Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    re .0, Carla, do you really think most women do lie about it?
    I never have.  Why bother?  (Personally I'm too shy to fake something
    like that.  Only the real thing could make me act that crazy.)
    
    Lorna
    

    
    The following is from a member of our community who wishes to
    remain anonymous.
    
    Bonnie J
    =wn= comod
    
    _________________________________________________________________

    Warning, this answer is borderline explicit.
    

    
    
    
    
    In direct answer to your questions:
    1.) why the hell [do we spend] so much energy faking orgasms?

    2.) Why do we, as women, so often deny our own right to ask?  

    I know for myself that sometimes an orgasm is simply not what I'm there
    for. And its not something I feel like explaining. But its a big deal
    to him, that its easier to pretend. Other times my state of mind is such
    that its just not going to happen, and I don't always feel like saying
    this either. I tend to hit "plateaus" which are pretty similar to the
    peaks. So faking isn't so hard, anyway. If I'm really pressed, I tell
    him the truth in the morning, so that we can try again. Typically with
    great success.

    In various relationships, I have often done a lot to protect my lover's
    ego. I don't regret it either. Orgasms are wonderful things! Feeling
    loved, however, is more important to me. And you've got to give some to
    get some. Making him feel like "King Studly" has its pay-offs. I
    consider the cost/effort to be negligible; sometimes far less than the 
    effort it takes to climax, and with greater long-term benefits...

    I must agree with .2 - sometimes it's easier and it prevents hurting
    someone. For all that men dominate us in many aspects of life I think
    they are terribly fragile when it comes to sexual ego. Besides,
    lovemaking is more than the big O. If that was all there was to it
    masturbation is more efficient. The problem comes when faking is the
    total experience or done often.

    From talking with friends I've learned that for some the faking is all
    there is. I have two close women friends (both married) who say if they
    *never* had sex again it wouldn't bother them in the least. It wasn't a
    question of their husband's lovemaking, they weren't interested in sex
    with anyone. Yikes! I can't even relate. Ann Landers ran a column about
    a week or so ago where she printed all sorts of letters from women (and
    some men) that say they can't be bothered or that sex is no longer a
    part of their lives and they don't miss it at all. liesl

    Goodness liesl 
    
    I couldn't imagine not wanting it ever again! I might as well
    pack everything in!
    
    I've never faked, mostly because my husband knew that I couldn't
    when we were first married, and after 7 years when we figured out
    *how* to make *it* happen, he'd *know* if I faked! So if I feel
    that this particular time, 'nothing ain't agonna happen' I just
    tell him and we continute to have a good time anyway.
    
    Bonnie

    
    About the "why do we give so much" part (or is it why do we give so
    much up? - or why do we give so much of ourselves to others and keep so
    little for ourselves?).....
    
    I don't know.  I just know I do it.  And then I feel cheated when it's
    not reciprocated.  I have nearly always given more than they could ever
    ask.  I suppose by this point, I am used to imperfection.  I am used to
    humanity and compromise.  Slowly I begin to awaken to my own requests,
    and battle "feeling selfish" before I make them.  But if they are
    important enough, I make them - this is, strangely enough, a big step. 
    It's important to be able to ask for what you need, and help them
    realize just how much you give.  Unfortunately, with most women, there
    is a higher degree of comfort with giving a great deal (or is it just
    that we're used to giving time, energy, courage, strength, support,
    etc, in return for what we may feel is "the big payoff" - love - or
    something like it).....and when this does not balance with what the man
    in their lives feels comfortable giving, there are sometimes bad
    feelings on both sides.
    
    Genuflecting gladly to their needs, dancing attendance on their fancy,
    wondering if now that I am loved I am somehow more valid, more solid,
    more real (like the velveteen rabbit)..........I have been there, and
    if the payoff is true love it is worth it.  Otherwise, there is a
    gradual feeling that the emotions are being wrung out, and not
    reciprocated - and that drain leads to disenchantment and a strange
    feeling of emptiness.....and then you wake up one day and it's over...
    
    -Jody
    

    No Comments Pat J., no comments.... I like to think my wife has not
    "faked" one but some time in the "heat" ones own enjoyment might
    override the moment.... Like some one else has mention, Donna
    knows what "button" to push on me and I know her "button"....
    
    REK

oh sure, faking would be easy enough; but I think that it would diminish me
somehow.

Sometimes just feeling _good_ and enjoying myself is what I want.  Sometimes
its more gratifying to feel the power than to lose myself in the moment.  
I'd hate to think that I _had_ to either have a transcendental experience or 
put on a stellar performance.  Somehow it would diminish the real thing.

I don't demand climax of a partner either.

Just so we both enjoy ourselves.

  Annie

    I can't imagine faking.  I remember a roommate I had once who was
    so thrilled because after the 26th time that she had sex with her
    boyfriend, she finally had one.  This has got to be a conspiracy.
    	Linda

    
    Could history be having an effect here? For long centuries women
    weren't supposed to have any sexual feelings. They it was allowed as to
    how they might have orgasms, but they had to be located in the vagina,
    otherwise the women wasn't "mature." I'd venture to say that even today
    there's not really a whole lot of awareness of the woman's clitoris and its
    full potential and the part it plays. Perhaps some sense of "I'm not 
    supposed to" or "I'm not doing it right anyway" or "it's wrong for me to 
    tell him how to do it" or "it's really his satisfaction that's important" 
    just die hard.  (oops)
    
    Dorian             

    re .9, wow, Linda, your roommate really showed perseverance. (25 times
    without *one* - what a trooper) :-)
    
    Lorna
    
    
    

    yeah Herb, me too! :-)

    define orgasm.
    
    REK

    Sounds like women and men fake orgasms for the same reason.
    
