I did a search and couldn't find anything on the topic, so I thought I'd post this here.
[SIZE="3"]Female orgasms and a 'rule of thumb'[/SIZE]
During intercourse, the female orgasm can be elusive. What frustrated woman hasn't wondered: Am I simply, um, put together differently than other women?
Kim Wallen, professor of psychology and behavioral neuroendocrinology at Emory University, is busy doing the math to find out. And, yes, he says, simple physiology may have a lot to do with orgasm ease -- specifically, how far a woman's clitoris lies from her vagina.
That number might predict how easily a woman can experience orgasms from penile stimulation alone -- without help from fingers, toys or tongue -- during sexual intercourse.
In fact, there's even an easy "rule of thumb," Wallen says: Clitoris-vagina distances less than 2.5 cm -- that's roughly from the tip of your thumb to your first knuckle -- tend to yield reliable orgasms during sex. More than a thumb's length? Regular intercourse alone typically might not do the trick.
[url=http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-hew-ordistance11feb11,0,276314... orgasms and a 'rule of thumb' - latimes.com
I am glad you noticed that. This has been "known" but not completely documented for a long time among the medical profession and suspected by many women. one-quarter of us never, or rarely, reach orgasm; one-quarter regularly reach orgasm through penetration and thrusting. That means about half of us (I among this group) are orgasmic but require additional stimulation to reach the peak.
Some women discover that is they close their legs after allowing penetration, they get there easier. The explanation is that causes the penis to slide directly over the clitoral hood. Hopefully, your report here, and in the LA Times will get wide circulation. Sex therapists, forever, have addressed this issue but too many are not aware of the "measurements" of the women they are dealing with.
I do hope that he goes beyond teaching self-measurement and has some standardized techniques for professionals Self-measurement is no accurate, whether it be bra size, penis size or, even dress size!
[QUOTE=Brandye;279189]I am glad you noticed that. This has been "known" but not completely documented for a long time among the medical profession and suspected by many women. one-quarter of us never, or rarely, reach orgasm; one-quarter regularly reach orgasm through penetration and thrusting. That means about half of us (I among this group) are orgasmic but require additional stimulation to reach the peak.[/QUOTE]
I'm glad you see this article from a more empowering perspective. I've gotten a response or two from women saying, "Once again, men are telling us our bodies are faulty". You're response is exactly why I think its such an important piece of the orgasmic puzzle. One of my exes always though it was "cheating" to rub her clit so she could orgasm while having sex. I never had a problem with it, I always figured we're all built differently and left it at that.
[QUOTE]Some women discover that is they close their legs after allowing penetration, they get there easier. The explanation is that causes the penis to slide directly over the clitoral hood.[/QUOTE]
Interesting. Similar to the. CAT technique but with a slight variation.
[QUOTE]Hopefully, your report here, and in the LA Times will get wide circulation. Sex therapists, forever, have addressed this issue but too many are not aware of the "measurements" of the women they are dealing with.
[/QUOTE]
I'd love to hope, but the article is about 3 years old and Google doesn't seem to show anything recent on this topic. I may be missing something in my search query though.
[QUOTE]I do hope that he goes beyond teaching self-measurement and has some standardized techniques for professionals Self-measurement is no accurate, whether it be bra size, penis size or, even dress size![/QUOTE]
I wonder if some kind of survey can be started?
[QUOTE=ViceRoy;279194]I've gotten a response or two from women saying, "Once again, men are telling us our bodies are faulty". [/QUOTE]
I've heard this idea before and I don't think that.
I don't think [most!] women will respond badly to knowing this, especially since(as Brandye points out) a lot of us have unofficially already figured this out from practical experience.
You MAY get some women who respond badly on account of being jealous of women whose clitoris is in a more convenient location...!
But really, I think that this is only helpful. With one caveat; as long as we do not develop a fashion for "corrective" surgery to move clitorises around.
