesfully "female" ..because that implicitly gives somebody (these who claim to know what is that that really makes female a female) the power to define what "success as female" means or not means.

To me it's just that simple: you are female if your body structures is such that you have an uterus , a vagina, breast. You are male if you have testicles, a penis.

Now we can certainly talk about ermaphrodites and notice that they don't necessarily fit all (or fit ALL of) the characteristic of the two classes. Yet they are NOT "unsuccessful females" or "unsuccesful males" or "succesful ermaphrodites"...they just ARE a natural expression of human beings. Some would like to characterize them as "jokes of nature" , but "nature" doesn't have any sense of humor or a world domination delusion program ; it happens that, as far as we have understood, something may happen during the developement of foetus that produces an Hermaphrodite. It also happens that, among other incredibly succesful reproduction methods such as Mitosis (which is all but out of fashion) , we also have sexed reproduction method that express two genders that we call, by convention, male and female.
posted by elpapacito at 12:43 AM on January 14, 2008


"YangTown"

he rejected,
"BigWillyTown"
"MyPeePeeAndMeTown"
"JohnsonTown"
"HeManTown"
"MachoTown"
"BigBoyTown"
etc.
I'm not convinced he made the right choice.
posted by From Bklyn at 12:44 AM on January 14, 2008


To me it's just that simple: you are female if your body structures is such that you have an uterus , a vagina, breast.

i dunno. maybe i'm old-fashioned, but i still think that women who've had mastectomies or hysterectomies are still women. i guess it's ok with me if other peoples' definitions vary, though.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:41 AM on January 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


And during World War II, military medics gave prostate massages to soldiers who hadn't been with a woman for months as a treatment for "pelvic congestion."

heh. those saucy doctors.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:42 AM on January 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


I took what I liked and left the rest. It's rare I happen on a site that is entirely satisfactory or entirely unsatisfactory. Usually there is something there to enjoy, learn from, be amused by. I hoped that might be the case with this site for others. It was the best of the web as far as I've seen about mastering female g-spot orgasm with free instructional videos

NickySkye, I understand- it's difficult, however, to take the sections you mentioned in good faith and without a grain of salt given the author's overall gender worldview, which strikes me as naive, simplistic, cliched, derivative, and yes- oppressive to both men and women.

No offense meant, and despite the phrasing of another user, I don't consider this some sort of "blot" on your posting history, and certainly wasn't evaluating it as such. The only reason I addressed my comment to you personally was precisely because I enjoy your posts so much, not because I'm so arrogant that I think I'm in a position to determine when you've gained and lost points on some sort of rating system.

Hope that was long-winded enough to clear things up.
posted by foxy_hedgehog at 8:08 AM on January 14, 2008


uburoivas: You forget: mefi is no longer tolerant of such boyzone bollocks.

1. Forbidding any discussion of sex based on the blanket argument of "boyzone" is indistinguishable of puritanism. Maybe there's a cultural difference here. I'm Dutch and to me this puritanism is childish.
2. You assume an authority here that in my eyes you do not possess.

I'll leave the discussion at this since I don't want to turn this into another thread on "boyzone". You can start a metatalk if you want.
posted by jouke at 9:15 AM on January 14, 2008


pssst, jouke: i'm just pandering to the girls in the hope that it will somehow get me laid
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:26 AM on January 14, 2008


... during World War II, military medics gave prostate massages to soldiers who hadn't been with a woman for months as a treatment for "pelvic congestion."

without even using their hands!
posted by me & my monkey at 9:36 AM on January 14, 2008


A headache, soldier? Hm, bend over and say 'aah' for me...
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:07 AM on January 14, 2008


oh dear foxy_hedgehog, I knew what you meant. I'm just a bit defensive posting anywhere in the universe about g-spot orgasms, how cool it is to learn about them and how to have them. I hadn't seen anything like it on the web. YAYY great orgasms.

If there are other sites on the web where, for example, a young woman talks about having healthier relationships with men and has found answers that work for herself, or another young man who's wisdom you prefer. I would love to know.

Honestly, I was very interested to hear what both Ryan and Stephane had to say in regard to their relationships, how they understand themselves and women. Part of it is anthropological, since they're from a few generations younger than I. Each generation has its own take on sex and relationships, of course, depending on the country, culture, socio-economics, region, lots of other aspects. Technically I think a generation is 25 years but I think culturally they're shorter than that.

I grew up in the NYC hippie generation. Attempts were made in the 60's to liberate sex and relationships from the constraints, limitations and rigidness of the post-WWII 50's straight marriage, apron housewife on Valium and briefcase martini distant corporate husband with everything repressed. The accent in the hippie style department was be messy, really messy, and learn from it, the younger the better. So people had a lot of messy relationships from a young age and lots of sex, usually not especially skillful. It was fun and messy, lol, at the same time.

