Multiorgasmic Guestbook
<< 2005 >>
000380
Sunday 02/13/2005 5:24:42am
Abigail
gailtutor@iprimus.com
Brisbane
What can a women do about premature orgasm? It's often over for me when my man first touches me.
The dysfunction you describe is commonly called "Premature Ejaculation" and is the single most common male sexual dysfunction, affecting as many as a third of all men. And as discussed at this website, this dysfunction could be forever eliminated were research finally conducted into the causes of the Male Refractory Period (MRP) and a solution to same ultimately discovered. And yet, no such research has ever been conducted nor have we been successful in generating any interest toward that end.
As we state at this website, it is not orgasming quickly that creates the problem but rather the loss of erection caused by the MRP that follows orgasm. Were MRP no longer an issue, men could continue sexual activity following any number of orgasms with no loss in erection or desire.
However in the meantime, there are steps that can be taken to help alleviate this all-too-common male sexual dysfunction. In fact, typing the words "premature ejaculation" into any Internet search engine will reveal hundreds if not thousands of websites dedicated to addressing this dysfunction. One of the better ones, in our opinion, can be found here: http://my.webmd.com/content/article/53/61404.htm
We wish you the best of luck and hope someday that someone will finally realize the importance of researching MRP for the benefit of both men and women. Thank you for your entry.
000381
Tuesday 03/15/2005 8:50:41am
Theo B
viralentity@yahoo.com
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
I remember stumbling upon this site many years ago, 4-5 I believe. I searched out this subject after seeing a show we have here in Canada called "The Sunday Night Sex Show" with an older woman named Dr. Sue I believe (could be wrong). On an episode of her program a caller had reported that he could have more then one orgasm without losing his erection and that he was worried something may be physically wrong with him. Now, I took great interest in this program because I also had this anomaly, or what I thought was an anomaly.
Now I bring my feelings up for a reason, I read back into the guestbook some ways, where a person "n" talked about never really thinking that his "multiorgasmic" ability was strange, I find this hard to believe, if he has ever watched a movie or surfed the net, seen ad's on TV, heck, if he has had more then a virgin for a sexual partner or even a close female friend he would have to know that he was drastically different. Now after knowing you are different you could be frightened by the ability or believe that it is perfectly healthy, I was not really sure myself, but it is possible for another man to believe himself perfectly healthy being in the same boat as myself.
My facts are as follows, I have been able to have multiple orgasms for as long as I can recall. I don't remember masterbation before I lost my virginity, although I'm sure I did, I always told friends at the time that I didn't (product of growing up in a religious household, thought it was dirty, haha) So, after years as a teen denying it I guess I wiped the specifics from my memory. I lost my virginity at 14, not exactly a great experience, actually it was quite traumatic but that's another long story (and as you can see I do tend to go on, lol). At the time of my defloweration, lol, I ejaculated 3 times without loss of erection within 30mins, you may wonder why I remember the time frame, I had to go pick up my little brother from daycare, my mother was in an upstairs apartment socializing and I was extremely afraid we were gonna get caught, so needless to say we packed up early, well among other reasons, :). After that experience I did not have sex for 7 years, Actually at that time I thought I would never have sex again, I was really not ready for sex and a lot of things freaked/grossed me out. I did masturbate often, now I don't speak of often as in days or times, but rather as in amount of time. I usually at that time and even till now masturbate in sessions ranging from 1-4 hours, in fact, I became quite addicted to masturbation and even thought I was going to far, I ended up going to a Sex Aholics Anon meeting, but thank god I learned I wasn't at that level yet, again, another long story. I did eventually meet someone I loved enough to let them get "some" although it took some time, I wouldn't sleep with her for a while. Since then I have had 3 more partners totaling 5, with one of them we made love for 6 hours repeatedly but 9 hours in total. I had I'm sure more then 10 orgasms and she said she had 18 but I think she was lying, girls tend to be kind to the ego. I have no present partner so I'm back to self-pleasurevation, haha, I just thought that up. I am now 25 and can Masturbate for many hours as I have always done, I think I really need a woman, lol, the single life is starting to "wear" on me.
I would like to say lastly that the guy in the "study" was extremely brave, I would have a problem getting naked in front of a group of strangers let alone playing with myself and giving them verbal feedback just to prove my abilities. I will gladly prove this to any single or group of females, hehe j/k.
Congratulations: You are the first to point out how unbelievable it is that almost every guestbook entry received here from guys claiming to possess this extremely rare orgasmic capacity seem coincidentally driven to make the ironic claim to never having known this ability was unusual. As you correctly point out, if you have this capacity it is almost impossible not to be made constantly aware of how rare this ability is.
The research Subject of our study has commented often on the confusion he felt even as a teenager and prior to any sexual experiences with females. It was overhearing the sexual experiences of male peers that had him realizing just how different his own sexual response was from their "wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am" experiences. Unable at all to relate to such terms as "jacking off" for "relief" or "blue balls" or "wet dreams," he was left to wonder what sort of male he was. And thanks to science's refusal to acknowledge any natural male sexual response cycle other than the mono-orgasmic, there were no answers. Today, little has changed for him or for any others out there like him.
Just this month, in fact, we received our annual announcement for the next upcoming Annual Meeting of the Quad-S (The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality). This year's topic: "Unstudied, Understudied and Underserved Sexual Communities." Given that no sexual topic is more ignored and more unstudied than the near-universal Male Refractory Period (MRP), and no sexual community is more under-served than that of the naturally MRP-free male, we wrote to the two doctors heading up the key "practicum" at this prestigious Annual Meeting of sex researchers, Dr.s Williams and Weinberg, both sociology professors at Indiana University, asking them to look into this completely ignored topic directly impacting the sexual response of one-half of the world's population. It's been almost a month now and, as expected, there has been no reply.
Thank you for sharing your experiences. Hopefully someday there will be enough professional interest to warrant further research funding that might ultimately find those much-needed and deserved answers.
000382
Thursday 03/31/2005 3:40:23pm
Tammi
PA
Hi All! First let me tell you what I’m doing here. I never much even considered the subject until a camping trip a couple of years ago. We had made love and I had a series of almost continuous orgasms. Afterwards, we were talking and my husband said something that I thought unusual at the time. He said that he wished that he could experience what happened in my body during sex, just once. I joked that if I loaned him my body, I’d probably never get it back.
That started me thinking about when we first met how powerful his orgasms were and how I struggled to have one. Now, in our forties, it’s reversed. I usually have a couple of orgasms on a bad night and on a weekend when we have time, I’ll have a few series where they come in waves. He has his one and seems satisfied but it seems weaker and shorter than it used to be. I used to feel him "pulse" for a long time, now I only feel it a few times and that's it. He holds me and grunts and then it’s over in a couple of seconds. Is that normal for a man in his mid to late forties? I know that he wishes that he didn’t have to hold back & put his off for my sake. He always has to be in control when we make love because of his refractory period while I can take off. Will his continue to decline as he ages?
I applaud you for your research. I’d love for him to be able to share the joy that I have. Until then, does anyone know of any medication, herb or supplement that I could get for him to at least make his lone orgasm stronger and more pleasurable like the ones he used to have?
We love hearing from females precisely for the insights they bring as you have here. Men, no matter how orgasmic they might be as males, young or old, simply cannot relate to the true orgasmic freedom and pleasure potentials inherently possessed, though usually untapped, by almost all females. And more frustrating still is the fact that as men age they do tend to slowly lose at least some of their limited sexual potentials while, in stark contrast, as time passes females generally become more and more aware of their far-superior sexual capacities for near-limitless pleasure. Unfortunately for most women, by the time this realization occurs, it is too late for them to fully enjoy this newfound potential given their male lover's declining sexual capacity.
And this cruel sexual irony will continue to plague heterosexual relationships as it has for millennia until such time as the research community finally chooses to lift the apparent ban on MRP research currently in existence and ultimately succeeds in unlocking the sexual shackles imposed upon males by MRP. Only then will there be any chance of developing a pharmaceutical solution to this oppressive universal male sexual limitation for the unparalleled sexual and emotional benefit of both men and women worldwide.
Thank you so much, Tammi, for sharing your thoughts and experiences here.
000383
Thursday 04/07/2005 3:35:57pm
Ruben Lopez Molina
lopez_molina@hotmail.com
www.el-pene.com
I'm a medical student from Colima, Mexico. I was looking for information about this topic, because one friend and I made a bet about this and find out if this is true. My conclusion is that technically this is impossible for normal people, I mean without sexual techniques or a minimal idea of what's going on. So I thing this webpage is amazing and very interesting. Congratulations.
Thank you for your kind remarks. We're glad you have found the site of interest.
000384
Friday 05/13/2005 1:50:11am
Theo B
viralentity@yahoo.com
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
I read over my post and noticed it was much like one long run on non-sensical sentence. I was pretty tired when I wrote that entry. Heh, anyways, would just like to respond to the gentleman who posted last. I would be happy to answer any questions that he and his colleagues may have. I won't be able to do any testing like that of the Rutgers study. I just wouldn't be comfortable enough to do that, and like I said before, I have tremendous respect for the man in the study.
I would also like to invite the caretaker of this site to get in contact with me if he/she is interested in any first hand experiences or any thoughts that I have on why this is possible for me, and not most men....yet.
Um, that's all I have to say, really don't want to ramble like last time. Good luck everyone.
000385
Sunday 05/15/2005 5:36:31am
Theo B
viralentity@yahoo.com
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
After going back and reading the last 20 pages of your guestbook I've seen there seem to be a lot of males like myself. I realized that I don't seem any more believable than the others in this guestbook. I would like to say disregard my previous post, me being multiorgasmic is no more provable than anyone else that has stated they are so.
I guess I just thought it would be nice to talk about some of the things mentioned in this guestbook, there are so many interesting points. I have my own reasoning on discounting some of the claimants as fakers, which have to do with my own experience on the subject.
The fact still remains, I am no more credible than anyone else in this guestbook, if you want to discuss with me, I am sure I'd have a great time doing so. Seeing as you can contact "The Subject", and he has proven himself able, I guess that would be a better route.
Anyways, keep up the work, sorry about the multi entries, haha, just realizing how much of an ass I keep making of myself. I really just wanted to help. cya round.
Thank you for your many remarks. And don't worry at all; writing in a guestbook can feel a lot like leaving a message on an answering machine: you never really know how you end up coming off (no pun). But your remarks are appreciated. Keep on keepin' it up! ;)
000386
Monday 05/16/2005 2:30:13pm
Private Message 386
000387
Tuesday 05/17/2005 2:32:49am
Olek
spamthepalm@yahoo.com
Philippines
I'm a normal person and experience MRPs. In my younger years... I always masturbated several times a day specially when I'm all alone at home. One time, when I was 15 years old... I masturbated 17 times in all afternoon... strange thing is, on the last one... the semen that came out was reddish as if it is blood... from that moment on.... I limit myself from masturbating. What do you think happened? Will it, when men are free from MRPs.... we might overdo it and spurt blood and lose consciousness?
While we cannot begin to explain what you experienced that one time, we can definitively state that there is no physiological or other scientifically justifiable basis for believing that MRP-free multiple orgasms could possibly result in sudden penile hemorrhaging.
And as available elsewhere at this website, in addition to the complete lack of any reports of such experiences by contemporary MRP-free men (e.g., our Research Subject and other MRP-free claimants in this guestbook) there exists substantial historical evidence from as far back as ancient Sumer (4,000 BCE) of "Sacred Marriage" practices wherein the male Heir Apparent to the throne was required to publicly demonstrate his MRP-free capacity by orgasming at least 50 times with the high priestess before being declared worthy by her of Kingship. And in over 2,000 years of this annual multiorgasmic rite, never was it reported that one of these MRP-free Kings ever suffered injury or loss of consciousness, nor any other trauma. In fact, as might be expected, quite the opposite was reported.