Well in the Far East, younger men are inserting plastic pellets underneath the skin of their penises to provide further stimulation to their partners - sounds CREEPY to me but - there will always be those who feel the need to change themselves to suit others.
Though I wish they wouldn't.
Personally, I haven't paid a bit of attention to C-V distance, penis size, bra size and other foderol - such a waste of time when one could be enjoying SEX, besides which who takes a ruler to a party?
Find out what 'works' for you, accept it then EMBRACE it and go for it - seems a much better thing to work on than moving your clit into a 'more favorable' or 'more correct' position.
I first heard about this a few months ago, during a TV-show called "why is sex fun?" by Discovery Channel, discussing the functions of the female orgasm. Very interesting show I must say!
The thumb-rule is indeed a fun fact. But I think we shouldn't forget this measurement isn't a 1 on 1 cause and effect. It makes it more or less "likely" to orgasm through penetration. This is a matter of chances and statistics.
Btw; I haven't found the odds of how likely a convenient C-V distance makes a woman to orgasm from penetrative sex. Nor have I found the odds of a woman actually having this convenient distance. Has anyone?
Let's also not forget that recent research has shown a different response of the female brain to vaginal and clitoral stimulation, hinting clitoral stimulation may not even be needed at all to orgasm from penetration (see: http://www.sexinfo101.com/forum/news/30559-female-orgasm-stimulation-loc...)
This news can have a positive effect, as Brandye point out. But I also hope it won't yield too much expectations. Orgasms are good, no matter from what type of stimulation. Adding stimulation is not cheating. And I hope women who have a convenient C-V-distance won't get upset when it so happens they can't achieve orgasm from penetration, maybe rarely or never orgasm at all. And women who don't have the convenient distance, won't convince themselves to expect that an orgasm from penetration will be out of their league. Nor that their sexual partners will have such expectations, for that matter. The only way to know whether a woman can orgasm from particular stimulation, are her feelings of intense pleasure exploding through her body :)
For my own and your amusement, I took this to a personal test. The distance from my clitoris to the vaginal entrance is more like the length of the two phalanx of my thumb (about 5 cm). Errors aside, I'd be much surprised if a professional measurement would be half of that ;) I am therefor according to the thumb-rule less likely to achieve orgasm from penetration. Yet I can easily achieve multiple orgasms through penetration. From the first time I had an orgasm through this stimulation, I can't remember having penetrative sex without one and many many more (with the same partner, that may have contributed). Maybe I'm that one black swan in a pond full of white. Since I don't know the odds, I can't say how rare it is. But as long as there is one, it's proof they exist :)
And in the end "so what?"
Some great replies here!
[QUOTE=llovell;279196]I've heard this idea before and I don't think that.[/QUOTE]
Excellent. There are some things (like this) that are better introduced to the public by women than by men. It's a sexist view on my part, and ideally it shouldn't be so, but I've noticed it time and time again. This is why I think the public's been slow to look at this aspect. What RedRoses said about the Discovery Channel airing this was (good) news to me.
[QUOTE]
I don't think [most!] women will respond badly to knowing this, especially since(as Brandye points out) a lot of us have unofficially already figured this out from practical experience.[/QUOTE]
Love the attitude. As a result of reading this article years ago I've paid more attention to how my wife's clit has been situated with different positions and it's been interesting. For example on the scissors position her clit barely touches my shaft. If I take my free hand (which isn't doing much to begin with) and lightly press down on the root of her clit we can comfortably push it down to the point where her full clit's actually rubbing on my shaft as I stroke in and out of her.
[QUOTE]You MAY get some women who respond badly on account of being jealous of women whose clitoris is in a more convenient location...!
[/QUOTE]
Good point. I didn't think of that.
[QUOTE]But really, I think that this is only helpful. With one caveat; as long as we do not develop a fashion for "corrective" surgery to move clitorises around.