    Kris

    This 'faking' thing bothers me. Being lied to, for even the best
    of reasons (like protecting my fragile ego), adds very little to
    my life. It does *take* from my life the ability to trust, an
    ability which I have a hard enough time maintaining. I'd much
    prefer a woman to say, "I don't think I'm going to climax, but
    lets enjoy whatever *does* happen." I'd feel a lot more _trusted_,
    and more inclined to _trust_, with a person like that. I do know
    that when I find that I've been lied to, my ability to trust that
    person is very much limited afterwards. (And if you're lied to often
    enough, you lose *all* ability to trust. An emotional death sentence.)

    re: .15
    How can a man fake it?!
    
    The only thing worse than the one or two times I've faked it in my life
    was the one partner I had who didn't care whether I had an orgasm or
    not.  I was *much* younger then and can't imagine putting myself in
    either of those situations ever again.
    
    If I'm not feeling sexy and my partner *really* is, I can choose to
    satisfy him or not.  It doesn't occur to me to get fully involved
    and then fake orgasm so he can feel like a manly-man.  There have been
    a couple of occasions when I didn't reach orgasm, but the lovemaking
    was wonderful anyway.
    
    Nancy

>    define orgasm.

You'll know it when you have it, REK.

Really, some people think it is an ambiguous, undefineable thing, like "love",
but it isn't.  It is a physiological response, easily measureable and
identifiable.  If you really want a graphic medical description of
an orgasm, I can give you one (and in language that won't get my note
set hidden, either!)

The only reason women can fake it is that 1) most men are very ignorant
about what actually constitutes a female orgasm and 2) most of the signs
are hard to see with the naked eye and/or during the "heat of the moment"
as it were.  

If you can't tell if your partner is orgasming, REK, look/feel for:
contraction of vaginal muscles (this can be faked), increase in 
respiration (this can be faked), dilation in pupils (can't be faked, but
most people close their eyes so it won't do you much good),
a flush on the upper body, especially on the breasts and face
(this can't be faked, but not every women gets a noticeable flush),
rushing engorgement of the genital region (you'd have a hard time
with this - in the studies they use a micrometer to measure the
swelling and a thermometer to measure increase in temp).  Moaning,
screaming, bucking, passing out, etc are *not* good ways to tell because
1) every women reacts differently and 2) those reactions are easily
faked.

re: 26 times without an orgasm and "what a trooper" - sheesh!  It took me
about 100 times, and I was firmly convinced I would *never* have one,
and I kept going becauseit felt good anyway, and I was doing something for 
him.

I used to fake regularly for all the reasons other people have listed
plys this one: sometimes it has been going on for a long time an I am
tired and djust want to quit, but he is firmly convinced all it takes
is just "a little more" and I'll be there.  I *know* that isn't true,
but I am too tired to argue and convince nd worry about his ego, it is
much easier just to tell him it happened.  I don't do this anymore, though,
because it makes me feel used.

D!

    re .18, D!, I was kidding (sort of) about the roommate being a trooper.
    When I first starting having sex, 20 yrs. or so ago, it took me
    more than 26 times also.  But, now it's been so long since I've
    experienced the need to fake anything that it's difficult to relate
    to anymore.  When I was 20, I would have kept doing it with someone,
    if I really liked them, too.  But, these days I wouldn't, because
    compared to other experiences I've had, it wouldn't seem worth it.
     
    I never did fake it, though.  I guess I've always figured most men
    have big enough egos as it is.  Why make them have even bigger egos
    unless they really deserve it? ;^)
    
    Lorna
    
   

    Re: .16
    
    _Well_ said. If the love/trust isn't there, I don't see how an orgasm
    could come about. And if the love/trust isn't there, why *bother*
    having sex.
    
    dep

    re: .21
    Without assuming that orgasm and ejaculation are the same...I wasn't
    thinking...yes, I guess a man could get hard, then go soft and label it
    an orgasm.  What I'm ignorant of is can a man have an orgasm without
    getting hard at all?  I just envisioned it impossible to fake getting
    hard.;-)
    
    Nancy

    
Re .20 - 
     
>    2) I agree with the old "two kinds of orgasm theory".  It was silly to
>    call them "clitoral" vs. "vaginal", but there are still two kinds:  one
>    which is kind of a pleasant nervous release and one which is What We're
>    In It For.  The guy can fake the second when he's really only having
>    the first.
    
I'm not sure what you're saying here - are you talking about men or women? 
I thought the "myth of the vaginal orgasm" (for women) was driven into the 
ground some 20 years ago (after decades of Freud's having made women feel 
inadequate and immature for not being able to have them).

Or are you making a parallel distinction for men, not to apply to women.

D.

    This is sort of a tangent, but think about how sex differences are
    explained to children.  Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina,
    while in truth the analogy should be girls have a vagina, a clitoris,
    and a urethra.  Why do girls have to reach teenagerhood before they
    know about their own bodies?  Another thing is that it is quite
    common for men to talk about their arousal response, and to see
    references to it everywhere, like "Ernie's Cranes, We'll help you
    get it up", but there is some sort of taboo or again a lack of
    awareness in speaking about the female response, although I have
    noticed in the last few years that this is changing a little.
    	Linda

    re .22, because it's fun?  (oh, love & trust can make it more
    meaningful, I agree, but I don't necessarily think people should
    totally abstain when love & trust aren't present)
    
    Lorna
    

    re.26 Lorna, I don't think you can have sex without *some* trust.
    There's a scale that ranges from a little trust to complete trust.
    From "I trust him/her not to infect me with something" to "I trust
    her/him to never lie to me." Different people need different levels
    of trust to be comfortable enough for sex. I don't think it's 
    good or bad one way or another, just individual needs that have
    to be met. In our society, men have been conditioned to be oblivious 
    to their need for trust. That doesn't erase the need. And
    *discovering* that need can be damned painful. 
    