But, again, without public and/or professional interest in MRP research, all we can do is continue to speculate re: the sexual and emotional potentials possible were men and women able to interact together as true equals.
000388
Friday 06/03/2005 6:48:17am
Michael Potts
mpotts@millfield-partnership.co.uk
Reading, England
I have read and will continue to read The Multi-Orgasmic Man by Mantak Chia, but I must say I find the techniques really hard (no pun intended). Has anyone out there read this book and had any success with it, please? Or got any comments about it! I must say that it does make sense that ejaculation and orgasm are separate despite happening simultaneously (usually). But in preventing my ejaculation, I just find my orgasm is ruined! However, I will persist despite the bloody refractory period that follows!! Any feedback would be appreciated. Mike.
000389
Sunday 06/05/2005 5:11:35pm
ray
ray.black@tesco.net
I've observed that for the majority of men, the sexual act is related to stress relief, to relieving frustration, this I see as why most men are unable to naturally achieve multiple orgasm, since after they ejaculate, they experience the desired state of stress relief and relaxation. Therefore no further sexual act is desired. If a man approaches sex not from the desire to find a state of relief from stress, but to engage in orgasmic bliss then it is helpful if he is already relaxed, if a man is already relaxed it is easier for him to achieve this multiorgasmic state, instead of rushing to the end just for the sake of relief from tension. I've experimented with these ideas, and I conclude that multiple orgasms are possible and very enjoyable.
You're on the right track. Due to MRP, sex all too often could be (and is) described as men "relieving" themselves. And, yes, it is a very disparaging way to look at what sex could be otherwise. But, again, thanks to MRP, this is what men are biologically pre-disposed to experience. And while relaxation might help to some extent, this does not change the sexual dynamics forced upon men due solely to MRP. Were MRP not present, men would just as naturally discover all the joys of sex already naturally discovered and enjoyed by women.
000390
Thursday 06/09/2005 2:36:58pm
Marcel
titanium_eagle@hotmail.com
Awesome!!!
Concise, succinct, and to the point. Thanx!
000391
Saturday 07/02/2005 0:08:55am
Adam
Here I am I guess what you call a normal male, meaning I climb the "mountain" of increasing pleasure only when I get to the peak I fall off, and the fall is fast, and I land hard on the ground, and I am physically unable to get up and try and climb the mountain again for like 20-25 minutes. Meanwhile it takes the girl a lot longer to get to the top of the mountain, only when she gets up there, she doesn't fall off, she can just hang out up there until she gets tired and walks back down the mountain. If your getting my metaphor here for the difference between males and females, if only we could learn, as males, to not fall off that damn mountain somehow, things could be different.
It makes no sense to me why God or whatever created us would make things this way? Its really odd to me.
Anyway my question is, is it true that this kind of research is now banned and cannot be done. Who in HELL is responsible for such actions and why? Since a MRP is obviously not necessary to remain healthy and functional we do not need it, so instead of worrying about that, why don't we find out what cause this natural reaction to take place and then find way to make it case or become very delayed with some sort of pill or something. It makes sense, meanwhile scientists are discovering some machine or implant they can put in women they can give them like automatic orgasms, they already have the greatness, help us poor bastards out, the guys.
This is one of the most interesting studies I have ever read, in my entire life. Unfortunately though it was also extremely depressing, there is no way to battle this MRP, yet one lucky man (or apparently more than one) or rather a few, have this natural ability to just skip the MRP all together. Very depressing if you aren't one of them.
Thank you for your entry and its candor. We, too, wish that science were more willing to investigate this extremely crucial as-yet untouched area of male sexuality for the benefit of men and women everywhere. Hopefully some day this area of research will no longer be taboo.
As for who is responsible for the refusal to do research, we cannot say specifically. All we know is that it has now been over a decade since this research was conducted and almost a decade since its publication in a professional scientific journal (JSET), and yet despite repeated attempts to interest major university sexologists and in spite of significant coverage in the popular Media, still not a single sexologist has expressed serious interest in continuing research into this profoundly important area of Human sexuality.
000392
Saturday 07/09/2005 7:29:43am
Apparition
http://www.angelfire.com/vamp/apparition
Northeastern Ontario Canada
I know now. Men always think themselves superior to women...too bad they can't fulfill our needs. We for once are considered the superior beings in sexual reality. It's frustrating to know that all mortal men cannot "keep it up" more or less to satisfy us to our fullest. They think we are too "sensible" or "romantic" as they grunt, fart, turn over and go to sleep when they are done. We are different that is true...as we are in it for every aspect of pleasure...to it's most ultimate form. No wonder men were angry when the fallen ones came to take themselves mortal wives. They knew it was something they couldn't control...
Thank you for creating this site. Many people can learn from it. I don't feel bad now as I used to...for wanting to experience my pleasures for long periods of time...it's just "normal"...the way we were created. Unfortunately men and women are off balance...too bad it can't be compromised so that we could both live happily ever after...sexually.
You are most welcome, "apparition." It is specifically for sexually realized women like you, and ultimately for all other men and women, that this research is ultimately intended. Only through such self-realization can women ever hope to again regain the esteem and the position they once held.
In ancient Sumer, men and women existed as sexual, political, and spiritual equals. For at least 2,000 shining years, a civilization existed wherein men and women lived, loved, and lusted as true equals and where sensuality and sexuality were considered the ultimate in spiritual and emotional expression. The simple reason for this is that, as proved through the historical records already discovered (though only realized herein at this website), at that time both men and women in that great civilization were multiorgasmic, possessing the same "insatiable" "lust" later used to vilify and demonize women as witches, whores, and worse.
Then, for as-yet unknown reasons, these original Sumerians were conquered by jealous neighboring cultures (Assyrians, primarily) led by mono-orgasmic men. With their conquest and the forced assimilation of their culture and practices with those of their conquerors, the sensual/spiritual sacredness of the original Sumerian culture was irrevocably perverted, its hierodules, the powerful and powerfully sensual priestesses of Inanna, were supplanted by mandatory "sacred" prostitution, requiring all women to sell their bodies to satisfy mono-orgasmic male lust and to fill the coffers of their new masters' religions. And ever since the fall of the Sumerian empire, women have been vilified for their superior sensuality, ultimately resulting in their being culturally conditioned to suppress their true sensual natures. Only in this manner were females no longer a threat to mono-orgasmic male ego. And so today, after so many millennia of such unrelenting repression, females are largely unaware of their own sensual (and thus, spiritual and emotional) potentials. Ever since the conquest of Sumer in the Third Millennium BCE, mono-orgasmic males have so successfully vilified females and their inherently insatiable sensuality that women have eventually learned to believe them.
However, nothing helps to trump this perverted vilification of sensuality's true potentials better than this research study. And thus, dear lady, this research understandably poses the single greatest threat to this millennias'-old male mono-orgasmic monopoly. And, hence, this is why we shall never see research properly sponsored, funded, and conducted.
Ironically, it is these same males who would most benefit from successful MRP research, thus benefiting both sexes and restoring to this planet the same wonderful sexual balance and harmony that once existed here.
Thank you so much for your entry.
000393
Tuesday 08/02/2005 6:13:35pm
JC
I'd like to say that it is disgraceful that this research has not been attempted. Consider M-F transsexuals, they are generally able to achieve multiple orgasms as much as any biological female — from the same tissues that their old penis was constructed from! I'm very curious as to whether or not pre-op transsexuals who have been having hormone therapy still have MRP. If so this is proof that it is all about hormones. There is speculation, but no scientific proof as of now that the hormone prolactin is responsible for MRP. It is said that the drug Dostinex (very expensive), which lowers prolactin, can eliminate MRP, but there is no scientific proof and no indication whether Dostinex is safe to use, it's also used to treat severe illness like Parkinson's Disese.
What I don't understand is, why aren't entrepreneurs jumping at the opportunity to research, create and sell a less expensive hormone altering pill with the purpose of eliminating MRP? I'm sure it'd make billions. It's certain that it is possible so what's stopping them??
(If you could provide any legit evidence to support your claim that post-op transsexuals become multiorgasmic, we would be most interested. We have found absolutely no scientific studies anywhere that support such a conclusion. Thanx in advance.)
As regards the rest of your entry... you have hit the proverbial nail on the head. Were a pill capable of even temporarily eliminating MRP, it would make Viagra look like aspirin by comparison and would make billions more. Let's face it, most of the healthy men out there taking Viagra do so not because they can't get erections, but because they have been duped into believing Viagra will make them multiorgasmic. But it can't because it has no effect on MRP. Now imagine there were a pill that actually did! And yet our inquiries to Pfizer and Merck did not even warrant a reply. Nothing.
And still no interest at all in scientific research from the sexological community. Absolutely none. We continue to remain absolutely dumbfounded why no one has responded to our study, our website, our media attention, or our dozens of inquiries over the years directly to the sex research community.
And if this continues a couple more decades, the point will be moot given that the Research Subject, whose unique physiology holds the key, is getting older and will eventually be too old to provide the answers that will be needed. And perhaps, that has been their goal all along: to let the research opportunity and the potential to truly evolutionize male/female relations die with him.
000394
Saturday 08/06/2005 11:27:50am
JB
M-F Transexuals have multiples? I'd love to see evidence supporting that claim! Given the partial mutilation of tissue, one would think there would be a degradation of sexual pleasure.
As for the lack of interest, I too have spoken with many (including researchers) and the answer is the trite old clichés: We have to research more about women's sexual problems (e.g., lack of sexual libido); men get one every time, what are they complaining about?; not all women have multiples (ignoring the fact that no men, except one, has them). Sexological research was born of a desire to unleash female sexuality, which pioneers like Kinsey saw as the key to a sexual revolution. As long as women held back, said "no, honey, I have a headache," and didn't revel in their sexuality, neither sex would be free. That was the hidden agenda of Kinsey, Masters and Johnson, others.
I experience this gender gap quite strongly:
As a 40 year old male, my orgasms have steadily faded in strength so that I barely feel them (but "I get one every time" so what am I complaining about?!). Massive ejaculations across the room are now trickles of semen (I'm not equating ejaculation and orgasm but the marked decline in both is worth noting).
I've tried everything — including a prescription of prolactin (1.5 MG/week) and...nothing. Same "piffle."
I still WANT sex and THINK about it all the time (testosterone) but having it is more a stress release than anything else.
Meanwhile, once my wife hit 30 (she is now 40), sex got better and better. She has multiple vaginals, multiple clitoral, multiple combined, whole-body orgasms, out-of-body experiences of pleasure (when she stays in orgasm so long that she is literally transported to a place she finds difficult to describe to me). After extended orgasms, if I stroke her back, she has back-triggered whole-body orgasms. God, what I wouldn't give to have the experience just once in my lifetime!
As it stands, I can't say I've ever had a really pleasurable experience, physically because I am a man. A massage is pleasurable but that's about the level of pleasure I can reach. When I was a teenager, at least it felt good for one loud "gunshot" orgasm (though it lasted only a few seconds) but after 40, forget it.
I theorize that the universe is female and men are inferior creations. If there is reincarnation, the best I can hope for is good Karma to come back as a woman on a higher plane of physical existence.
Thank you for your candid and insightful remarks. We applaud your attitude and the strength of character evidenced therein. Unlike that exhibited by most men, you would seem not to be motivated by the same insecure male ego that has driven men through the ages to vilify and condemn women's sexual capacity. Had men shared this attitude through the ages, Eve would not have been vilified as having caused Adam's "fall," Sumer's multiorgasmic priestesses of Inanna would not have been forced into "sacred" prostitution, the millions of women of the 16th-18th Centuries would not have been imprisoned, tortured, and burned at the stake on charges of "witchcraft" for their "carnal lust, which is in women insatiable" (Malleus Malificarum, 1484 CE), and all the other atrocities men have perpetrated on women throughout history due to men's own sexual insecurities would probably never have occurred.