[/QUOTE]
Well said. A lot of those vibrating cock rings have a one-size-fits-all approach without taking into account the C-V distance. Someone I've discussed this with has said that she's had a guy wear one for her and it totally missed her clit altogether.
For me, I think the point of the article and the point of starting this thread, is that the more men are aware of the clit's direct involvement with sexual pleasure, the better for both parties. If the clit can't come to the party, have the party come to the clit.
If the tables were turned and sex involved a woman's clit directly rubbing on a man's testicles with very little contact to the penis, how long do you think it'll take for men to speak up about how to improve sex?
[QUOTE=RedRoses;279205]I first heard about this a few months ago, during a TV-show called "why is sex fun?" by Discovery Channel, discussing the functions of the female orgasm. Very interesting show I must say![/QUOTE]
For a while there the Discovery Channel was rehashing the same information and presenting it differently and I got bored with it. My mistake, I should've paid more attention. I'll try finding this specific show and see if I can download it.
[QUOTE]The thumb-rule is indeed a fun fact. But I think we shouldn't forget this measurement isn't a 1 on 1 cause and effect. It makes it more or less "likely" to orgasm through penetration. This is a matter of chances and statistics.[/QUOTE]
I have a friend whose C-V distance was pretty much similar to my wife's (about 3/4 of an inch). The only way she felt she could cum whilst having sex was with a vibe firmaly pressed against her clit. It was neither right, wrong or any of my business how she came, but the point is the C-V "factoid" did her no good. You're right and it needs to be said. It's no guarantee.
[QUOTE]Btw; I haven't found the odds of how likely a convenient C-V distance makes a woman to orgasm from penetrative sex. Nor have I found the odds of a woman actually having this convenient distance. Has anyone?
[/QUOTE]
As I said earlier in the thread, I'd love to see some kind of on-line survey done for just this purpose (started by a woman).
[QUOTE]Let's also not forget that recent research has shown a different response of the female brain to vaginal and clitoral stimulation, hinting clitoral stimulation may not even be needed at all to orgasm from penetration (see: http://www.sexinfo101.com/forum/news/30559-female-orgasm-stimulation-loc...)
[/QUOTE]
I've seen that (and the Discovery show about it). A woman's orgasm is indeed an amazing thing. My wife is one of the only women I know that can cum from initial penetration alone. As to whether it's "psychological" or something solely physical, not sure. The fact is, it happens and she's only experienced it with me.
[QUOTE]This news can have a positive effect, as Brandye point out. But I also hope it won't yield too much expectations. Orgasms are good, no matter from what type of stimulation. Adding stimulation is not cheating. And I hope women who have a convenient C-V-distance won't get upset when it so happens they can't achieve orgasm from penetration, maybe rarely or never orgasm at all. And women who don't have the convenient distance, won't convince themselves to expect that an orgasm from penetration will be out of their league. Nor that their sexual partners will have such expectations, for that matter. The only way to know whether a woman can orgasm from particular stimulation, are her feelings of intense pleasure exploding through her body :)
[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
[QUOTE]For my own and your amusement, I took this to a personal test. The distance from my clitoris to the vaginal entrance is more like the length of the two phalanx of my thumb (about 5 cm).[/QUOTE]
Now, this is the type of research I love!!
[QUOTE]Errors aside, I'd be much surprised if a professional measurement would be half of that ;) I am therefor according to the thumb-rule less likely to achieve orgasm from penetration. Yet I can easily achieve multiple orgasms through penetration. From the first time I had an orgasm through this stimulation, I can't remember having penetrative sex without one and many many more (with the same partner, that may have contributed).[/QUOTE]
Speaking of measurements, here's one the article doesn't mention and discovered accidentally on another forum. The wider the girth of the obect going into the vagina, the closer the clit to the opening. Again, it makes sense from a practical point, but has never really been mentioned.