    Dana
    
    PS. I don't think anybody could function sexually in a situation where 
    trust was *totally* absent.

    re .27, I can agree with that statement I think.  :-)
    
    I think like and a certain amount of trust are necessary, but I
    don't think love and absolute trust are necessary.  
    
    Lorna
    

>        re: .15
>    How can a man fake it?!
    
    Are you asking from a physiological, emotional or psychological
    point of view?  Whatever the case, a man fakes it the same way a
    woman does.  It's just tougher to get them to admit it.
    
    Just imagine Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan trading scripts and
    that's basically how it would be. 


    Kris

    	Computer puns are so wonderful (and this one went right over my
    	head until just now...)

    	I was looking over the reading assignments for my Pascal class
    	for college, and I saw that one of the topics for discussion was
    	going to be "big-O analysis."

    	As you can imagine, it caught my attention enough to ponder what
    	the top down design of a program that would analyze orgasms might
    	look like.  (I also wondered what it had to do with this class.) :)

    	My textbook defines "big-O analysis" as:  "A technique in which
    	the time and space requirements of an algorithm are estimated in
    	order of magnitude terms."

    	Funny thing is - it almost seems to fit the topic at hand.  ;^)

>    _Well_ said. If the love/trust isn't there, I don't see how an orgasm
>    could come about. 

Hell, I have had orgasms with inanimate objects.  I niether loved nor 
trusted them.  Orgasm is a phisiological response, that while it might
be *easier* to trigger in the presence of love/trust, they are not
interdependent.

>And if the love/trust isn't there, why *bother* having sex.

For fun.  Because it feels good.  Because it helps *promote* love/trust.
For money.  For political reasons.  For a lark.  For any other number of
reasons that some people may or may not consider valid for themselves.

Sex is not necessary for an orgasm.  Love is not necessary for an orgasm.
Orgasms are not necessary to enjoy sex. Orgasms are not necessary for love
or trust.  (For an individual some dependencies may exist, but they are
not *by nature* necessarily interdependent.)

I found this statement very value-loaded.

D!

    re: .33
    
    But gawd, o's *are* necessary, aren't they   ;-)
    
    Nancy 

    Re: 26
    
    Lorna, I (for one) just can't seem to fathom "getting it on" with
    someone who isn't my "mate". I know lots who can mind you, but I'm not
    one of them. e.g.; My wife cut her hair a few years ago. It was
    shoulder length and she had it cut to around ear/cheek level, and it
    took me awhile to have sex with her because it was (almost) like being
    with someone else. It was just too uncomfortable a feeling. I felt like
    I was being unfaithful, like being with a different woman. And it just
    didn't work. (For about two : three weeks.) I know it sounds strange,
    but it is true. I couldn't handle it. I'm old fashioned I guess. Of the
    old school you might say. (I'll be forty in five weeks, so I'm not
    _old_.) :-) There has to be _something_ there for me to have a sexual
    relationship. And that _something_ includes love/trust/honesty/etc/etc.
    dep

    Re: 33
    D!, Your reply seems to be stretching the topic a little bit, but 
    I'll bite. (No pun intended.) Sure O's are possible with inanimate 
    objects. But *I* enjoy them *MUCH* more with someone who cares about 
    helping to provide/achieve them.
    
    >Sex is not necessary for an orgasm.
    Everytime I've had an orgasm, I have had sex. Be it with someone else,
    or be it with myself. Self *sex*ual gratification is still _sex with
    yourself_. How do _you_ do it _without_ sex????? This has my
    curiosity.		dep

>    Everytime I've had an orgasm, I have had sex. Be it with someone else,
>    or be it with myself. Self *sex*ual gratification is still _sex with
>    yourself_. How do _you_ do it _without_ sex????? This has my
>    curiosity.

Well, if you consider masturbation sex, than I don't.

But I know someone who does.  It is rare but not nonexistent that someone
has the ability to bring themselves to orgasm merely by concentrating and
doing "Kegels" (contracting and relaxing the vaginal and nearby muscles.)
Wish I could do that!!!

On the other hand, as you say, it isn't nearly as *good* (or so my friend
tells me.) nevertheless, it's an orgasm, and therefore orgasms aren't
dependent on sex.

Anyway, when I made the statement I wasn't consider masturbation as sex,
and so orgasms aren't dependent on sex.  I disagree that *all* masturbation
is sex with oneself, but that is a debate for a different forum.

re: The Big O...one of my favorite books as a child was "The Wonderful
O" by James Thurber, in which the villian (who's mother was killed by
falling out a porthole) goes on a quest to remove all O's from the world,
and this makes everyone very unhappy.  This discussion certainly brings
new meaning to The Wonderful O (not to be confused, of course, with
The Story of O, which needs no such new meaning brought to it.  ;-) )

D!

    Re. orgasm without sex:  yes, it's definitely possible.
    
    After 8 years of marriage and two children, I still had never
    experienced an orgasm.  But I didn't know it -- repressed, you might
    say???
    
    Anyway, my subconscious took over.  In my dreams, things would happen,
    (not necessarily sexual things), and I'd experience a wonderful
    feeling, like nothing I'd ever felt before.  Eventually this wonderful
    feeling began waking me up.  Even more eventually I began to realize
    that it was an orgasm -- talk about a slow learner!
    
    Once I consciously realized what was going on, I began the real-time
    search for the Big O, and the rest, as they say, is history.
    
    Karen

    
    
    I agree with .38, and disagree with an earlier note that says 
    the big O is a physiological experience. No. I would go so far as 
    to say that the physiological is minor, and that the physiological-plus 
    (or minus) is what Ray Davis aptly called "What We're in It for."
    
    Eileen

    Re: Ellen Gugal (a few back)
    
    Have vaginal orgasms really been debunked?  I thought that the "G" spot
    was suggested as the way an orgasm could be "vaginal" in nature.  Or is
    that also now a myth?
    