Your insight into the true motivations of Kinsey, et al, are dead-on accurate: men have always claimed to want women to open to them sexually and have studied long and hard (no... not tryin' to be punny) on how this might best be assured. And yet, as males in a still male-dominated society, we are still too sexually insecure to permit women to truly discover and own their unlimited sexual characteristics. Whether consciously or not, we perpetuate their sexual inhibitions by requiring that they limit their sexuality to our orgasmic model. And whether consciously or not, women respond to this by either not exploring their sexual potentials or, if aware of them, not permitting themselves to truly enjoy them for fear of bruising the male ego of their mono-orgasmic partners, and thereafter finding themselves emotionally blackmailed or otherwise ridiculed or even abused by such males in return. It is a cruel "catch-22" for women: either be sexually "inhibited" and face men's disapproval or be uninhibited, revealing their truly superior sexual capacities, and be forced to face men's usually far greater disapproval.
This terrible choice women are forced to make in relationships is not unlike that still all too-often forced upon girls to either let boys win in competitive events or else be thought of as less attractive and less feminine by them.
And so the vicious cycle continues and will continue until men grow up (as it would seem you have) and stop vilifying women for being who they are and allow them to freely learn, explore, and celebrate their true sexual potentials without emotional backlash from men or other negative repercussions.
And finally, yet again, were MRP to finally be explored, studied, and perhaps (if only temporarily) eliminated via an as-yet-to-be discovered medication, men and women's sexual and emotional relationships would be truly fulfilling, and limitlessly so, for both sexes.
Thank you again for your insight and your wisdom. Would that all men were as mature.
000395
Sunday 08/07/2005 8:56:04pm
JB
I agree but
"And whether consciously or not, women respond to this by either not exploring their sexual potentials or, if aware of them, not permitting themselves to truly enjoy them for fear of bruising the male ego of their mono-orgasmic partners, and thereafter finding themselves emotionally blackmailed or otherwise ridiculed or even abused by such males in return...."
About male disapproval of women and male domination through discourse: On that score, I think it is a two-way street. Studies have shown that men rarely talk about sex with other men, and almost never reveal anything but positive things about their partner sexually. (Any comments are couched in generalities about married life, for example). So much for locker room discourse (believe me, I've worked out for 25 years and never heard "locker room language" disapproving of women. Guys just don't talk about sex or relationships — one reason for the popularity of MTV's Real World is that female watchers get to see what men "really" think or say about them behind their back. It gets good ratings — among female watchers — but it is "Unreal."
Back to the studies on how WOMEN talk with each other about men's sexual inadequacies: The commentary is personal and I guy knows he is judged by his ability to "perform." I've heard women in my office and elsewhere (students at my university) talk openly about individual men's penises (size, odd shape, you name it). And you wonder why men have performance anxiety, particularly when the new standard is to provide women with multiple orgasms. Talk about pressure. But the talk — that doesn't end in junior high school; it lasts among today's women (not all, mind you) well into middle age and beyond.
In a word, I agree that neither sex should play these games but in today's "liberated" and garrulous society, EVERYONE — man or woman — is caught up in the approval/disapproval competition which leads to insecurities on all sides.
So, while the past was hideous, it is not always prologue to the present. (FYI: I am prepping to teach a History of Sex course, which should be interesting in bringing up issues of orgasmic differences that turn up periodically in utopian free-love communities, the popularity of tantra, and the strange history behind the vibrator (see Amazon on Rachel Maines's Technology of Orgasm).
Were the issue how much or to what garrulous degree same-sex conversations discuss or even disparage the sexual characteristics of the opposite sex, your observations would most certainly be on point within the social microcosm of our American culture.
However even today, women still suffer far more worldwide for simply being female than ever have men for being male. Thus, any "abuse" we might receive from a little gossip truly pales in comparison to the treatment females of all ages have received throughout history and continue to receive even still today. And given that continuing worldwide abuse and neglect, the past vilification of women is indeed prologue to their present circumstances; it is, after all, from the Past that we arrive at the Present.
Thankfully, we do seem to be learning a bit from that Past. And the fact that in Western society women can gather round the watercooler and occasionally poke a little fun at males' expense from time to time without fearing for their lives surely seems to me a step in the right direction and is certainly not a liberty I would begrudge them, garrulousness notwithstanding. ;)
Of course, let's not make the mistake of equating a little occasional male-bashing between women with how those same women actually relate to men emotionally and sexually in their real-life relationships. Watercooler gossip does not at all reflect what really goes on between men and women behind closed doors. And it was to the real-life intimacy of women with men that my previous remarks were directed.
000396
Tuesday 08/09/2005 7:20:20pm
JB
Bit of a dodge
I'll let it go but you dodged my question by redirecting it to other contexts ("throughout history"; "worldwide"). While appreciating this as true, I think your earlier post exaggerates the societal (read: male) disapproval of women and its baleful effects upon them. The West, 2005, not Sudan or Victorian America 1885. Indeed, one of the culture clashes (Daniel Pipes argues it is central) between the West and Islam is over the sexuality of women.
And, since feminism has raised privacy rights to new heights, it helps for men to know that the same does not apply to them: Soon as they drop their pants, they might as well assume that local women will quickly learn if they are cut/uncut, big/small, "quick," etc. Our measly sexuality is bad enough without this baggage. In a word, two wrongs don't make a right — anywhere. (Islamofascists would disagree with me, of course, but that would be redirecting the question!)
I didn't "dodge" any "question" given that none was asked. What I did do was place your complaint of women's occasional verbal disparagement of men in proper context by comparing it to the far greater abuses forced upon women by men worldwide... yes, even today and here in the West.
And given that greater context, were your expressed outrage the result of actual physical rather than simple verbal abuse by women to men, your indignation would be far better justifiable and understandable.
Any true student of history, and more so anyone tasked with teaching it (as you claimed to be preparing to do) cannot responsibly deny the continuing abuse still suffered by women, worldwide. While illegal (thankfully) in this country, yet a woman is still raped every six seconds in the United States, alone. And a woman is beaten by her male "lover" in this country far more frequently than that. Worldwide, these figures are astronomically higher given that in many countries female abuse, rape, and even murder is either officially sanctioned by such governments or at least tolerated, if not openly condoned, simply by nature of the victims being female. Today, it is still the accepted and sanctioned custom in many Islamic countries to gangrape the innocent daughters or female relatives of women who are accused of adultery or who were "guilty" only of being rape victims, themselves.
No, I am not defending as "right" one's verbal disparagement of another. However there is an enormous difference between offensive words, no matter how disparaging, and actual physical abuse, rape, and/or murder. And to categorize the two together as "two wrongs" that "don't make a right", as though the two were in any way comparable, is to attempt having the two seem equal in offense, as equal "wrongs." And to do this either exaggerates in the extreme the "abuse" possible via words alone or grossly minimalizes the horrors of actual physical and sexual abuse as endured by tens of thousands of women daily at the hands of men. And, no, not in the "Sudan or Victorian America 1885" but in "the West" and elsewhere in the world, today. Right now.
Simply turn on the news no matter where you are, sit back, and watch the day's recounting of the latest tally of horrors perpetrated by men against females. In only the past 24 hours here in just the Phoenix area, a serial rapist claimed his umpteenth victim, a man who murdered his wife and kidnapped his children is being extradited back from Mexico, another woman had her head beaten in with a baseball bat by her husband in front of their small children, and four men were sentenced for sexually gangraping and torturing an 18-year old female over a two-day period. And those were just the more prolific of the crimes against women reported.
Would you like to venture a guess how many violent or sexually related crimes were reported against men by women during that same timeframe? Yep... nary a one.
Forgive me, but given all this it is difficult to be more sympathetic of your arguments attempting to equate as "two wrongs" that "don't make a right" women's occasionally unflattering gossip with men's present-day crimes against females.
000397
Tuesday 08/09/2005 7:26:27pm
JB
Islam & Female Sexuality: TODAY's Threat
See http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1823
Great article... yet to limit "TODAY's Threat" to Islam alone is to ignore the fact that, while far more radical in Islam, the idea of Woman as inherently inferior, more susceptible to evil, and a "direct danger to the social order" that "must be contained," is found embedded in Judeo-Christian dogmae and scriptures (arguably the most influential of idealogies upon which our Western culture is founded) just as strongly as it is in their Islamic counterparts.
(Of course, as expounded in my previous reply, the truth is that the real "danger to the social order" is far more male than female.)
So... why this universal enmity? Why this seething resentment and disdain toward females whether suppressed or not? The foundation of that "danger" can be traced directly back to the sexual disparity resulting from the equally universal Male Refractory Period.
As it happens, your own entries here all too conveniently bear this theory out in splendid fashion (please forgive my referencing them in illustration of this):
As revealed by the content of your previous guestbook entries, you — and men in general — would appear to be far more sensitive to perceived sexual inadequacy. Whereas women's breast sizes and body shapes are constantly the source of public verbal comment by males, as often negative as positive, yet let a woman remark in private to other women about a man's "equipment" or "performance" and the male reaction (e.g., your own) is one of indignation bordering on outrage (as if men didn't discuss these in women, despite your protestations to the contrary). And the reason for your (men's) indignation and the insecurity causing it is also found in the words from your first entry: you are fully aware of the sexual limitations forced upon males by the Male Refractory Period. You are equally aware that females (e.g., your wife) are not likewise sexually limited. Hence, the source of your sensitivity to this: male sexual insecurity, frustration, anxiety, — and (subconscious, perhaps) resentment. And it is this underlying resentment of women's naturally unlimited sensual potential that forms the deepest darkest motivation behind men's history of abuse of women and repression of their gender and their sexuality.
This is the real reason why women have always been seen by men as "a danger" whose sexuality must be "contained" and controlled. And, hence also, the love/lust-hate emotions men have for women fueling all the abuse women endure and will continue to endure until the Male Refractory Period is finally researched and eliminated, for the inestimable benefit of both sexes.
000398
Thursday 08/11/2005 2:11:10pm
jenny
I have several problems with your "logic" and your "scientific" claims. You clearly have an agenda. That is fine. But don’t hold that up as science. This area needs much further study.
We couldn't agree more... with that last sentence, that is. Which is why this website exists. And that is and always has been our only "agenda."
As for the science behind our conclusions, we provide throughout this website constant direct references and citations to the legit scientific sources from which our conclusions derive.
That's not "agenda," either. It's called performing due intellectual diligence.
1. You equate "pleasure" with ejaculatory contractions. "Pleasure" is a subjective term, which cannot be empirically measured. While contractions can be measured, it is an absurd leap to equate the number or strength of contractions with "pleasure." A man who retains an erection for an extended period through several "incomplete" orgasms during sexual intercourse may subjectively view the ENTIRE sexual experience as more "pleasurable" than when he has a full and powerful ejaculatory orgasm a minute or two after intromission. Indeed, why else would men bother to learn the "control" techniques you describe?
While pleasure is to some degree subjective, it still possesses fairly universal qualities. Just as also do other sensual perceptions such as, for example, taste. Almost without exception what tastes sweet to one will also taste sweet to another. Same also with smell, with sight... and with pleasure. And where orgasmic pleasure is concerned, it has already been documented (as shall be seen further along this reply) that the orgasmic experience is so universally similar that physiologically there is almost no difference between what is experienced in orgasm by men and by women.
As for independent scientific evidence for the conclusion that ejaculatory techniques reduce sexual pleasure, had you read our webpage (www.multiorgasmic.com/previousstudies.htm#Kothari) dealing with the topic of orgasmic pleasure, you would have found that no less an authority than Dr. Prakash Kothari, the foremost sexologist of India, stated as follows regarding cognitive ejaculatory-control techniques:
"The intensity of orgasmic pleasure is reduced in (male) multiorgasm. This is because the voluntarily initiated striated muscle contractions at a critical point (orgasmic inevitability or ejaculatory inevitability), if sustained, merge and interfere with their own pleasure laden, clonic involuntary rhythm associated with the orgasmic experience." — P. Kothari (Orgasm: New Dimensions; Chapter 11: Multiorgasm: psychophysiodynamics; 1989; VRP Publishers, 203A Sukhsagar, N.S. Patkar Marg, Bombay 400 007, India) (emphasis added)
Now, if his documented and researched conclusions disagree with your ideology, we welcome you to take it up with him.