[QUOTE]
Maybe I'm that one black swan in a pond full of white. Since I don't know the odds, I can't say how rare it is. But as long as there is one, it's proof they exist :)[/QUOTE]
Purely vaginal orgasm, as in without the need of any external clitoral stimulation, is what I believe the 1/3 statistic being used is all about. I've seen it and know for a fact it exists (my wife can squirt with an eNjoy wand without any clit rubbing). The whole structure of the clit being composed of multiple legs internally and externally is where the classification becomes blurry.
Quantifying and classifying orgasms may be more of a guy thing, but in the end as long as you're having fun (with ot without the orgasm) is what it all boils down to.
"but in the end as long as you're having fun (with ot without the orgasm) is what it all boils down to."
Yep! And entirely the point of my saying "so what?"
Quantifying and classifying is under the heading of 'nice to know' - a bit of trivia but FUN is the point and that depends more on the persons than their packaging.
I relayed this bit of trivia to a man I know and he just gave a tired sigh and a talk about guys living in their mothers' basements and not having a life - or words to that effect. So how much of a 'guy thing' this is is another debatable point.
And no, I haven't measured.
An interesting concept to consider. Respectfully, however, it causes me two concerns. First, I dislike the thumb rule because it's not standardized--no two thumbs are the same length; do we use the nail side or the pad side of the thumb; just as two examples. It just kind of reminds me of the kid in my 4th grade math class on the day we were estimating measurements. We could measure anything other than the item in question. He measured the inside of his forearm to estimate the length of his foot. Some guy somewhere is going to measure his partner's C-V with his thumb, decide the so-called 'measurement' gives a verdict about her orgasms, then both will get upset when it doesn't work out the way the article says it should.
Which leads me to my second concern: the concepts of 'should' and 'why not?' I've said many times about computers, "mine is not to reason why, mine is to praise the Lord when it works". I don't need to know why rebooting often unsticks a stuck computer, I'm just happy it permits me to get on with my day. When it comes to orgasms, I kind of feel the same way. So long as my husband and I are finding things that work, is it really necessary to know why other things don't? Or worse yet, to take an attitude that it 'should' work, which automatically implies a comparison to others. Many times on this board I've read posts from people who basically say "this technique worked on 3 previous partners of mine, it should work on this one too, I don't understand!" Comparisons to other partners help no one, and in fact could hinder through performance anxiety and an inability to get out of one's own head.
This has been discussed, on and off, in sexology circles for ninety years. I am all in favor of research that helps women overcome whatever difficulties we experience in sexual response. But, there are sooooooo many variables. Size of the exposed clitoris, thickness of the hood, protective fat within the vulva, hair, lubricity, individual flexibility of tissue throughout the vulvar, vaginal and labial region. Whatever any of these turn out to be, physically almost all women are capable of orgasm. The rest is psychological.
[QUOTE=lnt1103;279241]An interesting concept to consider. Respectfully, however, it causes me two concerns. First, I dislike the thumb rule because it's not standardized--no two thumbs are the same length; do we use the nail side or the pad side of the thumb; just as two examples.[/QUOTE]
The point of the article is the distance from vagina to clit may be a factor in how easily a woman can orgasm from penile stimulation alone. "Rule of thumb" is more an expression to get people thinking as they look at their thumb. Thinking and keeping in mind that they're not the freaks society seems open to judge them as.
Meaning, if she really wants to have an orgasm, the penis alone may not be the end all be all to get the job done. And, there's nothing wrong with that. I've heard time and time again in several sex forums "How do I solve this problem?" - when it's not a problem at all. It's simple physiology and people (especially men) have such an ego hang up over it.