    (Personally, I think that it does exist...)

    on re .40
    
    It is my understanding that the 25% or so of women who are able
    to achieve orgasm with only intercourse are so constructed that
    intercourse indirectly stimualates the clitoral region.
    
    I'd be willing to bet infundibulation precludes orgasm.
    
    Bonnie

>    I agree with .38, and disagree with an earlier note that says 
>    the big O is a physiological experience. 

???

Orgasm *is* physiological, period.  Just because it can be helped on or even
caused entirely by psychological effects doesn't mean it isn't physiological. 
The bodily production of adrenalin is also physiological, but is caused
by emotional states.  I never said that orgasm isn't affected or can;t
effect emotional states, I just said that the orgasm *is* a physiological 
process.  It just is.  Eating is also physiological - a lot of the pleasure
from it comes from emotional responses to the physiological, but that doesn't
make it any less physiological!

I didn't see anything in .38 that made me believe that her orgasm was
not a physiological process.

D!

    Physiologically, orgasm is pretty much like a sneeze.  Your nose gets
    stimulated and you have a response you generally can't stop.
    
    You guys are all pretty open about this!  I'll keep my contributions
    limited to the academic.  My sweeties know - and that's enuff.

	Oh to sneeze or not to sneeze - that is the ....

	_peggy

    sweating doesn't always happen but is quite common in my experience
    but I'd hope that a man that trys to spot 'fakes' would from that
    try and help his partner have 'reals',
    
    BJ

    RE: a few back
    
    I made myself very unclear: I didn't mean to imply that orgasm has no 
    physiology, only that, like the release of adrenalin, it is not necessarily 
    CAUSED by physiology.
    
    Eileen
    
    

    re .48, but do you call them on it?  Do you say things like, "That's
    not a real orgasm you're having!  I can tell!  You're faking!"
    
    Lorna
    

    Re. 36 - orgasms without sex:
    
    Though I've never experienced it, women have had orgasms while nursing
    a child, reportedly.  Isn't that sexless orgasm?
    
    

    
    	RE: .51  
    
    	As someone who breastfed for almost 4 years, it's impossible for
    	me to imagine having an orgasm while doing this.  It's so unlike
    	sex (even though the action of nursing is comparable to something
    	that can occur during sex.)  It's a totally different experience.
    
    	The overwhelming feeling I got while nursing was relaaaxed.  My
    	eyes would droop, and I would feel like taking a nap.  (I probably
    	felt this way because I often *did* nap along with Ryan after nursing.)
    

    in re .52
    
    Suzanne
    
    actually nursing does stimuate the uterus to contract so it's not
    an unusual response for some women to have vaginal contractions as
    well.
    
    BJ

    	RE: .54  Bonnie

    	Nursing stimulates the uterus to contract shortly after birth,
    	but I don't think it's entirely common for these sorts of
    	contractions to continue for long afterward (enough to cause
    	orgasms in most women.)  At the most, it's a kind of reflex.

    	The thing that bothers me about this is that there is already
    	enough prejudice against women who breastfeed (in public, 
    	especially) that I resent any implication that it is part of 
    	some erotic thrill to feed one's baby in this natural way.

    	One reflex during my nursing days that I remember quite well
    	is that the sound of a baby crying (ANY baby) would give me
    	a very strong urge to leak milk.  It never actually happened
    	to me, but nursing is so tied to baby-nurturing that most of
    	the reflexes seemed to be tied to infant stimuli.

    
    Re -1
    
    Some old ideas, maybe still in operation, that might block that
    kind of open communication...
    
    "If he REALLY loved me he'd KNOW what to do - I shouldn't have to explain".
                
    "Giving directions is so unromatic - ruins the atmosphere"
      
    "If I told him what I want he'd think I was weird and leave me"
                                                                  
    "I don't know pleasures me so I can't tell him"
                              
    "He'll get impatient, lose his erection and then I'll have made
    the whole encounter a failure AND hurt his ego"
    
    "If it doesn't work perfectly between us straight away then we're
    obviously not meant to be together - "real" lovers don't work
    on this stuff - it just happens"
    
    "He hated what I asked for last time - I won't mention it again
    (or any new ideas)"
                   
    Completely unfounded?
    
    'gail
    

    Re: .37
    
    D! From the description you give of "Kegels", it still sounds like
    masterbation to me. (IMO). 		dep

>    D! From the description you give of "Kegels", it still sounds like
>    masterbation to me. (IMO). 		dep

No, they aren't.  I didn't describe Kegel exercises cause I thought everyone
knew what they were.  The are contraction of the muscles in the vaginal
area...yes, this is what happens during orgasm.  They are also the muscles
use to hold back or stop the flow or urine, and the exercises were developped
to help women who can't control their urination (incontinence?)  So it isn't
inherently sexual anymore than urination is sexual.  Kegel excersizes
strengthen the vaginal muscles and <what are the muscles are the urethra>.
The exercises are basically to "bear down" (as if defecating or pushing
something out of your vagina, this is very hard to describe to a man) and
then "pull in", as if holding back urination.  

I guess what it comes down to as how do you define sex?  If you define
sex as anything causing sexual feelings, then that pretty much eliminates
nonsexual orgasms by *definition*.  But I define sexual as either stimulation
of the sexual organs or sexual fantasies...but this woman I mentioned
earlier doesn't fantasize about sex in any way...she just concentrates on
*making* her body have this physiological reaction, and that combined with
the "bearing down" and "pulling in" produce the physiological reaction.

No emotional pleasure there...but the sensation is physically pleasureable
in and of itself, and since it doesn't really take any effort, why not?

My friend does this during classes and at work.  :-)  Wish I could do that.

Also, since orgasm is just a physiological response, there are other ways
of making it occur...