And finally, in answer to your question why some men choose to learn these techniques, this answer is also found at our "Techniques" webpage (http://www.multiorgasmic.com/techniques.htm):
"While these techniques do provide men a potentially valuable option to the stereotypical one-orgasm-per-erection scenario, they do require that men sacrifice the full pleasures of orgasm so as to prolong their erections."
In simpler terms, until MRP can finally be researched and defeated, it's the only two orgasmic options men have.
This is also why women don't choose to learn these techniques: they know it would sacrifice pleasure, and they don't need to limit that pleasure as a trade-off to enjoying more of it.
2. Your notion that cognitive exertion equates to "unnatural" is also absurd. Human beings are "by nature" creatures that learn. It is well documented (from the study abandoned children raised in extreme neglect or isolation) that humans will not learn to speak or to control their bowels or bladders without training. In the case of speech, after a certain age, the capacity is effectively lost for good. It is then "unnatural" for humans to speak or to control their bladders or bowels? Moreover, once having learned how to speak, control one’s bowels, drive a car, ride a bike, etc. etc. the amount of cognitive effort is greatly reduced over time. Many things that humans do that initially require considerable conscious effort and attention become essentially automatic over time. Similarly, many of those who learn to control the ejaculatory reflex would likely find that it too becomes more or less automatic over time. More study (with much larger samples) is needed.
Your criticism of that use of ejaculatory control techniques create an "unnatural" or "less pleasurable" sexual experience are logically unsound.
If it is natural for a man in orgasm to experience the pleasurable contractions of ejaculation, then for him to force his body not to experience them is — by definition and by logic — not natural (i.e., "unnatural").
And to attempt equating not withholding ejaculation to not learning speech or not being "potty-trained" is demeaning and insulting to all men everywhere. It assumes the foundationless claim that ejaculation is inherently immature, unlearned, and vulgar. Only someone intent on indoctrinating men for purposes of their own "agenda" and gain would attempt to peddle such a disingenuous and foundationless philosophy.
Unlike not speaking and/or not controlling one's excretory functions, ejaculation is a highly pleasurable and natural part of the beautiful experience that is orgasm. And believe it or not, women also experience these exact same powerfully pleasurable, natural, and involuntary contractions.
The proof of this assertion that the physiologic processes of orgasm are almost identical in men and women is also backed by scientific study:
"The most characteristic physical feature of orgasm is the sensation produced by the simultaneous rhythmic contractions of the pubococcygeus muscle (pc muscle). Along with contractions of the anal sphincter, rectum and perineum... and the ejaculatory ducts and muscles around the penis for men, this constitutes the reflex of orgasm. The first few contractions are intense and close together, occurring at about 0.8-second intervals. As orgasm continues, the contractions diminish in intensity and duration and occur at less frequent intervals.
"Despite the anatomical differences between male and female genitals, orgasms in men and women are physiologically and psychologically, or subjectively, very similar. In fact, studies have been done in which "experts" could not reliably determine gender when reading descriptions of orgasms with all anatomical references removed."
http://www.bettersex.com/sexencyc/sex-dictionary/Orgasm.html
and here:
http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/orgasm.html
So now that science has debunked your argument against men's orgasmic contractions by revealing the fact that women experience these same pleasurable contractions, too... we can't wait to have you try preaching your no-contractions-equals-greater-pleasure argument to them.
Were you to attempt convincing women that denying themselves these pleasurable contractions makes orgasm better, that less pleasure somehow equals more, they'd laugh you to scorn... and rightfully so.
That you, "jenny," representing yourself as female, do not already know this has us a bit skeptical whether even your professed gender is accurate.
Finally, your unqualified assertion that "ejaculations are healthy" based on a single study is junk science at best. Speaking of the health claims of ejaculation vs. nonejaculation, Clive Davis associate editor of the Journal of Sex Research put it much more dispassionately, "you certainly couldn’t support either side medically." That is where we are today in scientific terms. Your wild claims notwithstanding.
And, your own citation for this last claim is... ?
You know, throughout your entry here you accuse us of forwarding "wild claims" based on "junk science" and yet every one of your arguments is based on nothing but "wild claims" and speculations without the support of a single study or scientific reference, whatsoever. And the one time you get close to offering us a legitimate quote, you provide only seven words from within a single sentence that may or may not have been spoken in the context you claim. You couldn't even give us a proper citation where it might be found. The best you could do is claim it appeared somewhere at sometime in JSR.
As for our statement that frequent ejaculation is indeed healthy for men, we shall cite both of the studies so concluding as reported in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) and BJU (British Journal of Urology), both highly esteemed professional research journals.
In the Reuters article on the two studies (see hyperlink below to read more):
"Sexual activity does not cause prostate cancer, and men who ejaculate frequently may even be protecting themselves against the disease, U.S. researchers reported on Tuesday.
" 'Ejaculation frequency is not related to an increased risk. There is no adverse effect. And ... higher elevations of ejaculation appear to protect men from developing prostate cancer,' said Leitzmann, a physician and investigator at the National Cancer Institute.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4676076/
The other study cited in the Reuters article was conducted by The Cancer Council of Australia and published in the BJU:
"The protective effect is greatest while men are in their twenties: those who had ejaculated more than five times per week in their twenties, for instance, were one-third less likely to develop aggressive prostate cancer later in life."
(BJU International, vol 92, Issue 3, p 211)
With references and hyperlinks of such scientific validity as these literally filling each webpage of this site, yet you call all such "junk science". How curious, indeed.
Given your constantly demonstrated inability to either provide, recognize, or acknowledge legitimate science, it becomes quite obvious the only one here with an "agenda" to further — is you.
The only accurate point made by you here has been your twice-stated observation that more study is needed... which is precisely what this site has been proclaiming since its inception almost a decade ago.
Well, at least we can agree on that.
000399
Friday 08/12/2005 12:32:17am
jenny
I have made no claims whatever. Wild, or otherwise. I have simply pointed out the overreaching in yours. (Read my post again, what have I claimed?) My point is that despite your opinions many of these issues are not settled and need much more research.
A few of your claims:
1. We have some unidentified "agenda"
2. Pleasure is so subjective it is impossible to call anything more pleasurable than anything else (?)
3. Learning to control ejaculation is equivalent to learning speech, learning to control excretory functions, and other learned processes for intellectual/social development (??)
3. There is no proof that frequent ejaculations are healthy and our references to the contrary in studies published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and the British Journal of Urology, etc., are "junk science."
(???!!)
If you cannot recognize that pleasure is subjective, then there is little point in attempting a rational conversation with you. But here goes….
I DID indeed read your website. If YOU had read my statement you would have noticed that I assumed Kothari’s conclusion in my discussion of pleasure.
???
That, however does not address my point, which AGAIN was this:
A man who retains an erection for an extended period through several "incomplete" orgasms during sexual intercourse may subjectively view the ENTIRE sexual experience as more "pleasurable" than when he has a full and powerful ejaculatory orgasm a minute or two after intromission.
That fairly well restates our own position as was included in our response to your last entry.
In a nutshell: ejaculatory-control techniques are the closest men can get, at present, to mimicking actual multiorgasmic response. Thus, if considered by such males as more pleasurable than fully ejaculatory orgasms, more power to them.
But here's the point:
Yes... extending the sexual experience via techniques might be better on one level than not. But imagine were limitless, full orgasms possible for men (as they are for women) without needing these contraction-robbing techniques!
Or, using an analogy:
Yes... mimicking the flight of birds by riding in airplanes is nice and, in some ways, far superior to land-bound travel. But imagine were we able to freely lift off the ground with no mechanical encumbrances! To fly without the need or the limitations of a metal fuselage and oversized metal wings, without the worries and interruptions of mechanical concerns to distract us, and... most of all... to immerse ourselves fully in the ENTIRE experience of flight as we have never experienced and only birds have known!
That's what getting rid of the Refractory Period would finally provide men, sexually. It would permit them to sexually "soar" without limitations, without "mechanical" concerns or techniques to distract them, permitting them finally to fully immerse themselves in the ENTIRE experience of sex as they have never before experienced and as only multiorgasmic women have known.
Furthering this analogy: Does correctly and passionately describing what greater potentials there are somehow cast aspersions on pilots the world over or on airplane flight, in general? Of course not! We are not disparaging "airplanes" (techniques) or those who "fly" (use) them; we are attempting to provide everyone a view of something so much more sexually and emotionally fulfilling! We are championing truly limitless sexual flight!
And this is both the purpose for and the ultimate objective of the Rutgers Study and this website. And if this is what you choose to erroneously call an "agenda", then... guilty as charged.
To reduce the ENTIRE sexual experience to the strength of a few seconds of contractions is demeaning to men and women. By the way, you seem to discount women’s experience in this altogether. Kinsey concluded that "for perhaps three-quarters of all males, orgasm is reached within two minutes after the initiation of the sexual relation." (Sexual Behavior in Human Male, p.580) Most women I know think a little more male "control" might be a good thing. (Ya think?) It doesn’t mean men can’t ejaculate. Geeez. Why be so rigid?
*Smiles at last sentence... and bites tongue*
This website is all about not limiting the sexual experience, but instead ultimately freeing men to experience the limitless pleasures only known to true multiorgasmics (i.e., primarily... women). Discounting women? This website is all about honoring and attaining to women's sexual potential, which would be possible were MRP not the limitation it is.
The only thing defined as lasting only a few seconds is a single Orgasm. And that is a scientific fact. Yet for true multiorgasmics, a single orgasm is as a single bite of food; it's hardly the ENTIRE meal! Well, except for those who can only eat a single bite (orgasm) before being "full." This is exactly the situation men are currently in thanks to MRP... and, like you, most don't even know it.
Instead (and please listen carefully as we follow this analogy further), they devise ways around this one-bite (orgasm) limitation so as to pretend they are "eating" more than they are. They instead learn to play with the food (pleasure), savor its flavor, then spit it out (stop it) instead of swallowing (orgasming). Thus, the full pleasure of eating (orgasming) is denied them until the very last bite: the last bite they have teased themselves with for so long to finally enjoy, to finally swallow, thus making that single swallow as powerful as possible for them... given that it's going to be the only one they can have for awhile.
Think about that analogy... because in so many ways it is dead-on with what these ejaculatory-control techniques put men through. Yet, they are the best men can do... for now. But, oh, what they are missing!
It's like trying to explain the beauty of multiple dimensions to someone who can only experience one.
As specifically regards the definition of Orgasm: both the male and female orgasm, by scientific definition, lasts only for a "few seconds of contractions," each. What has been experienced by Humankind for millennia and further scientifically documented since the 1950s by Kinsey, Masters & Johnson, etc., is orgasm as defined by them as (I quote again, one last time):
ORGASM = "the simultaneous rhythmic contractions of the pubococcygeus muscle (pc muscle). Along with contractions of the anal sphincter, rectum and perineum... and the ejaculatory ducts and muscles around the penis for men, this constitutes the reflex of orgasm. The first few contractions are intense and close together, occurring at about 0.8-second intervals. As orgasm continues, the contractions diminish in intensity and duration and occur at less frequent intervals."
And that orgasmic process lasts "only a few seconds." However, for true multiorgasmics, those few seconds mark only the beginning of what often is, or can be, hours and hours of orgasms, thereafter.
Incidentally, though I accepted Kothari’s conclusion for the sake of argument, it is absurd and HIGHLY MISLEADING to point a "study" of one subject as settling ANY issue "scientifically." Have ever you heard of statistics? One subject????? Your citation is really anecdotal. Were ALL "control" techniques studied? Do some men have different physiological experiences than the ONE man studied by Kothari? Nothing definitive is learned about male sexuality from ONE SUBJECT.
