If your erection lasts for more than 4 hours... - Page 2

KinkyVixen · 05-12-2006, 02:25 PM

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

05-12-2006, 04:03 PM

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

KinkyVixen · 05-12-2006, 04:05 PM

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

footfootfoot · 05-12-2006, 08:24 PM

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

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

wolf · 05-14-2006, 11:23 PM

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

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

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

DucksNuts · 05-15-2006, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf

That means die. And fall off.

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

Ibby · 05-15-2006, 12:32 AM

Ohhh, you have the right visual...

05-15-2006, 12:37 AM

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

DanaC · 01-14-2008, 08:22 AM

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

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

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

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

Undertoad · 01-14-2008, 08:47 AM

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

Wikipedia entry: Kama Sutra

Quote:

...the Kama Sutra is a compendium that was collected into its present form in the second century CE.

DanaC · 01-14-2008, 08:50 AM

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

I am talking about western european thinking.

Undertoad · 01-14-2008, 09:12 AM

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

Sheldonrs · 01-14-2008, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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

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

DanaC · 01-14-2008, 01:56 PM

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

Aliantha · 01-14-2008, 04:35 PM

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

05-12-2006, 02:25 PM	#16
KinkyVixen Marching In! Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wichita, KS Posts: 580	I don't need an increased sex drive...and i'm a woman... __________________ "Smile before bed.You'll sleep better."

05-12-2006, 04:05 PM	#18
KinkyVixen Marching In! Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wichita, KS Posts: 580	then we would just be men fucking everything that moves... I for one enjoy the attachments that sex makes when it's worth it... __________________ "Smile before bed.You'll sleep better."

05-12-2006, 08:24 PM	#19
footfootfoot To shreds, you say? Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: in the house and on the street-how many, many feet we meet! Posts: 18,449	Actually viagra has a similar effect on the womens, from what I've heard. It gets their tender morsels all engorged, as for what's between their ears, you'll have to check your owner's manual about how to get those gears engaged. Apparently every model is different enough that what works for your side gal may not work for your main gal. __________________ The internet is a hateful stew of vomit you can never take completely seriously. - Her Fobs

05-14-2006, 11:23 PM	#20
wolf lobber of scimitars Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phila Burbs Posts: 20,774	I know someone who had the painful erection lasting more than four hours. If I recall the story correctly, it lasted for like 12-18. Several rounds of decreasingly enthusiastic usage, a trip to the ER, and a lot of hefty drugs did not immediately deflate it. He was very lucky, because the extended period of erection (and constriction of the blood flow in the area) could have caused tissues to necrotize. That means die. And fall off. __________________ wolf eht htiw og "Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis

01-14-2008, 04:35 PM	#30
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	It's ok Dana. Remember, UT is a man too. __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

05-12-2006, 04:03 PM	#17
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	I did not say increase it, I said help it by severing it from all the weird junk women attach to it.

05-15-2006, 12:32 AM	#22
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	Ohhh, you have the right visual...

05-15-2006, 12:37 AM	#23
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	Nope... me checking the ice packs in the freezer "just in case".

01-14-2008, 08:22 AM	#24
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	I found this thread via the google spider. Very interesting, i missed it first time around. One of the issues it raised (fnarr fnarr!) is the fact that sexual pleasure for the woman is not dictated by how long the man stays hard..... Just as an interesting aside: prior to changes in biological theory during the enlightenment, attitudes to sex were very different. The medieval conception of gender was that the male and female were mirror images of each other...essentialy, women were physically the same as men but with a bit missing and an additional part to house progeny. With the new enlightenment theories in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, we get the 'two body' theory. This showed that actually men and women were physiologically very different. Not only did this have the effect oof firming up the idea of gender distinction, but it gave rise to a more phallocentric approach to sex. Where at one time sex consited mainly of mutual masturbation, with penetrative sex forming only a small part of the whole, during the eighteenth century, european (and American) culture moved towards penetration as the main component of sex. Books were written on sexuality that basically reduced male sexuality to his penis and female sexuality to her vagina. ('Arborae Vitae' = the 'tree' of life, was basically a eulogy to the penis) This then coalesced with the new ideas of morality within England (not sure about the rest of europe) to provoke a culture in which not only was penetration the central sexual act, but also the only morally acceptable component of sex. Hence all that nonsense about masturbation making you blind. So...there you go. The obsession with penile penetration as the only real component of sex worth bothering about, and all that this implies, has its roots in the enlightenment and eighteenth century philosophy.

01-14-2008, 08:50 AM	#26
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	In what way does that refute what I've just posted? I am talking about western european thinking.

01-14-2008, 09:12 AM	#27
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	I will read further, but remain highly skeptical. Full-on copulation is a biological imperative! All the animals do it!

01-14-2008, 01:56 PM	#29
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	Of course its a full on biological imperative. I am talking about cultural attitudes towards penetration. Where it was a part of a much larger experience, guided by social attitudes towards courtship and marriage, the introduction of the 'two body' theory during the late seventeenth/early eighteenth century gave penetration a much larger role within sex, to the exclusion, in english culture, of anything that wasnt either penetration or relating to the phallus. Think about the traditional english Victorian moral mindset where women were expected to "lie back and think of England". I dopn't know if it had the same impact in mainland europe, but it will certainly have had some effect on sexual practices at that time.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)