If your erection lasts for more than 4 hours...
 

The idea that Viagra and its clones are drugs only for men is simply silly. The whole point of Viagra is to make sure you can maintain an erection long enough to bring your woman "friend" to orgasm. Women have been waiting for a drug like that for years. Men are so sensitive about their natural performance that they turned normal sexual response into a lucrative business (hold off on that AIDS research Jim, we've got a good one here!). Alfred Kinsey may have been a bit eccentric, and may have even fudged some numbers, but much of his "report" contains valid data. Consider this:

"For perhaps three-quarters of all males, orgasm is reached within two minutes after the initiation of the sexual relation, and for a not inconsiderable number of males the climax may be reached within less than a minute or even within ten or twenty seconds after coital entrance. Occassionally, a male may become so stimulated psychically or through physical petting that he ejaculates before he has effected genital union."

God I love those terms "coital entrance" and "genital union." "Honey, I feel ready to initiate coital entrance. OK?" "Hey hon, I'm in the mood for a genital union. You up for that after the game?"

Moreover, I think Kinsey makes a good point about rapid response that exposes our essential selfeshness, especially among women::

"Far from being abnormal, the human male who is quick in his sexual response is quite normal among he mammals, and usual in his own speices [most people forget that we are primates]. It is curious that the term 'impotance' should have ever been applied to such rapid response. It would be difficult to find another situation in which and individual was quick and intense in his repsonses was labeled anything but superior, and that in most instances is exactly what the rapidly ejaculating male probably is, however inconvenient and unfortunate his qualities may be from the standpoint of the wife in the relationship."

Unfortunately, I am abnormal, and can engage in genital union for as long as my partner wants. Oh, how I long to be a "normal" primate.

And why do you think all these older women are hooking up with teenage boys? I'll let Kinsey tell you:

"Exceptions are found chiefly among younger married males who are still in their teens. At that age, 15 percent of the population is capable of experiencing two or more ejaculations during a limited period of time and during continuous erotic activity [this has always been the case for me]. The number of males who are capable of such multiple orgasm decreases with advancing age. Not more than 7 percent remain so capable by age 35 [cue the violins, or get some Viagra]."

I think the above explains a lot about dysfunctional sexuality among today's couples; it's not about performance, it's about psychology.. We're all too selfish and too insecure.

Just for the record (and I've only read a portion of this entry so it could be completely irrelevant) but I have to say this, just for the record, and in my opinion only...

Those pills weren't made or geared towards women. I don't care how long my guy goes..although I want at least more than 2 minutes...I don't care how long he goes as long as I'm getting enjoyment out of it too. That for mean, means orgasm as well. You don't have to have a hard on to get a girl off....you can get a girl off in many more ways than just having an erection. You can use your hands, your mouth, toys...or whatever else you may be into. In my opinion those pills are made for guys who think that the longer they go the better they are, or just for guys who can't get it up in general.

You forgot to put in the disclaimer.

"I am not a lawyer. Please check you local and state laws for sodomy statutes and restrictions on sexual devices which would place this advice in contradiction of laws created by prudish morons who probably couldn't spell erection, never mind actually achieve one."

These drugs are prescribed for "erectile dysfunction", which usually means "can't get it up at all'.

And that "four hour" warning is very very real; my ex- (a nurse practitioner who works in emergency medicine) explained that when a priapism (which is what that is called) lasts for too long, the blood pooled in the corpus cavernosum starts to clot...and may need to be drained surgically.

Ew.

Ya think? :-)

Hey! Be nice, I was just reacting to this...

And thanks RL...I never thought I would actually have to put a disclaimer on my own opinion but I guess in this day and age it would be advisable. So, Thanks.

I totally agree
 

Indeed. It is not just traditional coitus that can bring a woman to orgasm. We have very large brains, so we should be able to make sure "you" (meaning women) are brought to a nice, deep, and satisfying orgasmic experience. Just as you said; there is more than one way to skin a cat. I feel best when my woman has an orgasm, even if I don't. I like to please her.

someone wake me up when I come...zzzzzzzzzz
;)

Women have orgasms?

I've never stuck around after mine long enough to find out. Hmph. Who'da thought.


/pig

noodle, have I dated you in the past???

Most men can get off in under two minutes because their ancestors did. The slow ones got eaten by critters while they were distracted and didn't reproduce as much. Being quick is better for the reproduction scheme of things.