[QUOTE]
Which leads me to my second concern: the concepts of 'should' and 'why not?' I've said many times about computers, "mine is not to reason why, mine is to praise the Lord when it works". I don't need to know why rebooting often unsticks a stuck computer, I'm just happy it permits me to get on with my day. When it comes to orgasms, I kind of feel the same way. So long as my husband and I are finding things that work, is it really necessary to know why other things don't? Or worse yet, to take an attitude that it 'should' work, which automatically implies a comparison to others. Many times on this board I've read posts from people who basically say "this technique worked on 3 previous partners of mine, it should work on this one too, I don't understand!" Comparisons to other partners help no one, and in fact could hinder through performance anxiety and an inability to get out of one's own head.[/QUOTE]
At the risk of sounding like I'm stroking my own ego, my wife loves her multiple orgasms that I'm involved with. The fact that I can cycle through her spots, and both of us having an excellent time doing so, makes discussions like this worth it. If you don't see the point, then you really should stay away from any forums about pleasing your partner.
There's no such thing as "should work" when it comes to sex. There is such a thing as, "Hey, let's have fun trying something I read today."
[QUOTE=Brandye;279249]This has been discussed, on and off, in sexology circles for ninety years. I am all in favor of research that helps women overcome whatever difficulties we experience in sexual response. But, there are sooooooo many variables. Size of the exposed clitoris, thickness of the hood, protective fat within the vulva, hair, lubricity, individual flexibility of tissue throughout the vulvar, vaginal and labial region. Whatever any of these turn out to be, physically almost all women are capable of orgasm. The rest is psychological.[/QUOTE]
Additionally, other reasons could stem from religious/cultural upbringing. Not unless you consider that psychological as well. I totally agree with all your variables, so why not let's discuss them all?
I'm posting this separately just in case this is a violation of the ToS and it gets deleted, my original post above doesn't get deleted with it.
Here are some examples of C-V distances and some workarounds:
Here's one where the clit is in very close proximity to the shaft and you can clearly see movement:
http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzbd3ikU291qlxnwoo1_500.gif
Now, rather than using the CAT technique for a woman like that, this would be a better way to move to get the clit rubbing on the shaft:
[url=http://www.jigglegifs.com/details.php?image_id=892]Adult Animated Gifs - Jiggle Gifs
Here's an example of reverse cowgirl there the clit gets close enough to contact on the bottom of the bounce
[url=http://www.jigglegifs.com/details.php?image_id=5242]Adult Animated Gifs - Jiggle Gifs
Now if the woman wants dual stimulatio, hitting the gspot and clit, here's one way to go:
http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m169msDuDb1qeskczo1_500.gif
This one, my wife and I do a lot. By pushing down, you end up dragging the clit on the shaft:
http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l9s1okFvhL1qatn9jo1_500.gif
Here's are two examples of a far c-v distance:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqpwiiNL0Q1qbkqwmo1_250.gif
...and...
[url=http://filefap.com/view/2069489_qi3xz]tumblr_m01adzM4fY1ql in porn gallery Animated Gifs- FileFap.com
The clit could easily be stimulated with bridging:
http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnao99ySVm1qfpdc0o1_500.gif
Or, better yet, How to have a clit orgasm with a penis:
http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwd4ee3Qm31qzlro6o1_500.gif
...or...
http://www.shotpix.com/images/31485160340446592814.gif
This one my wife and I have done for literally hours:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0t7siqgOR1rqd0e2o1_500.gif
We don't have sex often because we have a lot of spare time, we make the time to spare so we can have sex this often.
ViceRoy,
I hope my response wasn't offensive, for that was not my intent in the least. I feel you missed my point, which may have been the fault of my insomnia as I typed it.
My concern is over someone being judged unfairly. That methods of taking measurements, and making discernments such as "why?" can lead to pressure to perform and/or the unfair judgement of a person's body or skill.
I don't feel I need to know my C-V distance, or my husband's length or girth, because measurement leads to comparison. Comparison is not nor should it be the point, and IMO can actually cause difficulties. I worry about the woman whose egotistical man takes it out on her when an article's findings don't happen to apply to her.