[possibly graphic description follows...]

in a farm catalog I saw, they sell a device called an "ejaculator", which
is inserted into an animal's anus and sends pulses of electricity which 
cause the animal to ejaculate in a manner of a minute or two.  This is
presumably used in breeding.  I have no idea if it would work on a human male,
but if you really want to find out if a sexless orgasm is possible,
you could volunteer :-)

D!

    RE: Nursing,
    
    I also nursed each child for 15 months each (thats a total of 45
    months), and never did I experience an "orgasm" when I nursed...  I too
    tended to fall alseep or be REALLY relaxed also...
    
    Gale

    re: Men faking
    
    I enjoyed this line from "The Search For Intelligent Life In The
    Universe" performed by Lily Tomlin.  It brought the house down.
    
    "I think Bob may be getting too in touch with his female side.  Last
    night I think he faked an orgasm"
    
    Tony

    I'm not sure I understand how all of you women who 
    had never had an orgasm suddenly started to.
    

    In my case I did some reading and found that there were things
    that I didn't know about that my husband and I could do.
    
    I don't think I can get more explicit than that.
    
    Bonnie

    Gotta confess, I found this a MOST interesting string.  Thanks
    for starting it, Carla!
    
    I have come to the conclusion that most women have come to learn
    how to have orgasms through reading, experimentation, and/or possibly
    the assistance of pleasure producing devices.  And to you who seized
    the initiative to explore the possibilities, I say bravo!
    
    If God made anything more exquisitely pleasurable and satisfying
    than orgasms, she's keeping it to herself!
    ;+}
    
    Richard

    I used to.  But now I just don't give a d*mn.  I'm sick of boosting
    men's already too fragile egos for what?  So that they can complain
    because it's taking me too long to achieve one during lovemaking? 
    Forget it!  I have a tough time concentrating as it is, without sighs
    of frustration from a lover who really doesn't care whether I have one
    or *not*, but he's trying because I asked him to ...
    
    Tammi

    re .68 The best argument yet for not making love to somebody 
    you don't *love*

    re: .69
    
    Yes, quite true.  Unfortuantely, this is a man I'm *deeply* in love
    with.  And have been with over a *year*.  It's one of the reasons I
    broke up with him, too.
    
    Tammi

The following topic has been contributed by a member of this community
who wishes to remain anonymous. Please note that since this is a potentially
sensitive subject that it is important to be careful, and not explict
in your replies. If you wish to correspond directly with the author I
will be glad to forward your mail to her.

Bonnie J.
=wn= comod

____________________________________________________________________


If the note takes off I'll add more.

I'm not sure if we (myself, friends, sisters) are in a very small percentage
or more women feel like this but are too embarrassed to say.  I really don't
feel like something is "wrong" with me.  I have a very giving and caring
partner in my life.  It's not him but me.

I love having orgasms.  I just prefer them by myself 90% of the time..


What I would like back from the topic:

        1.  Are there more women who feel like this?
        2.  Why?

I don't think it's coincidental that 5 women (some how tied together) feel
this way.   It's not meant to offend a women's sexual partner.

This may be a topic better discussed verbally with a group of women and
a glass of wine. :-)

I'll write more on my feelings when I can get some time.

This is a reply to the basenote author from another noter who 
wishes to also be anonymous.

To keep them straight you can use the initials appended to the
end of this note or refer to the notes by number.

Bonnie J
=wn= comod

_____________________________________________________________



    I do this half and half.

    I know what's going on, so, when I give myself an orgasm, I know what
    to do, how to do it, how long to do it, and most importantly, when not
    to stop or switch gears!

    Nothing frustrates me more than having my partner get tired or shift
    something at the absolutely dead wrong time.

    At the same time, when its something he does to me, it is a gift from
    him, and special, and if it works, I definitely enjoy it. 

    Most importantly, I never have orgasms alone. I've tried it. It doesn't
    seem nearly as special or as fun as sharing the thrill and exhilaration, 
    or letting someone enjoy being the cause of my thrill.

    I've wondered sometimes if this makes me weird, but I also look at
    how else it makes me feel. If being weird is the label I'm stuck with
    for feeling this good, I'll wear it proudly.

    J.D. 

re: .71:
...
> I love having orgasms.  I just prefer them by myself 90% of the time..
...
>        1.  Are there more women who feel like this?
>        2.  Why?

A number of years ago, I was involved with a woman for whom this was
true.  She had been abused as a child and, for her, a satisfactory
sexual relationship was one in which she was in COMPLETE control.

Martin.

    
    
    Another giveaway for "fakers" is women's toe's curl when they have one.
    This, ofcourse, can be faked, but most women don't know about it.
    
    Also, I am STILL lost on how men can fake it. Someone said reverse the
    roles in "When Harry Met Sally", but what about the OBVIOUS physical
    evidence?
    
    MP

    .74 raises two questions:
    
    1)  How can "most women not know about it"?  This is a sad commentary
    on all our sex lives if true...
    
    2)  How did you find out?
    
    Ray

    re .74, .75, I don't think it's true about the toes.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    Perhaps SOME women's toes curl when they have an orgasm, but I 
    sincerely doubt that all women's do.  Every woman experiences an orgasm
    differently, just as every man probably does (ie, different feelings,
    different reactions, etc.)
    
    I for one, don't curl my toes, does this mean I'm not really having
    one????
    
    
    Hummmm...
    
    kath

    
    Uh, who notices their toes at a time like that?

    Ray,
    
    A very common answer to your 2) is: I read it in an article about
    the Masters and Johnson study.
    
    *My* question is:  Who is in a [literal] position to look for this?
    
    						Ann B.

Men can have an orgasm without either ejaculation or erection.

	-- Charles

    and "after the fact" there isn't always all that much evidence to be
    found.

    Re .74: Oh, come on. *Everybody* knows that the only time a woman's
    toes curl during sex is...
    
    
    
    when she didn't remove her panty-hose first!
    