The fly in the ointment is, it sometimes interferes with making love, which is a whole different matter. To be successful at that, takes more work and imagination which is even tougher, post orgasm. :)

I miss making love. ever since the advent of the inchlet we've been on a strict regimen of exhaustion induced abstinence interupted sporadically with knee wobblers.

The nice thing about making love is that you can make love for four hours and being hard never really (brace yourself Kathleen) enters into it.

How about a drug that helps with women's sex drive, you know sever it from all the "junk" they attach to it?
Man, we need that one!

They say testosterone increases womens sex drive, but I don't really want the side effects of it. Like increased body hair and acne. Who needs that!

I don't need an increased sex drive...and i'm a woman...

I did not say increase it, I said help it by severing it from all the weird junk women attach to it.

then we would just be men fucking everything that moves...
I for one enjoy the attachments that sex makes when it's worth it...

Actually viagra has a similar effect on the womens, from what I've heard. It gets their tender morsels all engorged, as for what's between their ears, you'll have to check your owner's manual about how to get those gears engaged.

Apparently every model is different enough that what works for your side gal may not work for your main gal.
:eek:

I know someone who had the painful erection lasting more than four hours. If I recall the story correctly, it lasted for like 12-18.

Several rounds of decreasingly enthusiastic usage, a trip to the ER, and a lot of hefty drugs did not immediately deflate it.

He was very lucky, because the extended period of erection (and constriction of the blood flow in the area) could have caused tissues to necrotize. That means die. And fall off.

Ohhh, I have this visual of all the cellar guys whincing and crossing their legs.

Ohhh, you have the right visual...

Nope... me checking the ice packs in the freezer "just in case".

I found this thread via the google spider. Very interesting, i missed it first time around.

One of the issues it raised (fnarr fnarr!) is the fact that sexual pleasure for the woman is not dictated by how long the man stays hard.....

Just as an interesting aside: prior to changes in biological theory during the enlightenment, attitudes to sex were very different. The medieval conception of gender was that the male and female were mirror images of each other...essentialy, women were physically the same as men but with a bit missing and an additional part to house progeny. With the new enlightenment theories in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, we get the 'two body' theory. This showed that actually men and women were physiologically very different. Not only did this have the effect oof firming up the idea of gender distinction, but it gave rise to a more phallocentric approach to sex. Where at one time sex consited mainly of mutual masturbation, with penetrative sex forming only a small part of the whole, during the eighteenth century, european (and American) culture moved towards penetration as the main component of sex. Books were written on sexuality that basically reduced male sexuality to his penis and female sexuality to her vagina. ('Arborae Vitae' = the 'tree' of life, was basically a eulogy to the penis) This then coalesced with the new ideas of morality within England (not sure about the rest of europe) to provoke a culture in which not only was penetration the central sexual act, but also the only morally acceptable component of sex. Hence all that nonsense about masturbation making you blind.

So...there you go. The obsession with penile penetration as the only real component of sex worth bothering about, and all that this implies, has its roots in the enlightenment and eighteenth century philosophy.

Whomever told you that, you should never believe them about anything, ever again.

Wikipedia entry: Kama Sutra

In what way does that refute what I've just posted?

I am talking about western european thinking.

I will read further, but remain highly skeptical. Full-on copulation is a biological imperative! All the animals do it!

I guess you've never met a married Jewish woman from Brooklyn before. lol!!!

Of course its a full on biological imperative. I am talking about cultural attitudes towards penetration. Where it was a part of a much larger experience, guided by social attitudes towards courtship and marriage, the introduction of the 'two body' theory during the late seventeenth/early eighteenth century gave penetration a much larger role within sex, to the exclusion, in english culture, of anything that wasnt either penetration or relating to the phallus. Think about the traditional english Victorian moral mindset where women were expected to "lie back and think of England". I dopn't know if it had the same impact in mainland europe, but it will certainly have had some effect on sexual practices at that time.

It's ok Dana. Remember, UT is a man too. ;)

I know I'm gonna get it for this, but weren't they still trying to out breed their enemies at that point in time?

Sex is dirty and pleasure is shameful. Penetration in acceptable because it produces procreation.... and the guy gets his rocks off.

Sometimes more than just one guy. ;-)

:3_eyes:

;(