[QUOTE=lnt1103;279284]
I hope my response wasn't offensive, for that was not my intent in the least. I feel you missed my point, which may have been the fault of my insomnia as I typed it.[/QUOTE]
I hate insomnia. I have sleep apnea, so I know fully well what sleep deprivation can do,
[QUOTE]My concern is over someone being judged unfairly. That methods of taking measurements, and making discernments such as "why?" can lead to pressure to perform and/or the unfair judgement of a person's body or skill.[/QUOTE]
As Brandye pointed out, many other factors can be involved with difficulties in what society thinks is "normal" sexual response. First and foremost, a lack of orgasm during sex does not constitute a dysfunction to begin with.
Think of it like procreation. I don't think it's a dysfunction if I choose not to have kids. If I did choose to have kids and couldn't, then it's classified as a problem. You and I will always be judged as inferior if we can't "fix" a problem we currently have. That's society's problem, not mine. My problem is how do I have kids.
Similar issue. If I want to have an orgasm while having sex, but can't, that doesn't mean I'm inferior, it just means I can't. This is the disagreement here. Do we discuss what ways can be used to solve an issue, or do we just sweep it under the rug and not discuss it at all so society can't poke their nosy fingers at us?
[QUOTE]I don't feel I need to know my C-V distance, or my husband's length or girth, because measurement leads to comparison. Comparison is not nor should it be the point, and IMO can actually cause difficulties.[/QUOTE]
You don't need to because you don't have an issue with vaginal orgasms. Whether or not you can have one is beside the point. Now, if we were having sex and I entered you and noticed you weren't really enjoying yourself as I was and happenned to notice your clitoris was way up high and not being stimulated, well, here's a possible reason. This sub-forum is about pleasing her. It's not a woman's issue topic sub-forum.
This thread, oddly enough, was more for men and how to please a woman. I say oddly because all the feedback have been from women. Where are the men on this forum? Don't get me wrong, I cherish the women's feedback too. I just happened to miss my target here.
Thankfully my previous post with all the graphic examples was written for another, more far reaching, more accepting forum where we are discussing it in all the details.
[QUOTE]I worry about the woman whose egotistical man takes it out on her when an article's findings don't happen to apply to her.[/QUOTE]
Men are doing it more so without the article now already. Think of it the other way around too. If I had seen this article 9 years ago with my second wife, her "dysfunction" as she saw it could've been easily explained away.
We are discussing it. Int's point was "how much emphasis should we put on such measurements?" Correct me, Int, if I misunderstood you.
And, ViceRoy, have you forgotten that men are not a woman's only partners? It is perfectly legit for women to be interested and involved in these discussions. Not only this, but women themselves are intensely interested in learning all they can for their own sakes.
Where are the men? They're reading. Do not think that not writing=not paying attention.
There is also the fact that you can stimulate this or that or use any technique you want until the sky falls - if she doesn't want to orgasm, she won't.
So yes, we'll discuss it but no, we're not going to go Hallelujah over the info which is nice and useful and good to know and may even come in handy one day. Thank you.
Many year's ago Susan Brownmiller wrote a book entitled Men, Women and Rape. In her introduction she stated that she had never been sexually abused and she had no problem with sex as it is. She did point out that maybe god could have structured things a bit differently for women to make response more readily available. That is what this "new" knowledge is about. Minor restructuring.
So, after roughly eighty years of this being known to womanhood, what is the message? Some of us need to adjust positions, pressures and specific stimulation. Those women who have wanted to "get over it" have generally found solutions. Sometimes men have helped. Those who decided, for whatever reasons, that it was not worth the effort, have forgone these pleasures. Their choice. Knowing that some us have greater spacing from where the penis is traveling to that bit that needs stimulating is simply an intellectual exercise until, and unless, an individual woman decides to make some adjustment - closing her legs, leaving her knees lower, asking for specific stimulation, getting out a vibrator, or otherwise using her imagination. Awareness may be where it all starts but is not the solution. Intellectually, the scientist in me would like some answers regarding different groups and how they function. Practically, most women could care less and knowledge of "how far it is" will make no difference.