    -b

    
    
    RE: Previous note
    
    That was pretty funny! Nothing like an early morning chuckle. Seriously
    though, I read it in Our Bodies, Ourselves, a very good book. I read in
    1981 (My sophomore year in high school) though, so maybe it is
    outdated.
    
    I must be very ignorant, because I honestly NEVER knew men could have
    an orgasm without an erection or ejaculation. To this day I have never
    met a man who has been able to (at least not that they have mentioned).
    As far as the physical evidence not always being detected I have to
    disagree with that. One way or another I believe one can always tell
    whether a man has ejaculated. Can someone please educate me, and give
    me some references on reading material where it states men can have
    orgasms without erections?
    
    Guess I'm more naive than I thought. What a refreshing concept!
    
    MP

    re:.84
    
    Don't feel too bad about not knowing that men could have an orgasm
    without ejaculating or an erection. I didn't know it, either. *I*
    certainly haven't had one under those (or lack thereof) conditions.
    At least, nothing that I would recognize as an orgasm.
    
    I must say, the prospect does sound appealing.
    
    --- jerry

    me either
    on the other hand... (now _cut_ that out)
    how bout without ejaculating but _with_ an erection?

    Herb,
    
    And you worry about *wo*men being castrating?  Tscha.  :-)
    
    On that other matter:  Hee, hee, hee.  It's useful for those who
    suspect an encore performance would be... not unwelcome.
    
    						Ann B.

Lack of ejaculation is pretty easy - if you're out of seminal fluid for whatever
reason, there will be no ejaculation. One relatively common way to be out of
seminal fluid is to have had multiple ejaculations in a relatively short time.
This isn't a very reliable form of birth control since there will likely still
be some small number of sperm present - one may be enough...

Orgasm without erection is possible, for example, if the person is unable to
achieve erection for some reason - diabetes, low blood pressure, or some other
reason. Stimulation can still result in orgasm even without erection.

Quite frankly neither prospect is particularly appealing to *me*.

Ejaculation without orgasm is trickier. The way I've heard of is by direct
stimulation of the prostate, but why bother? (Direct stimulation of the
prostate can also result in orgasm, which is much more interesting.)

	-- Charles

    
    RE .1
    Ah yes - the gool ol' prostate.
    I've heard this referred to many times - never tried it on a partner
    (yet....)
    
    'gail

>>>    Another giveaway for "fakers" is women's toe's curl when they have one.

I'll have to check this out. I'm not sure it always happens. But sometimes you
can feel it in your feet. I heard the phrase "that was a real ankle burner"
years before I could fully appreciate it.

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned what I thought was the only sure way to
tell: a woman's nipples get erect when she has an orgasm. The presence of erect
nipples doesn't mean she had one, but the absence does mean she *didn't* have
one.

I think I read this in Dr. David Rubin's book "Everything You Always Wanted to
Know About Sex" (the Woody Allen movie came later). That book was too
homophobic for me, but it did have some useful information.

Vicki Meagher

    I have one friend that laughs uncontrolably when she has an orgasm!
    
    BJ

    re.90
    Not very subtle, I know, but I'm not in a subtle mood today ;-)
    But.... if erect niples indicate that a woman is having an orgasm, I
    know an awfull lot of women who obviously have day-long orgasms.
    
    Charles

    
    
    re .91 mike,
    
           even excluding the laughter, this is, without a doubt, the stuff
    that urban legends are made of. (-:
    
    ~r

          <<< Note 238.91 by HEYYOU::ZARLENGA "no more bite marks!" >>>

    >	I read somewhere that any noise� a woman makes during sex can
    > be considering an orgasm.

    > -mike z
    
    Gee, -mike z, I _used_ to be married to a man who believed that.
    
    Karen
    

    Umm, I think the word you want is 'ejaculate'.
    
    ejaculate v. 2.To utter suddenly and passionately; exclaim.
    (The American Heritage Dictionary, office edition, 1983

    >I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned what I thought was the only
    >sure way to tell: a woman's nipples get erect when she has an orgasm.
    >The presence of erect nipples doesn't mean she had one, but the absence
    >does mean she *didn't* have one.
     
    Wrong again.  Mine don't.
    
    Sorry if this sounds like a flame, but I am getting damn sick of people
    perpetuating rumours about how to "tell" if a woman is having an
    orgasm.  As if she were some sort of criminal on trial, and you had to
    have "evidence" before you believe she came.  
    
    Women are different...all the *secondary* responses of an orgasm (erect
    nipples, flushed face, contractions in leg muscles [the origin of the
    stupid "toe curling" myth], increased breathing, etc.) are
    non-mandatory.  The defining physical characteristics of an orgasm are
    contraction of vaginal muscles and an expansion of the vaginal cavity. 
    In some women this is detectable by a sexual partner, in others it
    isn't.  There is no way, without scientific observation (measurements,
    etc) to tell if a woman had an orgasm!
    
    These things just aren't generalizable, and this whole discussion about
    how to "tell" if she is lying to you is both ludicrous and offensive.
    
    D!

    Someone might want to know so they don't have to ask.  Let's see...
    	"If you have to ask, she didn't."  :-)
    		Linda

    Or the performance wasn't dramatic enough.  :-)  :-)

    RE .96
    
    I've just enjoyed a veritable (if not verifiable) orgasm of loud and
    prolonged laughter - thanks!
    
    Still smiling,
    aq
    

    
    re:.97
    i agree
    

    How can a man have an orgasm without ejaculating?  Ejaculation without 
    orgams yes, via the anal 'finger wave'.  It one has had so many orgasms
    that one is 'out of seminal fluid' how can you have an orgasm?  When
    'out' of fluid there is a 'reset time' before one can ejaculate again.
    Orgasm without an erection, yes that can be done.  Isn't a physical
    orgasm the result of the peralistalic motion of the genitals? That
    motion propels the semen. Oh, I get it, someone who has a plumbing
    problem might be able to attempt to ejaculate but not produce any
    semen, right?   