Again with "anecdotal"...
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means..." — Inigo Montoya (apologies to "The Princess Bride")
There is nothing at all anecdotal in Kothari's study, one Subject therein notwithstanding. You really ought to look the word up sometime.
Kothari published his conclusions based on the findings of his and others' male multiorgasmic studies, which studies he references throughout his own published study. As had Kinsey, Masters & Johnson, Robbins & Jensen, and Hartmann & Fithian before him, he also observed during the study that his "multiorgasmic" male was also not actually multiorgasmic, but was also using the same ejaculatory-control techniques so as to keep from fully ejaculating and, thus, triggering MRP.
How he arrived at his conclusion that such interrupted multiple orgasms detract from orgasmic pleasure was also not anecdotal, but extrapolated from the scientific definition of Orgasm and how this definition is empirically interrupted by these ejaculatory-control techniques.
As twice outlined here, Orgasm = Contractions, which in men = Ejaculation. Therefore, stop Ejaculation and, logically, you stop Orgasm. Nothing anecdotal or illogical here.
And as Orgasm is further defined as the "climax" of sex and the apex of its pleasure, to stop the ejaculatory contractions by which Orgasm is defined, you inhibit that climax and, thus, detract from the apex of pleasure that Orgasm is. Plain and simple.
As relates to all other techniques, they all serve the same purpose, do they not? They all interrupt and stop the ejaculatory contractions that define what Orgasm is. Thus (do I really need to connect all the dots?), they impede and/or eliminate the pleasures caused by those orgasmic contractions.
More fundamentally, "pleasure" is not "somewhat" but highly subjective, i.e., beyond the realm of empirical analysis. You are making what in logic is called a "category error."
The only logical error here is your "Strawman Fallacy".
Based on the fact that pleasure is so "highly subjective" as to defy "empirical analysis" as relates to degrees of pleasure experienced, you declare my siding with Kothari as illogical. However, Kothari was not at all attempting in his study to empirically quantify levels or degrees of pleasure. And there is the false premise, the "Strawman", upon which your argument depends and by which it falls.
What Kothari empirically observed were the physiologic processes involved in orgasm and using his own education and experience with human sexual physiology to determine what effect thereon their interruption via ejaculatory-control techniques was having.
No where in this logic is any condition or factor dependent upon an empirical quantification of the sexual pleasure subjectively experienced. None is needed as such is irrelevant to the evidence and conclusions involved.
And where one man might naturally experience greater pleasure in orgasm than another, the fact still remains that if he interrupts his natural orgasmic contractions, he's going to experience less pleasure in so interrupting them than had he not. Again, plain and simple... logic. Sorry.
While not settling the issue "scientifically," a more useful study model would require a large sample of couples wherein men were trained in "control" methods and then subjects (male AND female) were asked to "subjectively" assess whether their total sexual experiences were more pleasurable with conventional ejaculation or with male "control" techniques.
Again, this would NOT be a scientific study. But it might provide useful information with which an individual might make a personal decision.
Actually, no it would not. And for the very reason you first gave and have now apparently abandoned: there is no way to quantify the levels of pleasure experienced and compare them between participating individuals such as might offer any meaningful or otherwise useful information. Any opinions regarding the pleasures experienced by any within such a group would truly be, by definition (listen carefully here): anecdotal.
With respect what "natural" vs. "unnatural." My point is simply that to use "unnatural" as a pejorative and "natural" as an approbation has nothing whatever to do science. More fundamentally, to dismiss the range of human of experience that results from learning as "unnatural" or "demeaning" is to reduce the human being to an inarticulate and helpless idiot.
We never used the term "unnatural" as pejorative. We did, however, accurately use the term, as relates to Orgasm, as referencing techniques that interfere with and/or impede the natural ejaculatory contractions defined as those providing Orgasm's primary pleasures.
Your agenda in pumping a "scientific" study of ONE man whacking off to a porn video seems to be secure funding for a drug to eliminate or ameliorate MRP.
Sounds "natural" to me. (NOT)
Now... there's an example of "pejorative" in action.
Don't you find it a bit hypocritical to propose studies requiring that couples have sex, yet defame a study for requiring someone to merely view videos of... couples having sex?
The full quote from Clive M. Davis which I cited in my previous post:
"You can always find anecdotal reports to support any position you want to take, but you certainly couldn’t support either side medically."
Sounds wise to me.
Yes... and not playing leapfrog with unicorns sounds wise, too, and just as non sequitur.
As I expected, the Clive Davis quote has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether ejaculation is or is not healthy, as you claimed it did. Instead, Clive cautions that we not take someone's claimed personal experience/knowledge (i.e., anecdote) as fact. How fully apropos where you are concerned, as this more complete quote reveals (though its citation is still absent).
This is precisely what makes your claims anecdotal: you provide only yourself as reference source (the exceptions being two incompletely cited quotes, both of which were not germane to the position they were claimed to support). In stark contrast, this website backs up each of its positions (as I have also here) with fully cited and (usually) hyperlinked references from highly recognized scientific sources.
But then, your whole website is based on one anecdotal report.
*smiles and shakes head in amazement*
"Say goodnight, Gracie."
000400
Sunday 08/14/2005 12:34:02am
jenny
"Pleasure is so subjective it is impossible to call anything more pleasurable than anything else"
That is absurd and not what I said. Be honest. Why distort?
What I said is this: Being highly subjective, human pleasure cannot be reduced to empirical measure.
Disagree if you want but don’t distort what I said.
There was no distortion. You erroneously criticized Kothari for "empirically analyzing" pleasure, which he did not. When I stated that while subjective, pleasure still contains aspects common to all, just as does taste and smell, you strongly disagreed: "If you cannot recognize that pleasure is subjective, then there is little point in attempting a rational conversation with you."
This my final post. So I simply say that you seem to want to claim the mantle of scientific authority without submitting yourself to its rigors or its intellectual honesty.
I make no claim to any such mantle of authority and never have. All I have done is quote and cite from those deservedly possessing same.
Today, SCIENCE can say:
"There is some evidence to suggest that frequent ejaculation (especially for men in their 20s) may be correlated with a reduction in the later onset of prostrate cancer.
That is VALID statement supported by evidence.
Why go beyond this?
I went beyond this because the evidence does!
Frequent ejaculations were not shown to be important deterrents to prostate cancer just for those in their 20's, but for those from ages 20-50 (the years in which men are most at risk of contracting and dying from prostate cancer).
You deliberately limit your quotes to a few words and ignore the rest. You have done this throughout your posts here. And when we dare to provide the entire picture, you scream "overreaching."
Here are the additional quotes from that article you deliberately chose to ignore:
Once a Day Keeps Prostate Cancer Away?
Study: Frequent ejaculations may protect against disease
"... men who ejaculate frequently may even be protecting themselves against the disease, U.S. researchers reported on Tuesday."
" '...higher elevations of ejaculation appear to protect men from developing prostate cancer,' said Leitzmann, a physician and investigator at the National Cancer Institute."
"The earlier Australian study published in July 2003 by the Cancer Council Victoria found that the more often men ejaculated between the ages of 20 and 50, the less likely they were to suffer from prostate cancer.
“ 'The more you flush the ducts out, the less there is to hang around and damage the cells that line them,' Graham Giles, lead author of the earlier study said at the time."
When you move from this to the sweeping and definitive frequent "ejaculations are healthy." You are overreaching and making the kind error that you claim to object to with the "Taoists." You have rightly pointed out that the Taoist theory that frequent ejaculations are "unhealthy" is unsubstantiated and, thus, constitutes a mere belief. This I applaud.
Let's step back and look at this. You now agree that the Taoists are wrong in stating that ejaculation is unhealthy and further agree that evidence exists, not from "junk science" (as you earlier claimed), but from "SCIENCE" that you now consider as "VALID" and "supported by evidence" that frequent ejaculation may very well protect against prostate cancer.
I guess that's vindication enough for the views and evidences expressed at this site. ;)
However, the Galenist theory that frequent ejaculations are "healthy" is ALSO a mere belief that is today unsubstantiated. (The findings on prostrate cancer support Galen’s theory. But, in themselves, do not settle to issue.)
Actually, both Galen and Avicenna — two of the most preternaturally intuitive medical minds of the Middle Ages — considered regular ejaculation to be essential to good sexual health in males. However, it is you who bring Galen up, not I nor this website. We have been content to use far more contemporary studies and opinions from modern-day scientists.
As for settling the issue: if, as you now concede, ejaculations are not unhealthy and as you also now agree that three separate studies do provide strong evidence that frequent ejaculations protect against prostate cancer, then... what, besides simple stubbornness, still has you unwilling to concede that ejaculations are pretty damned healthy?
TO OVERSTATED EVIDENCE IS TO LOSE CREDIBILITY.
Ummm... We'll keep that in mind. (?!)
Re: Kothari I know of no other field of scientific inquiry in which the study of a SINGLE SUBJECT would be considered to have answered any question definitely.
Here we go again.
Kothari based his conclusions not only on his own study but those of all others conducted. All previous studies on male multiorgasmic response, with the highly notable exception of this one, have documented males using ejaculatory-control techniques.
Moreover, appeals to "authority" have nothing to do with science. The fact the "most famous," "well-respected," or "leading" sexologist in India studied ONE person does not change the fact that he studied ONE person. His work may be interesting, I think it is. But it answers nothing DEFINITELY. His findings would have to replicated by many other scientists with many more subjects before they could be presented as scientific fact.
Surely, you MUST know this. It is MISLEADING to then present this to lay people as a settled issue.
Do NOT fall victim to the same errors you decry in others. State the facts honestly and distinguish them from your opinions OR give up the pretense of science.
Good Luck
As always, you chide us on the errors in reason only you have evidenced.
All good scientists stand on the shoulders of previous scientists. Kothari was no exception. As I have stated before, his conclusions were formulated based on the collective findings and data of all previous studies in addition to his own.
Had Kothari attempted to re-define orgasm contrary to the definition already established by his peers (Masters & Johnson, etc.), I would agree with you. However, he did not.
The only ones attempting to re-define orgasm are those, like you, championing ejaculatory-control techniques. They deny completely that the ejaculatory contractions having anything to do with orgasm while actual sex research has unequivocably identified them as "...the most characteristic physical feature of orgasm..."
Kothari correctly and logically reasoned that if these techniques stop the contractions by which Orgasm is defined, then — by definition — these techniques stop Orgasm. That conclusion follows the collective evidence from all studies on ejaculatory-control techniques. Whereas you and those like you preaching the religion of the beautific splendor of such techniques must denounce, decry, and ignore the scientific evidence you prefer to call "junk science."
And finally, while you slam Kothari for his one study (though he cited the evidences from all studies in his published conclusions), yet there is not so much as a single scientifically conducted study that agrees with your position that orgasm occurs independent of the orgasmic contractions already defined by legit science as the "most characteristic physical feature of orgasm."
As proved in this thread, the only "junk science" in evidence has been those supporting as superior the pseudo-"orgasms" made possible through ejaculatory-control techniques.
And yet... until MRP is permitted to be studied and have its secrets revealed, this is all men will ever be able to aspire to.
000401
Monday 08/15/2005 2:41:56pm
Justin Brewer
o0g9@msn.com
!Aaah! Gender-Neutral Multiple Orgasms
http://www.multiples.com/
Claxton, Georgia, USA
(R.I.P. January 15 1995 — August 15 2005) Sorry, Rutgers.
While at first tempted to delete this latest shameless plug from Jack Johnston (under the pseudonym of "Justin", this time), I'm going to permit this one so that you might all see what someone with a real agenda sounds like.
At last, I can show you a multiple orgasms program for women and men alike that excels anything on the face of the Earth. Exactly ten and a half years later, plus exactly one month, almost nobody has given this Rutgers website any acknowledgement. After 10 years and 7 months, it's time to lay this to rest.