I have poked around women's genitals more than most, professionally and personally, and have made decisions regarding my own and manipulation of others. Never used a ruler, or meter stick, to make those decisions. The first issue will be to determine a stand method of measurement.
Brandye, I do believe you're the first one on this forum to understand the purpose of my post. Thanks.
You didn't mention anything about girth and its role in closing the gap though. Any thoughts there?
Since I first held an erect penis in my hand thinking, "this will never fit in me!," neither length nor girth has mattered at all to me. The only feature that did not work for me was being bar rigid. That feels too much like being impaled.
Obviously, anything of greater girth will cause stretching that will draw them closer together. This may help some women but become uncomfortable for others. No generalisation can be made. Some of us are looser and some tighter. This is not the "tight" that you men experience which is caused by muscle tone around the entrance. This is tightness or looseness of tissue - skin, sub-cutaneous fat, stretchiness. Our response is mostly caused by the movement of the clitoral hood over the clitoris. The greater girth of a penis may be "absorbed" by how a woman stretches resulting in less stimulation to the clitoris or the extra girth may stretch the tissues to the point that no movement is experienced over the clitoris. The gap is the gap; our structure is our structure. We need to work within our own personal limitations and not waste time seeking some magical formula. As stated so many times on the Board - successful sex does not follow a recipe; it is the result of two people figuring out what works for them. Put your measuring stick away and get your penis out. Now we can begin work make it work.
[QUOTE=Brandye;279340]Since I first held an erect penis in my hand thinking, "this will never fit in me!," neither length nor girth has mattered at all to me. The only feature that did not work for me was being bar rigid. That feels too much like being impaled.[/QUOTE]
So, you've never had one (or thought it possible to be) too big or too small?
[QUOTE]Obviously, anything of greater girth will cause stretching that will draw them closer together.[/QUOTE]
Again, it's obvious, but never ever have I seen it stated in plain English. I've always heard the fuller feeling term being used.
[QUOTE]
This may help some women but become uncomfortable for others. No generalisation can be made.[/QUOTE]
I realize you have to say that for those who love making sweeping generalizations about sex, but can we please stop saying this when addressing each other? It is starting to sound patronizing.
[QUOTE]Some of us are looser and some tighter. This is not the "tight" that you men experience which is caused by muscle tone around the entrance. This is tightness or looseness of tissue - skin, sub-cutaneous fat, stretchiness.[/QUOTE]
As an aside, there's tight and there's small. The introitus seems to be more dictated by how large or how small a woman is, but the bands of muscles beyond (as in the PC muscles) seems more a function of tone. Especially so for those who've successfully isolated them.
[QUOTE]Our response is mostly caused by the movement of the clitoral hood over the clitoris.[/QUOTE]
Like this?
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxp9l8dLPs1qf7iwyo1_400.gif
[QUOTE]The greater girth of a penis may be "absorbed" by how a woman stretches resulting in less stimulation to the clitoris or the extra girth may stretch the tissues to the point that no movement is experienced over the clitoris.[/QUOTE]
This one's confusing me. Having only experienced one penis (my own) and multiple vaginas, I don't follow this. In my experience my wife's clitoris' underside can actually "drag" along my shaft when the hood is stationary. Other times is as the GIF depicted.
[QUOTE]The gap is the gap; our structure is our structure. We need to work within our own personal limitations and not waste time seeking some magical formula. As stated so many times on the Board - successful sex does not follow a recipe; it is the result of two people figuring out what works for them. Put your measuring stick away and get your penis out. Now we can begin work make it work.[/QUOTE]
How can you say put the measuring stick away and say...
[QUOTE=Brandye;279306]The first issue will be to determine a stand method of measurement.[/QUOTE]
Why measure anything then?
I realize you said...
[QUOTE=Brandye;279306]Intellectually, the scientist in me would like some answers regarding different groups and how they function.[/QUOTE]
What is the purpose of that knowledge then? Curiosity and nothing more?