    Jeff

    Jeff,
    
    If your prostate is removed, reduced or otherwise stops producing
    seminal fluid then yes orgasm with out ejaculation will occur.

    Re .103, quite right, I understand.
    
    Jeff

    No, orgasm is possible without ejaculation even in men who's
    reproductive system is fully functioning.
    
    Not being a man, I can't tell you how it would feel, whether it would
    be the same as ejaculatory orgasm.  But I have heard both anecdotal and
    research evidence that non-ejaculatory orgasms *are* possible.
    
    Regarding male "multiple orgasms" in another note: "reset" time between
    orgasms doesn't count.  If you have to "reset" than it is just another
    single orgasm, not a multiple orgasm.  Same for women, there is a
    difference between single consecutive orgasms and multiple orgasms...
    
    Masters and Johnson "mapped" the orgasm.  It consists of phases, in
    order: excitement, plateau, orgasm and resolution.  Women are capable
    (meaning physiologically capable, even though some women individuals
    cannot) of building up through the excitement phase, to the plateau
    phase, and have several orgasms without going back down to the
    resolution phase.  That is what multiple orgasms are.  Men, on the
    other hand, have a "refractory period" after every orgasm during which
    ejaculation is impossible.  During that period (how long it is depends
    on the individual and his age and other stuff) he begins the resolution
    phase, and therefore his next orgasm is a "seperate" one.
    
    Therefore the only way men can achieve multiple orgasms (consecutive
    orgasm phases from the same plateau phase) is to learn to orgasm
    without ejaculation.  There are books about how to do this, but I don't
    know offhand what they are.
    
    D!

    
    RE. orgasm without ejaculation for men....
    
    Well, I don't understand this, and I can't imagine it very easily,
    but by sheer fluke it appears to have happened to my partner over
    Christmas!
    He was kind of surprised by it but apparently it felt great, and I
    guess he should know!;-)
    
    And here I was, being sceptical about the whole idea. How we do live
    and learn...
    
    'gail

    Re .106
    
    I feel very sceptical about the possibility raised therein. Mind you,
    I'm somewhat of a traditionalist. Is there something I do not yet know?
    Is there a better way? If so, who invented it and best of all...WHY?
    
    Don
    *8-)

    Wet Dreams:       Ejaculation without Orgasm
    
    Male Vasectomy:   Orgasm without Ejaculation
    
    
    Sounds obvious enough to me...
    PJ

    I stand corrected.
    
    Thank you,  PJ

    >Wet Dreams:       Ejaculation without Orgasm
    
    Nope, wet dreams result from orgasm in your sleep/dreams.  While you
    may not get the pleasure from it, cuz you were asleep, your body still
    had an orgasm without you.  (You may very well have gotten pleasure
    from it, in the form of a dream, but forgotten it when you have woken
    up.)
    
    Women too can have "wet dreams" in the sense that they can experience
    orgasm in their sleep (and some amount of wetness, too.  >-)
    
    Also, to whoever asked "why" - well, a few reasons.  I believe the
    original people to develop this technique believed in the idea of
    "sexual energy".  That is, you release some of your (emotional?
    physical?  spiritual?) energy when you ejaculate.  This technique would
    allow them to ejaculate wihout losing their build-up of energy. 
    Another reason for using the technique would be the aforementioned
    multiple orgasms.  Also for "staying power" (if you don't ejaculate
    you don't loose your erection upon orgasm.)  Finally, it might be sort
    of a natural birth control...doubtful that it would be very effective,
    because I suspect a man who didn't ejaculate would still "seep" in the
    way other men do, but perhaps better than nothing.
    
    However, men must ejaculate *some* time.  Maybe not during a particular
    session of sex, but they can't go forever without ejaculating.  If they
    force themselves not to for long enough, they will simply ejaculate in
    their sleep (ya know, wet dreams...) :-)
    
    And then there is the whole contraversial topic of *female*
    ejaculation....
    
    D!

    
    re -.1 >if you don't ejaculate you don't loose your erection...
    
    Actually you can ejaculate and keep your erection.  A friend of
    mine dated a man that had this "problem", and I experienced it
    once.  Still trying to perfect the technique. :-)
    
    Rich...
    
    
                       

     >if you don't ejaculate you don't loose your erection [upon orgasm]...
    
    >>    Actually you can ejaculate and keep your erection. 
    
    Yes, I know that.  Those two statements are not contradictory.
    
    D!

    
    Your right D!,  sorry I mis-read it.
    
    Rich...
    

    I'm getting a little weirded out by all this information.  Somehow the
    provenance of some of this info (i.e., whether it is actual sense data
    or whether it was gathered, shall we say, at second hand :-) would be
    enhanced for me if those of us with sex-indeterminate NotesNames might 
    somehow indicate their own squishware basis.
    
    I really AM very modest about this proposal, it's mostly in fun...
    
    (and please note the suggested typographical equality in token length
    between male and female.  Agreed, the angles of tilt are off from the
    usual, but hey, we're used to going 90� to take in smileys, and you
    only need 45� to get the male symbol right! :-) 
    
    Contributions by those few for whom both -> and -+ are firsthand are
    especially welcome.  No :-) intended here.
    
    Hey Ann -- Priapus -- Now THERE's a fine upstanding God fer ya!!
    
    One final comment that should go into the rathole but that somehow
    seems relevant:
    
    "Fifth Anniversary Weekend:  20-23 June 1991.  You coming?"
                                                 Yes, at the very thought!  :-)
    (said he, but DRYly)
    
    (and sorry for REposting this, Ann, but I thought of that "Tom Swifty"
    too late...) 
    
    Dan ( O-> which is NOT a smiley, THIS is :-)
    

    Humpph.  Sure you only need a 45� shift for the male symbol, but
    you still need a 90� shift (and in the opposite direction yet!)
    for the female symbol.
    