This study, this website, and/or its male Subject have been prominently featured in Playboy, Playgirl, Penthouse, Psychology Today, Maxim, the 13th World Congress of Sexology, the UK television mini-series "The Unofficial World Records of Sex", and soon (this fall) in the upcoming new UK television mini-series entitled the "Science of Sex", to name only a few.
For your part, Jack, I don't recall seeing you or your "program" featured anywhere by anyone... ever. By your own logic then, as "almost nobody has given (your program) any acknowledgement" after a decade online, it is you and not us who ought to "lay this to rest."
I'm not against Rutgers or the research it provides, but I'll explain how we wouldn't get anywhere even if we eliminate MRP, and why this program will eradicate the need for this research. Let me start off by saying that I do not have any apprehensions of anybody being who they are, regardless of gender. Therefore, I must by my nature, condone male/female sexuality in all its glory.
Wow! Your program negates the need for scientific research? Scarily reminiscent of what the Catholic Church told Galileo before locking him up. They, too, felt they had all the answers, that scientific research was unnecessary, and that the rest of us should just shut up and do as they say... for a price, of course.
Oh... and how magnanimous of you to feel you "must" "condone" male and female sexuality. We are all breathing easier now.
Because of the PRESENT nature of men and MRP (which can be easily corrected now), I find that I inexorably function better socially and emotionally around women. Anyway, I'm going to keep this brief, but I'll make sure to leave nothing out as this will be my only post.
I am, unlike almost all men throughout the annals of history, NOT your typical male. Touché, I have MRP and all of its effects, but I've found a way to bypass the MRP effect altogether.
Then you are exactly like all other MRP-limited men. All you have done, Jack, is to come up with a variation on the same ejaculatory-control techniques men have been using for over 4,000 years.
I came across Jack Johnston's Male Multiple Orgasms, which ironically work for women, too. This program was discovered in 1992, but he didn't reveal it to anybody else until the middle of January 1995. (how ironic)
No... not "ironic"; just coincidental... assuming it's even true, which, given the many false claims that follow in this post, is highly doubtful.
Meh, I'll just come out with it. Despite what http://www.multiorgasmic.com/truth.htm says about male multiorgasmic response, men can now have multiple orgasms.
I was attracted to this program because of the simple statement at the top of his website was "No herbal supplements, special devices, familiarity with tantra or EJACULATION BLOCKING required." I couldn't believe that, so I just HAD to finish reading it.
What is doubly ironic is that you can enter the words "Multiple Orgasms" on a number of search engines and Jack Johnston's premiere website will be the very first one you see.
When Jack claims that with his program there is no "EJACULATION BLOCKING required", he's not exactly telling the truth. What he is exactly doing... is lying.
Jack's program is all about blocking ejaculation... as he himself admits in this very post only a few paragraphs from here.
And no, Jack,... that's not "ironic", doubly or otherwise. Anyone have a dictionary to lend this guy? Anyone?
But what is truly attractive about this website is that women cannot have orgasms this great unless they were to employ this program in their sexual activity.
Really now! Contrary to all the scientific studies on women's multiorgasmic response by sexologists (e.g., Kinsey, Masters & Johnson), the "Hite Report," and the myriad of articles and books by women on the subject, you claim that without your program, women "cannot have orgasms this great"?
I can't wait to have you give us any proof of this. Any shred of evidence for this monumental claim would be greatly appreciated.
If you need convincing, here you are.
I'm all goose-pimply!
Jack Johnston has found a way to eliminate the need for stimulation altogether. As his argument advances, ejaculation is primarily the result of stimulation; orgasm is primarily the result of arousal. And as we all know, women have a problem to contend with before reaching multiple orgasms — extended stimulation, even if they are in the mood for sexual intimacy. Some women can "think" their way to orgasms. Well, that's great for those women, but the rest who need stimulation have the door shut in their faces.
That's it? The solution is no-stimulation, non-ejaculatory orgasms?!
Brief, my foot. I'll let you read the website. Finding this link in a search engine is easier than multiplying 12 X 12, but people who do not have the internet can almost never hope to find this luxury. This link here, http://www.my-penis.org/multiples.html corroborates Rutger's explanation that the orgasmic experience in men and women have indistinguishable traits in their orgasm.
Our website corroborates nothing at Jack's site given that Jack does not consider valid or important the very involuntary orgasmic contractions both sexes share and that in men cause ejaculation.
Jack knows full well the only way he can hope to sell his "multiorgasmic" wares is by twisting the definition of Orgasm to mean "...without ejaculation," whose highly pleasurable contractions Science has long established as Orgasm's "most characteristic physical feature."
Jack's program, like all the rest, teach men to avoid Orgasm's "most characteristic" quality and its attendant pleasures, and this they call being multiorgasmic(?!). Of course, as this abortive method of experiencing orgasm is by definition not natural, one must learn to do that which is unnatural. Hence the need to buy his audiotapes, etc., to learn what his definition of "orgasm" is and how to do it his way... for a price, of course.
At the end of all this post, I'll give you all the unvarnished Truth of what it is that Jack is claiming as his own. I'll strip to its core what Jack teaches so that you can do it, too. And unlike Jack, here, I'll do it for free.
It is hard to believe, but I insist that you read this website at least once, along with my original website.
"MY original website"?
What "original website" might you be referring to here, Jack? I thought you were just a customer. By your own words you reveal the lie that you are not a customer, at all. You are Jack Johnston, and are "insisting" that we read not only the page given you at www.my-penis.org , but also follow the many links from that webpage back to your "original website" at www.multiples.com.
Understand that it's not my intent to undermine Rutger's research, despite the title of this post. But even if we succeed in abolishing MRP, males will still have to settle for the typically limited orgasm that females on the whole enjoy 5 times longer than most males. It will not stop the sexual aging all men experience, and which robs them of erotic sensations by their '60s, unless double doses of male enhancement are employed. It would take the Research Subject at least a hundred orgasms, in his steady aging, to equate even one female orgasm of the same age, or even older. And even if he had the erroneously termed "premature ejaculation", it would take him 2 hours or longer to equal just a few female orgasms. I have no doubt in my mind that MRP would be relatively easy to eliminate, and that the results would be far reaching for those men not on the internet. But I think this program I suggest should be propagated for another reason.
For one who knows nothing about true multiple orgasms, who has never experienced them himself, nor has ever met the Research Subject and knows nothing of his regular multiorgasmic capacity, you sure shoot your mouth off a lot.
I don't suppose you'll be inclined to provide any evidences for these so-forcefully declared conclusions... will you?
No... I didn't think so.
Even if you still don't agree with me, this program will do a good job of eliminating the desire to rape, abuse, vilify women, or otherwise. The ultimate motivation behind rape is to have a more exciting ejaculation. Abuse, to relieve his own limitations, sexual and otherwise. And vilification, to make himself feel superior. Women rape too, but usually, they have to be pushed a little farther to reach this breaking point. This program will give men and women an eternal reason not to abuse, embarrass, or belittle the other to relieve themselves. While women should have the free speech to bash at the expense of men, and while it feels good to get back at the men whose past generations scorned them, this will not create balance and harmony between the genders. This will.
I can't begin to ennumerate the problems with Jack's shockingly untrue and irresponsible theories, here. Jack's megalomania actually has him declaring his program the cure for sexual predation, worldwide!
There are differences between the genders, but I believe this is the major one. It is now possible to make the other differences irrelevant to the point that the remaining differences can complement each other and combine for the harmony of all. I still maintain that men and women getting along with each other is the best way to make peace rather than make, however justified or unjustified, remarks which make one gender feel bad and the other feel better because of it. I fully agree with the majority of what Rutgers showcases at their website and do not intend to go against that which I agree with.
This program is a little older than this research, but as I said, neither of them prevailed until about the same time.
This research predates your website by almost two years and was also professionally presented at the 1995 SSSS Annual Meeting before the world's top sex researchers.
Your domain name was not even registered until October of 1996.
And as for your claimed theory re: the "major" difference "between the genders," what you disingenuously attempt here is the blatant hijacking of our own theory, pre-dating yours by years, that MRP is the major physiological and emotional difference between the sexes, that men's emotional response to women is largely founded upon their mono-orgasmic sexual response to them. Hence, their stereotypical "wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am" sexuality resulting in their emotional "love-'em-and-leave-'em attitudes.
This program will allow both genders to enjoy these arousal-only, stimulation-free (depends on the situation, but usually minimal stimulation is required) orgasms...
"Stimulation-free" "arousal-only" (i.e., non-ejaculatory)... orgasms? You can sit there with a straight face and call these abortive experiences "orgasms"?
You know, I'm waiting for the day when some shameless entrepreneur succeeds in convincing men that sneezing is the same as orgasming... and becomes filthy rich selling pepper as a "multiorgasmic" aid.
...as many as you want for as long as you want, regardless of age or gender, into your eighties and beyond (which women's clitori and vaginas lose elasticity and therefore, erotic sexual stimulation.)
Unfortunately for Jack, scientific study has clearly and indisputably revealed that women tend to become more orgasmic with age, not less.
Jack Johnston also theorizes that men used to have multiple orgasms, that men USED to know how to do this, but the men who could only have one conquered the race of men who could have infinite numbers. (Heh, this is proof that the disadvantaged can truly defeat the advantaged, so slight credit to mono-orgasmic males.) Thus, it became a lost art, along with proper mummification.
Here Jack blatantly attempts to claim as his own the historical research we first discovered, investigated, and reported at this website two years ago:
The Sumerian Sacred Marriage -
For more than 2000 years in ancient Sumer, the female priestess representing the Goddess Inanna literally had sex with the King-to-be in a lavish public ceremony. Only if he succeeded in orgasming 50 times with her was he considered her sexual and emotional equal and, thus, able to more equitably rule both men and women. Only after proving his multiorgasmic capacity by ejaculating at least 50 times with her would she choose him as the new King. That's right... in ancient Sumer it was a woman, a priestess, who chose and coronated Sumer's kings after first sexually testing and trying him for hours on end.
Those were real orgasms, Jack. Each of them filled to the brim with sexual stimulation and with full ejaculation each and every time, thus proving that all 50 orgasms had occurred. Not your "think-your-way-to-non-ejaculatory-orgasm" psycho-babble.
And yes... the ancient Sumerians were eventually conquered, first by the Assyrians and later by the Babylonians. Thereafter, all accounts of male multiorgasmic capacity cease along with the lovely "Sacred Marriage" ceremony and the sexual and secular equality enjoyed by both sexes. In its place, men dominated by force and women were coerced into "sacred prostitution" and ever since made the perpetual victims of mistreatment, vilification, abuse, and slaughter (e.g., 250 years of "The Burning Times" in Europe) by small-minded, perennially insecure, mono-orgasmic males.
I'm glad because if I had to choose to bring back one of these lost arts, it would be the capacity for orgasms on this level.
Then why disparage or trivialize the elimination of MRP?
Oh... that's right: to tell the truth doesn't earn you any money.
Jack Johnston, incidentally, has come up with a different program called Reverse Speech something-or-other, which allows you to detect lies and find out what people are really saying. But you can find the link for that one yourself, because I can't remember.
Now Jack is laying claim to a common police interrogation technique. Next he'll be claiming to have invented the Internet, too!
Oh, wait... Al Gore beat him to it. ;)
I had my last purely masturbation-to-ejaculation experience today, and never intend to have them alone ever again.
Really now! No more "masturbation-to-ejaculation" — after today? Why today, Jack? Why not since last week, last year, or last decade?
If your "system" provides so much more pleasure than Nature's own optimal way of orgasming, why are you only now promising to swear off "masturbation-to-ejaculation"?
The truth unwittingly revealed: you haven't sworn off masturbation-to-ejaculation because you know full, natural orgasm provides the greatest pleasures possible, but admitting that doesn't provide you with an income or the fame and glory you crave.