@ ViceRoy: You seem to be too obsessed with measurements. What Brandye and EEK are trying to say is that you should be more focused on figuring out what works for you and your partner since women are all snowflakes.
[QUOTE=g-dubz;279345]@ ViceRoy: You seem to be too obsessed with measurements. What Brandye and EEK are trying to say is that you should be more focused on figuring out what works for you and your partner since women are all snowflakes.[/QUOTE]
I'm an engineer, of course I'm obsessed with dimensions and structure. My question to Brandye was why the inconsistency regarding putting away the measuring stick and then needing a standardized method of measuring.
I'm currently doing research on human anatomy and statistical analysis. I also immensely enjoy sex a number of times a week, every chance we get, anywhere we want (at home). I don't see the conflict.
Besides, what better way to expand my horizon than discussing our differences? I'm a member of a few other forums, one if which has a large, but limited number if people more interested in the mechanical processes dealing with different body types, structures and preferences. I'm exploring and hopefully exploiting the web's wide net for like minded scientifically inclined people.
That is what information is all about.
[QUOTE=ViceRoy;279346]I'm an engineer, of course I'm obsessed with dimensions and structure. My question to Brandye was why the inconsistency regarding putting away the measuring stick and then needing a standardized method of measuring.
I'm currently doing research on human anatomy and statistical analysis. I also immensely enjoy sex a number of times a week, every chance we get, anywhere we want (at home). I don't see the conflict.
Besides, what better way to expand my horizon than discussing our differences? I'm a member of a few other forums, one if which has a large, but limited number if people more interested in the mechanical processes dealing with different body types, structures and preferences. I'm exploring and hopefully exploiting the web's wide net for like minded scientifically inclined people.
That is what information is all about.[/QUOTE]
Except we're not talking about schematics here. We're talking about PEOPLE. Not every woman is going to care about her C-V distance. This information will be useful to some but to all. I myself don't really give a crap about a woman's C-V distance. What Brandye is saying is that you should stop measuring period, since you kind of make seem like she's some kind of machine instead of a person.
:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=ViceRoy;279346]My question to Brandye was why the inconsistency regarding putting away the measuring stick and then needing a standardized method of measuring.
[/QUOTE]
Hi,
I believe you have two separate responses commingled regarding measurements.
On the first where Brandye stated about "standardized method of measuring" and not needing a ruler, she was stating that with her poking and prodding of women her decisions on vaginas were not made via measurements. She was talking about how positions and whatnot are what affect those pleasures, not volumes and circumferences, etc.
The next reply regarding the "put your measuring stick away" was in regards to penises. She was stating that there are already so many variables regarding vaginas (ie. size, shape, elasticity, fat content, phase of the moon, etc) that to toss in even more variables of penis size and shape doesn't accomplish anything.
What I'm getting from this thread is there are very basic "trends" about sizes and measurements, but that through the fickle nature of humans things that matter one time won't matter the next, or vice versa, so it's just jousting at windmills.
Take care...
Now, that is a good response that explains the perceived inconsistency. Thanks for the cogent response.
To the extent that there is continuing research, standardize the measuring; for making love, put it away, that is not research. Even scientists are looking for something other data when snuggled up with a friend.
Yes, he's an engineer.
The "inconsistency" was merely apparent, not actual.
We're speaking woman-ese, ViceRoy, which means most men have to be rather agile to keep up. Women use meta-messaging and nuance and we tend to allude rather than post signs saying "I'm taking the topic this way".
It's a gender psychological thing.
And this explains why a website with such potential has one of the most boring, least active forums I've come across.
If you say so :/
Geez that was uncalled for. I don't recall a banner on this site saying "The most highly trafficked and active forum ever!!!"
Ever realize that through all these different thread where it seems people are attacking you, the common factor is you? Why do you feel the need to be so abrasive?
I'm impressed, Firmus.
Thanks, g-dubz.
Tis ok, guys.