After us in the 70's there was the disco sex-cocaine-arama and attempts to stop the hate against gays. It finally became ok just to be interested in sex of all kinds without shame.

Then there was the whole Reagan era backlash yuppie thing in the 80's, the shaming of the fundies about AIDs and herpes. It was a huge step backwards culturally and sexually. Sex seemed to be replaced with gross materialism. The cult of Wall Street.

In the 90's the "abusive relationship" topic went mainstream, talked about but the materialism aspect got bizarrely intertwined with New Age crystal shmystal bs. Sex on Enya with Martha Stewart decor. Kind of watered down but there were also the kids in the suburbs doing sandwiches and orgies. A bizarre mix of wishy washy on the one hand and entire rich suburbs of syphilis outbreaks on the other.

This generation now, 18 and up has had a lot of mixed messages. Like make money not sex. They grew up on Clinton's hypocrisies with Monica, childhoods on the computer-cell phone video game. I think few are familiar with intimate relationships because it's all about the geek life and gossip. Whatever you do, just look good. Everybody wants to be a celebrity. They don't know how to allow themselves to be clumsy, awkward, fumble, make mistakes and be ok with that. They seem to shame each other for their innocence. I feel badly for them.

All the generations have had misunderstandings between males and females. I see it on MetaFilter every day of the week. So these young guys are trying to figure it out.

Ryan says on his about page:

it became my mission to figure out what went wrong and make damn sure that next time, I could make it work. I dove into all the seduction and pick up material I could find; searching for something better, something deeper. I started dating multiple women at the same time, meeting woman online, at bars and clubs. It was weird; the more I got into pick up, the worse my internal dialogue and inner game became.

I quickly realized what I believed in the first place: I'd rather have one incredible relationship than to date and sleep with many woman. Others can have that lifestyle.

Unfortunately, imo, he turned to Stephane.

Stephane, in his own words, is the son of "four feminists" living together who "had issues with men". Ultimately I think he's really pissed off about growing up like that. He seems to have great skills in giving g-spot orgasms and some understanding of young women's vulnerabilities as well as his own, a vision of being an oak tree with happy daffodil women all around him but knowing that he seems to want to manipulate, train women basically like bitch obedience school, incapable of healthy intimacy, in spite of all his "heart" talk. Frankly, I don't think he respects men or women. His agenda seems to be becoming a cult leader of sorts. I suspect he's a pathological narcissist.

Ryan is worthy of respect in my thoughts. I think he's attempting to figure out answers, head in a healthier direction and hope he finds his own, healthier way. As he does it, I think it's cool he's putting his journey on the web. It's imperfect, it's honest, learning based and I think that's a good thing.
posted by nickyskye at 11:42 AM on January 14, 2008 [4 favorites]


Nicky, what a thoughtful reflection on how toady's age of all-access has made relationships between men and women more crippled and stilted than ever. I'm a little younger than you, but I share many of your observations.

It also must be said- based on this and many many many of your other posts and comments, I really wish you'd write a memoir.
posted by foxy_hedgehog at 11:53 AM on January 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


foxy_hedgehog, loved your typo, just my cup of enjoyment and missed finger placement. Made me think of Toad Hall in Wind in the Willows. hmm, what could toady's age mean, I thought. Took me a minute, and a smack on my now calloused forehead, ah, today's age of all access. Yes, access but not intimacy. Yet.

Thanks for your validation and kind encouragement. I think my entire memoir is right here in MetaFilter, lol.
posted by nickyskye at 12:31 PM on January 14, 2008


“I think the demolition of those stereotypes is a worthy goal.”

As someone who definitely has those traits (physical strength, mental toughness, confidence, honor, courage, loyalty, a deep unwavering sense of purpose, etc) I agree.

I suspect that, growing up, I had so many fights because I was so challengable. I exude the “I can whip any man in the house” alpha vibe. And people like to test you. Lot of “little guy” syndrome out there, even in larger males.
I’m competative, extremely, I’ve finished games when I’ve had broken ribs, but the J. Edgar Hoover types find different ways to compete.
And indeed, there is most certainly some sort of conditioning driving them on. (If I had a nickel for every time I’ve been staring off into space and someone came up to me and says “What’s your problem?”)

Doesn’t happen now that I’m older (younger guys tend not to mess with visibly established, and married, males, all things being equal), but I have to agree with UbuRoivas (and nickyskye and others) it occurs in more subtle ways.