Here's another benefit, by the way: when a man has an ejaculation after having his fill of orgasms, the pleasure therein experienced is described as "so pleasurable that you feel like you're having a heart attack". So I guess ejaculation can't be truly vilified. And how could I? It's necessary for procreation.
Technically, your argument is right. You can have an extensive amount of pleasure without ejaculation, but ejaculation make better orgasms!
And there it is, the Truth: "...ejaculation make (sic) better orgasms."
I am amazed Jack actually admits this. This is the only statement by Jack here that is 100% true and unvarnished. If only he could leave it at that.
But, no...
But I sincerely believe that you do not need either ejaculation (or even stimulation once you're skilled enough in this program) to enjoy orgasm to your heart's content. Jack Johnston has patented all sorts of key words including "key sound multiple orgasms" or KSMO, "male multiple orgasms" or MMO, and the proverbial "heartgasm".
And there it is... the lie fully revealed: Jack's program has men blocking ejaculation. And Jack takes this one step further by attempting to have appear superfluous any sexual stimulation whatsoever. No stimulation, no ejaculation... hell, sign me up! Where do I pay?!
And thus, Jack's program is now revealed for what it is: taking Nature's optimal pleasures and mucking them up with pseudo-scientific psycho-babble and packaging it up and selling it as better than the real thing.
And sorry, Jack, but you did not and could not have had trademarked (patents don't apply here) the term "male multiple orgasm." That term has been around at least since Kinsey.
And, as I mentioned above, the correct term for documenting and protecting intellectual properties (e.g., words) is either via a "trademark" or a "copyright." Patents are not granted for words.
Isn't it yet again, ironic how "male multiple orgasms" can claim to be invented by this man, and have done so?
Yet again... no... this is not an example of irony. Megalomania, perhaps, but not irony. (Isn't it ironic that a man claiming to possess an MA should be so ignorant re: the definition of the word: ironic?)
(The degree of shameless narcissism exhibited throughout this post is frankly frightening.)
I'm afraid that the age of invention is over, with all these gadgets and modifications of inventions. You could call this a modification, since sexuality has been around since the beginning of time. But this kind of ultra-high level of arousal which brings on the multiple orgasms is so unique and distinct that I'm tempted to call it an invention.
Wow! Jack now declares the "age of invention" officially over. He has "invented" male multiple orgasm, thus time to shut down the US Patent Office and tell everyone to go home and buy his tapes, instead.
While I'm sure, Jack, that you would like to call your "system" the ultimate invention, the fact is that (despite your "trademarked" terminology), these techniques have been around since the Dawn of recorded history. The ancient Chinese have you beat by over 4,000 years.
Package it however you like, the bottom line is that you are using ejaculatory-control techniques so as to enjoy some sexual pleasures without going over into ejaculation and actual clinical orgasm until the very end.
Again, brief my foot. And again, check out http://www.my-penis.org/multiples.html for it is truly great. It shows that pretty much the arousal and orgasmic pathways are the same in men and women, because they develop in the fetus from indistinguishable embryonic tissue. So there's total evidence that men and women experience orgasm the same way. This program shows that the experience is equally shared. This program's steps to achieving orgasm have nothing to do with genitalia, so it can be learned by both genders. I'm sure something I've said here will be vilified later on. One more thing. These orgasms open erotic channels in men that for the past 4000 years have remained dormant. On top of that, they STAY open. So even if men and women were to reach their respective and natural climaxes during this period of arousal (ejaculation for the male climax) men would experience just a few more contractions, because MRP is not activated AT ALL from when you start OR when you finish, many hours later.
Well of course MRP isn't activated; you haven't ejaculated! That is until, as you earlier admitted and now deny, you fully ejaculate at the end. And then, MRP is activated... despite your glorious program.
The fact that these channels remain open, as they do in women, proves that this experience invented by Jack Johnston, nobody only provides an equal experience, but the medium in which the level of the highest emotional and the erotic can be achieved. As Rutgers also said, this was once the single greatest disparity forever separating the sexes. But now, this is the TRULY greatest experience ever attainable in the mortal sphere, which have only until now, been experienced by lesbians.
Okay... first off... just lemme get out of the way before any lesbians out there start seriously bitch-slapping this guy.
Gee, Jack, I didn't know being a lesbian required first that they learn your "patented" system. If, as you earlier claimed, women can't experience optimal orgasm except by your program, and if now you claim that only lesbians do, then you either believe all lesbians have bought your tapes...
... or you are here admitting that women's natural multiple orgasms provide the greatest pleasures possible, naturally available to them without a Male Refractory Period (MRP), and that they do not need your program because of that simple physiological fact. And, thus, were research to also eradicate MRP for men, then both sexes would be able to optimally enjoy each other, sexually and emotionally.
So... which is it, Jack?
See? MRP research provides the answer... not your audio tapes that teach men to avoid the very pleasures you, yourself, admit you have not been able to sacrifice, either.
Dr. Drew Pinski once said that men, despite their short-lived orgasms, have more intense ones because there's more than orgasmic contractions going on, also including ejaculatory contractions, and seminal fluid pumping through. I'm not sure if this is true, so don't take it too seriously.
While Dr. Drew is not in the position to judge between the intensity of male vs. female orgasms, yet the rest of his comments would argue strongly — yet again — for ejaculatory orgasms as being far more intense than non-ejaculatory ones. Kinda shoots your theory even more full of holes than before.
However, where female orgasms are concerned, the documented physical reactions alone of women in multiorgasmic bliss (as described in some detail just a few guestbook entries ago here by a husband of a truly multiorgasmic wife) gives only a hint of just how overwhelmingly intense female multiple orgasms are. And I've never heard of a man being so overcome by orgasmic pleasure as to be rendered unconscious. Yet such accounts of orgasmic unconsciousness in extremely multiorgasmic women are not uncommon.
He answered a fan letter on his official website http://www.drdrew.com/ . Nobody has ever been both genders so in my opinion, we'll never know this for sure.
True... with the possible exception of the man in our research.
No... this is not a light claim. If, as Jack even admits, the only distinguishable difference between men's and women's orgasms is MRP, then a male capable of true multiorgasmic sex without MRP is experiencing orgasms and all its attendante pleasures as also would a woman. A rather sobering thought re: the potentials for male (and thus also for female) sexuality were men able to be rid of MRP and, thus, be sexually and emotionally equal with women for the first time in over 5,000 years.
But I wouldn't be surprised if it were. Anyway, don't take that as a degradation of a woman's experience, because that would never be my intention. Just like women have the advantage of extra pleasure, men enjoy the "advantage" of ejaculating just so they can fall asleep. Although women have more advantages in number, I am only reporting, not vilifying.
The never-ending pleasures of women's orgasms are compensated for in men by ejaculation because... it helps men sleep? Is that your argument? That ejaculation is a good thing only so far as it makes for a really good sleeping "pill"?
Really confused here.
This has gone on for entirely too long, so I'll sign off. Again, that's
http://www.drdrew.com/
http://www.my-penis.org/multiples.html and
http://www.multiples.com/
I am truly happy because I know of this program, it has changed my life. I have just as many feminine characteristics as I have masculine ones, so I'm not ashamed to show off this nice little balance.
I think throughout this post your all-too-male ego has been prominently peeking out from under your skirt. ;)
I plan on passing this program through my children and to the world, until this gender gap is a thing of the past.
Yeah... until the cops find out what you're teaching your kids.
For me, it already is. I am not condemning Rutger research, because, to invoke a cliché, "SOMEBODY had to say it". But this is the only program in the world that gives men AND women multiple orgasms in compliance with this website.
Your program doesn't give multiple orgasms to either sex, and is not at all in "compliance" with the scientifically proven information found at this website or anywhere else.
Women can still reach this kind of euphoria after a few hours, but this program will not only propel women to this point quickly, but men too. For me, there is no difference between me and my female friends. One day, this will be true about my male friends. You're welcome, Rutgers. ENJOY!
No difference between you and females? Given that you do not allow yourself the natural orgasms women do... how is this possible?
PS: Remember that I am just a quoter and customer of Jack Johnston's Male Multiple Orgasms, not an expert.
Oh, but of course, you're just a lowly customer, right... Jack?
I do not wish to be phoned, visited, or otherwise about this program because I don't feel qualified to give you ALL of the facts. But I welcome comments by email. If you want the facts, consult those websites I gave you. Jack also has a link on his page where you can see how he discovered this program, not to mention almost 1000 testimonials that back him up. Most of these people are available by phone. Jack even has his own phone number listed so that you may consult him directly. Multiples.com will almost certainly find a way to convince you.
Does this guy ever STOP with the self-aggrandizement and shameless self-promotion?
"Finding this link in a search engine is easier than multiplying 12 X 12, but people who do not have the internet can almost never hope to find this luxury." I said this earlier.
I didn't mean to keep you in suspense... but 12 X 12 is 144.
Uh... yeah. Thanx for that.
Okay... is he finally done? I think so! *Whew!*
As promised, here is the unvarnished truth packaged and re-packaged by all these "multiorgasmic" snake-oil salesmen out there. And provided for you free of charge, right here:
What Jack is describing, stripped of all the psycho-babble, the "key sounds," and all the rest of the quackery, are the pleasurable pre-orgasmic waves that anyone, man or woman, can enjoy for as long as they might like during the "Plateau" phase of sexual arousal prior to orgasm. Masters & Johnson, who for more than a decade minutely detailed literally tens of thousands of male and female orgasms, developed a model for what they called the "Sexual Response Cycle" that maps out the various phases that men and women go through in building to, experiencing, and recovering from an actual Orgasm. The 4 key phases of Orgasm are ("Desire" [libido] is given as a fifth phase, however this is not a true physiological phase, per se):
1. Excitement (i.e., the sexual stimulation that Jack considers unimportant)
2. Plateau (here's where these "multiorgasmic" techniques are used)
3. Orgasm (which in both sexes cause highly pleasurable contractions, resulting in ejaculation for men)
4. Resolution (which in men is defined as the Male Refractory Period)
What Jack is describing is learning to prolong the "Plateau" phase, the high arousal state preceding orgasm/ejaculation, by repeatedly approaching then backing away from the point or threshold of "Ejaculatory Inevitability," as it is scientifically called. This technique has been given many terms including "Riding the Waves" (also the title of the Playgirl article on male multiple orgasm in which our male Research Subject is referenced as the only known exception of male multiorgasmic response without need of using this technique).
Now, however exactly Jack has chosen to interject his "key sounds" and his "multiple orgasm trigger" and all the rest of his marketing machine's gobbledy-gook is Jack's business (literally). However as neither Jack nor anyone else can "bypass" human physiology or our Sexual Response Cycle, this is all Jack and all the rest of them are teaching. Nothing more.
000402
Sunday 08/21/2005 1:28:21pm
Theo B
viralentity@yahoo.com
Calgary, Canada
Wow, a lot of "arguments" since I last logged an entry. What ever happened to the time where people like myself came here and claimed ourselves to be multiorgasmic, heh. The entry preceding mine floored me. I almost was removed from my university library for laughing so loud. Would like to point out that although your comments regarding Jack were hilarious, the fact that his entire post follows almost no logical route, and consistently steals and/or fabricates huge amounts of "theory" and "evidence" shows that he has no real clue what he is talking about. It's always a blast coming back and reading entries, but we definitely need some more men claiming they have MMO ability. Having MMO might sound great, and I guess it is......(understatement), but it really isn't so great unless you have someone to share it with. Whether you have 1 ejaculation or 10 the fact still remains, sex with a partner is far better than with ones own hand. Part of my ability, I feel anyways, stems not just from physical stimulation but from the emotional attachment to the one I love. I have far less orgasms whilst alone than I do when I'm with someone. I hope that makes sense. Damn I need a girlfriend, heh, anyways, great reading/posting again, always fun. Stay positive, someone will do the research someday and life will improve. Hmmm, I feel like captain obvious.
Thanx, Theo. Ya made my day. hehehe
000403
Sunday 08/21/2005 7:17:53pm
J.B.
Such hostility from the subject!
You wrote (or berated me while writing): "you are fully aware of the sexual limitations forced upon males by the Male Refractory Period. You are equally aware that females (e.g., your wife) are not likewise sexually limited. Hence, the source of your sensitivity to this: male sexual insecurity, frustration, anxiety, — and (subconscious, perhaps) resentment. And it is this underlying resentment of women's naturally unlimited sensual potential that forms the deepest darkest motivation behind men's history of abuse of women and repression of their gender and their sexuality.
This is the real reason why women have always been seen by men as "a danger" whose sexuality must be "contained" and controlled. And, hence also, the love/lust-hate emotions men have for women fueling all the abuse women endure and will continue to endure until the Male Refractory Period is finally researched and eliminated, for the inestimable benefit of both sexes."
I'm glad you can read what lies behind any mention of "sensitivity" in my previous posts.
FIRST, we AGREE that MRP may be an important cause of resentment against women. Most of us just accept it (just as we must accept our lower life spans).
SECOND, on the men-are-the-root-of-all-evil, I'd suggest a corrective(s): Warren Farrell's Myth of Male Power or Why Men are the Way They Are. Farrell is sympathetic to the disadvantages (and advantages) both women and men suffer under. For example, he opens with talk of Mike Tyson's rape and the frequent discussion of rape in the media, while their are unsung heroes — mostly men, since they still take 98% of "highly dangerous" jobs (firefighters, etc.). Why is a man's life, in certain contexts, currently worth less than a woman's? There are evolutionary reasons, I would argue (yes, I'm influenced by sociobiology and apparently you are too). Men are expendable — the only "sexual" advantage we have over women is our reproductive potential to propagate. Wipe a few million of us out with a war, and the remaining men can make up the slack (sperm are cheap, ova are not). In just situations, one would suspect that women become more promiscuous and the laws against them are not enforced — indeed, history (Western and nonWestern) seems to bear that out.
To reiterate, I AGREE with your general principle that MRP causes men to be sensitive about the issue — WE BETTER BE for all our sake's. However, I only visit this site (as a friendly observer, really) infrequently because your tone is always dismissive or hostile. That's my perception.
"Yes, I suffer from MRP and I don't want to take it anymore!" Gotta think of slogans to get the acronym MRP out there. But, everything that is natural, is good, our pop media give that impression anyway. I say:
"Bah, humbug."
If I seemed hostile, I apologize. No, I don't suffer fools gladly (no... not saying you're a fool) as I expect them to do their homework if they are going to make statements of fact, just as I try to do in return. If there are those who, as a result of having their opinions rebutted with facts, take offense I hardly feel any obligation to apologize.
As you have apparently forgotten, I praised you highly following the first of your recent entries here (Saturday, 08/06/2005 11:27:50am). I praised your attitude and maturity repeatedly (go take another look at my reply). Then in your very next entry, you surprised me by suddenly criticizing women because some of them bad-mouth men and make them feel bad about their equipment or performance. While certainly not admirable behavior, yet this still pales in comparison to the real horrors of abuse women suffer worldwide at the hands of men. And after pointing this out, you became even more adamant that men no longer abuse women in the West and that, instead, it is women who have become abusers, verbally at least. I then challenged this view and proceeded to provide you (as I usually try to do) with the facts to the contrary.
This is not me being dismissive, much less hostile, towards you. This is simply telling it like it is. I'm sorry if you disagree.
No... I'm not pretending that women are innocent angels or that men are inherently evil. What I am saying is that when men have historically vilified women either religiously or secularly, it almost always can be traced back to male jealousy of a woman's natural unlimited sexuality.
And I think we can at least agree on that.
000404
Thursday 08/25/2005 10:47:35am
Joe Farrell
captainfarrell@verizon.net
Massachusetts
Wish there was more research on this. Will there ever be any more research?
OH, BTW, Jack Johnston is a ****ing FRAUD.
The only way research is ever going to get done is for the Public to demand that Science finally research MRP. Only when the Public outcry is great enough will these researchers be forced to stop treating MRP like some sort of inviolable Law of Nature. Only then will this universal male sexual limitation receive the scientific scrutiny it has so inexplicably and inexcusably never received... ever!
And only then will the rug finally be pulled out from under all these self-styled "multiorgasmic" gurus, and the likes of Jack Johnston finally be put out to pasture, for good.
000405
Sunday 10/09/2005 12:58:04am
Steve Delaney
chubbtm5@yahoo.com
Green Bay
Very interesting! I have learned about prolonging sexual pleasure from reading the Mantak Chia book "The Multi-Orgasmic Male". I experience great pleasure but it would be great if it were possible to achieve orgasms with ejaculation. Keep up the research!
000406
Thursday 10/20/2005 3:43:25am
Benjamin tribe was not lost. Benjamin and Judah tribes divide the majority of today's Jews.
You are absolutely correct... and we have never stated or implied otherwise.
As stated at our rephaim.htm webpage, Jesus' disciples (apostles) were all Galileans, which meant they were also Benjamites (of the Tribe of Benjamin), with the solitary and notable exception of Judas Iscariot. As we also included, even Paul stated in his epistle to the Romans (Romans 11:1) that he, too, was of the Tribe of Benjamin. Thus, obviously, Benjamin's descendants have survived... even despite the massacre against them recorded in Judges 19-24 in which only about 600 males remained alive.
What our website does controversially theorize is that Benjamin might not have been the literal son of Jacob, but instead a son of the angel with whom Jacob wrestled that solitary night during which Jacob inexplicably chose to (or more likely was commanded to by the "angel" with whom he met) sleep far apart from his wives and family. Although Jacob mistook the angel for God, Himself, — hence the name by which he thereafter called himself: YSRAEL (He who Contends with God) — yet so apparently shocking to Jacob was what the angel told him that he was driven to physically contend with the Being he thought to be the Almighty, Himself! The Bible, for its part, offers no explanation either for the angelic visit, itself, or for the physical confrontation that followed. This is the only angelic visitation ever recorded for which no purpose is given and is also the only one that resulted in a physical confrontation between man and angel.
While purely speculative in nature, yet there is additional circumstantial evidence to suggest that that might have been the night when Benjamin was conceived (and not by Jacob), thus prompting Jacob's anger. That evidence is also found at the above-cited webpage.
000407
Thursday 10/27/2005 6:14:22pm
Donny
luv2ride2@earthlink.net
I really do not have a M.R.P. I have learned through practice to be multi-orgasmic. I usually just keep going after ejaculation, and within a minute I am fully hard and ready for the next orgasm, I can mentally control this orgasm and can actually ejaculate on demand from my lady. Usually our encounters last 4 hours in which time I can ejaculate 4-5 times.
000408
Sunday 10/30/2005 9:22:13am
Truthseeker
FORGET DOSTINEX (Cabergoline). The normal range of prolactin (a possible MRP contributor) is 2.0-18.0. Before taking Dostinex, my prolactin level was 7.2 and, of course, I suffered from MRP.
My M.D. put me in 1.5 g/week of Dostinex and my prolactin dropped to near zero (< 1.0).
Sexual difference: NOTHING! There was a study in Germany that was vague about the alleged benefits, though a BBC account touted multiple orgasms. When you read the full article, however, it is not clear what these "multiples" were or whether there was an absence of MRP.
BTW, I find the angel theory a bit strained and will remain agnostic on that point!
Thank you for your remarks. Your results with Cabergoline (Dostinex) mirror those experienced by others here. They, too, reported no change in their MRP experience.
And you are absolutely correct re: the German study and its claims. In the actual study, of the three orgasms reported only two were within a short period of time. The third was experienced the next day! Hardly conclusive evidence of MRP-free orgasmic activity given that many men can likewise have up to two orgasms before experiencing MRP, regardless of prolactin levels.
RE: the "angel theory" — where Benjamin is concerned we agree and stated that the evidence presented for this is hardly conclusive. Keep in mind, however, that for reasons of our own we continue to withhold from the website all but the merest tip-of-the-iceberg information re: our ongoing historical research into all aspects of the "(fallen) angel" — or more accurately, "Watcher" — theories outlined at this website.
000409
Friday 11/11/2005 11:14:01am
JC
All this ancient history stuff is a bit irrelevant since it's mainly all myths and whatever truth is there doesn't really matter to us now.
While prompted first by a mythological tale (The Courtship of Inanna and Dumuzi), yet the actual re-enactment of the Sumerian "Sacred Marriage" ceremony requiring the male King(-apparent) to orgasm fully at least 50 times was not mythological at all. This ancient, publically attended and viewed, king-making sexual rite was a very real event that took place in Sumerian cities for at least 2,000 years. Thus, this multiorgasmic practice provides key proof that this research study is not the one and only instance of such a natural male multiorgasmic capacity in recorded history and that, contrary to what modern-day science has so prematurely concluded, this ability is not "physiologically impossible" for males.
And that is why "all this ancient history stuff" is so important and relevant to this issue, as also it usually is to most all other areas of scientific endeavor.
Anyway, you complain on this site about how orgasm is defined and use your sneeze comparison to mock those exploiting money from innocent men looking for a solution to MRP. But thinking about it, are the ejaculatory contractions really that pleasurable? I would define orgasm as a significant and instant increase of pleasure. Think about it, before orgasm you feel really good and it feels great to touch your penis, during an orgasm there's an explosion of pleasure followed by contractions, I've never found the contractions themselves to be pleasurable. Your penis feels good to touch and there's still a feeling of great pleasure from the orgasm, but it's nothing to do with the contractions, your penis feels as good to touch as the pre orgasm period before refractory kicks in. I'd like to hear womans experiences on their contractions, are they pleasurable or do they just occur during a pleasurable time (i.e., just after orgasm)
I am not the one complaining how orgasm is defined; I'm the one championing its actual scientific definition. The only ones complaining how orgasm is defined are the sexual hucksters out there constantly trying to re-define it so as to turn a fast buck.
Let me illustrate using your own definition of orgasm. In re-defining orgasm so nebulously as "a significant and instant increase of pleasure", a near-infinite number of meanings become possible. Anything from general sexual stimulation whatsoever, to scratching an itch, tasting delicious food, and even... yes... sneezing, can all be described as involving "a significant and instant increase of pleasure." Yet are any of these orgasms? Well, of course not.
But if such an inaccurate and open-ended definition is allowed, then it is entirely conceivable (if not ultimately inevitable) that at some point someone will succeed in using such a definition to convince men that all of these examples might be considered orgasms, too. And if so... then pepper is only a "gesundheit" away from finding itself marketed as a "multiorgasmic" aid.
This is why definitions are important, and why true science goes to such pains to comprehensively research and define the terms it uses.
As for your suggestion, I think it is a good one. Women, what are your views on the involuntary orgasmic contractions felt after onset of orgasm? Do you feel they significantly add to orgasm's pleasures?
Hopefully we'll get a few entries on this... from actual women rather than Jack Johnston-esque posers.
Another point I'd like to make is most men masturbate quite frequently, men can have an orgasm without necessarily being fully turned on (i.e. if they're bored) while women cannot (although they probably can they just don't tend to try) — they need to be fully aroused. Due to their masturbatory experiences they may get used to orgasming without necessarily being fully turned on. By not ensuring that they are fully aroused are some men missing out on the proper amount of pleasure they should be experiencing?
Again... women, what are your views on this?
It would seem obvious that greater arousal equates to greater pleasure in orgasm for both sexes. Additionally, as found throughout "The Hite Report" in which thousands of women responded, the orgasmic contractions they also experience are extremely pleasurable and considered an important component of the orgasmic experience just as they are for men.
Hopefully we'll have a few responses from women to find out.
NOTE: Oh... and, btw, we do receive the IP addresses of all respondents which will help us identify female posers. It's unfortunate we have to reveal this fact, but this ability has often proved useful in dealing with the many sexual snake-oil salesmen and their cohorts who seem to gravitate to this guestbook.
>>