I think I’ve told this story a few times (perhaps here) but I cut down some trees in my yard (a lot of trees, big yard). And on one of my days off I did about 10 hours work with the chainsaw, axes, bowsaws and whatnot. It was fall so it wasn’t too cold, but there was a chill in the air. I was working hard so I had a flannel shirt on, open, because the work and my hard hat was keeping me warm.
I just got done felling a big tree, I cut the log into smaller sections (hired a few neighbor kids to haul some of the wood to my pile). So I’m taking a break and the kids are working around me.
I’m standing there with my leg up on the fresh stump, my bare chest steaming, covered in grit, dirt, sweat and sawdust, holding the chainsaw in my gloved hands, and it’s still got the heat shimmer coming off of it and I’ve got chain oil and gas stains all over my jeans and my timberland boots. I’m breathing hard (logging is tough work) and my neighbor Chuck is walking by and I wave hello at him.
So he comes over and he’s got on his Notre Dame windbreaker and hat. He’s a big college sports guy, we talk sports a lot because I played ball in college.
So we’re talking and I notice he’s got this tiny little fluffball of a dog that’s shivering. One of those dainty toy -whatever it is - type dogs that you shave down to the skin for dog shows or whatever.
So I tell him I’ll let him go because his dog looks cold. And, like he just remembered he’s missing his ACT test or something he says “Uh, it’s not my dog.”
Well, it’s his neice’s dog or whatever, but he’s now completely emberrassed to be talking to the chainsaw toting Marlboro Man while he’s got this dainty little creature shivering at the end of a leash.

But really - who cares? I mean, at that moment I looked like John Wayne’s father’s boss, but I’ve been surprised by spiders in the tub and “eek”ed like a little girl.

Guys do put on this facade for each other. And, however subtle in orign, it can manifest in a more gross manner elsewhere. Like any form of displaced aggression.

I suppose I’m lucky in that it’s just how I’m wired (which is probably why I’m not hung up on homosexuals being who they are) and I’m not putting on a facade.
And that it’s so strong in me I don’t have any identity issues (were I gay I’d be the wildly flaming gay guy at the top of the float).

I think the metrosexual stuff is another facet of young men trying to figure themselves out. And that whole ‘rugged’ look, the 5 o’clock shadow, carefully touseled hair, etc.
Being actually rugged, I don’t actually care what my hair looks like.
...course, there are downsides to that, the other day my buddy said “Jesus, Smed, what did you just come out of a wind tunnel?”

And I get a lot of negative reactions from women who either write me off as a macho pig or think I’ve completely let myself go.
So, being perhaps the embodyment of that stereotype - it’s not so often what women want. But boy do other men key in on it.

In retrospect, I think guys are more afraid of initiating conversations and actually getting women than fighting with men. Makes a kind of sense. More people are afraid of public speaking than death.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:20 PM on January 14, 2008 [2 favorites]


it became my mission to figure out what went wrong and make damn sure that next time, I could make it work. I dove into all the seduction and pick up material I could find; searching for something better, something deeper.

OK, maybe I should read that in context before jumping to conclusions, but to me that sounds like turning to porn as instructional material for a successful marriage, and would automatically invalidate all further reflections.

(on preview: Smedleyman, look forward to reading your entire comment, but I gotta ride through the drizzle to work. hm, two-day stubble, whatever. at least the rain will tame my unkempt morning hair a bit. it's handy having curly hair sometimes...people just assume that it's meant to be rugged & messy, when in reality i'm just too damn hard to give a toss what they think. slap on a nice designer silk tie & coupla coolo cufflinks & they mistake devil-may-care individual slovenliness with the latest in rough trade chic, especially with a subtle whiskey-cigar-sandalwood cologne* to match)

(* actually produced by accidentally sleeping on a packet of sandalwood incense after a night of boozing & cigars over poker & discussions of politics, cars & sport, waking up too late & not showering)
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:29 PM on January 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


(* actually produced by accidentally sleeping on a packet of sandalwood incense after a night of boozing & cigars over poker & discussions of politics, cars & sport, waking up too late & not showering)

Funny, liked that.
posted by nickyskye at 1:43 PM on January 14, 2008


Toady.

Heh.
posted by foxy_hedgehog at 1:47 PM on January 14, 2008


Funny, liked that.

Naturally. It's quite primal ;)
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:17 PM on January 14, 2008


which is probably why I’m not hung up on homosexuals being who they are

Fair enough. You're a lumberjack and they're ok.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:23 PM on January 14, 2008 [2 favorites]


In retrospect, I think guys are more afraid of initiating conversations and actually getting women than fighting with men. Makes a kind of sense. More people are afraid of public speaking than death.

Very true. Boxers hit harder when women are around, as Kenneth Patchen wrote. I think it also relates directly to your observation that "younger guys tend not to mess with visibly established, and married, males, all things being equal" - it's not that you're seen to be too tough a target; it's more that you're not perceived to be in competition for the same range of women. I think that the majority of teenties males still have that extremely age-stratified view of society, whereby all the sixteen to twenty-five year old women are thought to somehow just "belong" to them, whereas your target audience, so to speak, would be the more mature women that they either ignore or are generally afraid of. Thus, the youth gangs compete aggressively with each other but you remain invisible to their eyes, despite the fact that you'd probably have an equal-to-better chance with "their" girls if you cared to deal with them, what with being richer & more powerful & experienced and all, not to mention not being an immature fuckwad.

Nice comment, overall. I particularly liked the Marlboro lumberjack stuff.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:33 PM on January 14, 2008


Thanks for the kind welcome Ubu and Nickysky. That's great to hear you liked the emotional awareness articles. I've used those with my family and friends with incredible results, seriously those acupressure techniques can literally change your life.

Ubu, appreciate the tip. I'll look around for those human relations articles, I'm sure I'll find some good ideas on here.

As for the male g-spot, its funny you mention that as I've been practicing this technique called The Deer Exercise from the chinese study of The Great Tao. It's a daily exercise to improve sexual vitality and transfer sexual energy up the spine throughout your body. After doing it for some time, you will begin to feel orgasmic sensations while doing it without ejaculation. I'll be posting on it soon along with instructions (no video though ;)
posted by ryanrandolph at 2:50 PM on January 14, 2008


I may have heard of this deer exercise. Once you strip away the esoteric mumbo jumbo, it's basically a training routine for the pelvic floor muscles, right? Never a bad thing. I had a friend* who was constantly talking about his Taoist exercises, which involved gaining conscious control of those muscles by using them to interrupt his flow of urine whilst taking a leak. Sorry about the TMI there. Interestingly, in some tantric practices, I'm led to understand that male energy is said to flow up the spine from the genitals to the head, and female energy downwards from the head to the genitals. Despite the essentialist nature of this model, it's an amusing metaphor, and not such a bad visualisation technique, either, if you're at all interested in all that esoteric kind of stuff.

* literally a friend, not "er, my friend has some red spots on his genitals" kind of evasion
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:37 PM on January 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


Yes exactly, also known as Kegal exercises, though this one has additional steps. I haven't looked into it too much for women but I believe the energy flows from the genitals upwards for them as well.

The deer exercise for women helps strengthen the vaginal walls (resulting in more sensation for her partner especially if she had children), stimulates estrogen production (rejuvenating her body and lessening menopause), eliminates emotional ups and downs, water retention, and cramps during periods and even the entire menstrual cycle itself.

I just did some online research which includes precise instructions for the women's deer exercise, along with a photo and some tao health info:

http://www.ibreadcrumbs.com/user/rrandolph/Tao_of_Sexology/
posted by ryanrandolph at 4:54 PM on January 14, 2008


Ryan, when you work on that part of your learning, *please * include a free video! ;-) I want/need videos of all this stuff, plain ole practical visuals.

It was funny in Stephane's instructional video he said "Kangols" instead of Kegals. Kangol is a hat/clothing company.

Researched extended, non ejaculatory orgasm a couple of years ago in responding to another MetaFilter post, here, it's called carezza, karezza or coitus reservatus in the West. If you put the word karezza into a Google video search, the first result will be a video called Healing with Sexual Relationships. I liked it. Curious what you think of it. The author, Marnia Robinson, has a website, reunited.info associated with her book, Peace Between the Sheets, quite intriguing I think.

(By the way, if you want to include a link in your comment, highlight a word in your comment, press the underlined blue word "link" in the lower right hand corner of the comment window, in the gray pop up window, paste the url you want to include and then press "ok". It will turn that word in your comment into a hyperlink.)

So glad you stayed in this thread, commented and shared your thoughts.
posted by nickyskye at 6:31 PM on January 14, 2008


Kangols, funny stuff, I'll have to go listen to it again. It may have just been his Canadian accent.

I just watched that video by Marnia Robinson and found it to be very interesting. I've definitely experienced that high and low effect in relationships. I just signed up on her newsletter as I'm curious to see what she recommends to stabilize relationships.

In stephane's programs, he recommends doing tuning fork meditations along with affirmations with your loved one to maintain greater balance and offset those highs and lows.

Thanks for the tips on the link, I'll give it a try with this one again:
http://www.ibreadcrumbs.com/user/rrandolph/Tao_of_Sexology/

There's some good visuals for ya in there :)
posted by ryanrandolph at 4:20 PM on January 15, 2008


LOLMASCULINEINSECURITY + LOLSUPERFICIALSPIRITUALITY
posted by cytherea at 6:58 PM on January 15, 2008


Thanks Ryan, appreciate it.
posted by nickyskye at 7:51 PM on January 15, 2008


« Older "They Just Called Me a Spaz"   |   Colors! It's, like, Paint on... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post