    						Ann B.  :-}

    
    i believe at least one approach is from the tantra, ancient
    hindu philosophy that, among other things, deals with the
    'life energy' principle d! mentioned. the men endeavored
    to enjoy sex without releasing their precious bodily fluids.
    one way was training the muscles to send the ejaculate into
    the urethra back up towards the bladder. so��metimes this
    redirection even takes place spontaneously. to be able to
    do it at will requires somewhat more effort.
    

    
    re .111 D!,
    
    What's so controversial about female ejaculation?
    

    RE: .120
    
    There's also a Taoist practice of orgasm without ejaculation
    (male-wise). Master Mantak Chia has written several books about
    what he calls "The Healing Tao" (which is, I guess, his take on the
    Taoist practices). One of his books talks about the control of sexual
    energy in Taoist practice, and presumably goes into the detail of how
    to control one's ejaculation. 
    
    I've taken a Tai Chi class from him - he's an excellent master, and
    NOT psycho-ceramic (A crackpot) [;-)] at all.
    
    --DE
    

    >What's so controversial about female ejaculation?
    
    It's existence is not a commonly accepted fact.
    
    Some people claim that on orgasm, some women ejaculate a fluid that
    resembles semen from the urethra, in quanties of up to a few cups. 
    Other people argue that this isn't true.  The discussion of female
    ejaculation is often combined with the existence of the g-spot.
    
    In my Human Sex class, the Dr. who taught it said that some women do
    emit liquid on orgasms, particularly when the orgasms results from
    stimulation to the g-spot, but that liquid is simply urine...which
    makes sense, because the g-spot is just the point where the urinary
    tract passes under the pelvic bone.  He says that chemical analyses
    have been done which prove this.
    
    *Other* people (including Susie Bright, sex columnist) claim that the
    liquid is close to semen (minus the sperm, of course) and that chemical
    analyses have been done to prove *that*.
    
    Still other people claim that female ejaculation doesn't exist at all;
    an that reports of it are either flat-our hoaxes, or exagerattions of
    the normal increase in normal vaginal fluids that often occurs at
    orgasm, but is hardly *ejaculated.*
    
    Interesting, in the talk I went to by Susie Bright a couple of months
    ago, there was a film of a woman ejaculating.  It was done fairly close
    up, and it was done with *no* camera cuts during the ejaculation scene,
    making it unlikely that the film was doctored.  The film very clearly
    showed the ejaculate coming from the urethra, and it definitely did not
    look like urine.   And it didn't ooze out, it *ejaculated* a distance
    of a good two or three feet or more.
    
    The question still remains, though - where does this liquid come from? 
    In men, semen is generated by the prostate, but women have no prostate. 
    Also, where is the liquid stored?  Some people claim a couple of cups
    of it exist, but this seems unlikely, because storage for a couple of
    cups of liquid would be hard to hide from generations of antomists, eh?
    
    I don't have a stance on the issue, but the contraversy is definitely
    there.
    
    D!

  A couple of cups?  I've never heard that quantity before -- a tablespoon
or so, yes.

  The information I have about female ejaculation is that for some women,
maybe a majority or maybe all, there are glands around the urethra that have
a similar tissue makeup as the male prostrate.  These glands can store fluids
whose chemical composition is similar to semin, less the sperm.  When
ejaculation has been documented, it has been able to cover a distance of
several feet.  The substance ejaculated was not urine, but this other
secretion.

  One of the problems they've had in identifying this is that not all women
(based on autopsies) have these glands readily identifiable.  This might
account for why only some women/couples noticing the female ejaculating.

Jim

    Jim, that's very interesting, I hadn't heard of prostate-like tissue
    around the urethra.  It would make a lot of sense...there are very few
    (if any) structures that exist in one sex that don't exist in the
    other.  Clitorises are vestigal penises.  Testes are descended ovaries. 
    Etc.
    
    -d, I don't think "hermaphoditic" is the right word.  There are some
    women who have more or less developed "female" or "male" structures,
    but they all *have* them.  If Jim is right, it could be simply that
    some women's prostate-like tissue is more developped than others...but
    that is no more hermaphotidic than having an exceptionally large
    clitoris or very small breasts.
    
    When it comes down to it, other than X and Y chromosomes, which are
    binary (for the most part), "male" and "female" are really opposite
    ends of a spectrum.  We each fall somewhere on the spectrum.  A
    hermaphodite is someone who falls very close to the middle of the
    spectrum (with respect to their genital/reproductive systems.)  I think
    having one particular structure that is more or less developped than
    average is enough to call someone a hermaphrodite.
    
    (Didja all know that all the hormones in men are also in women, and
    vice versa?  Women have testosterone, just in very small amounts, and
    men have estrogen.)
    
    D!
       

    I've heard the glands that formulate the fluid are called "Bartholins
    Glands".
    
    -Jody
    

> Clitorises are vestigal penises.

Hmph. Penises are hypertrophied clitorises!

	-- Charles (suffering from multiple-orgasm envy)

    Re .128
    
    Just promise me one thing..don't ever become a sculpter..OK?
    
    Don
    *8-)
    

    >> Clitorises are vestigal penises.
    
    >Hmph. Penises are hypertrophied clitorises!
    
    You know, I thought about that as I wrote it.  It occured to me as I wa
    writing that it is very male-centric to define homologues (eg: the
    penis and clitoris are homologues) according to the male.  On the other
    hand, it would be female-centric to do it the otherway.  And awkward to
    avoid that construct.  Not that I dislike being female-centric (I am,
    or at least, often try to be, to compensate for my natural [in this
    society] tendency to be male-centric) but in this case I saw a way out. 
    I defined a clitoris in terms of a penis, but in the next sentence I
    defined testicles in terms of ovaries!  I'm disappointed that you
    didn't notice!
    
    D!

Re: .130

> I defined a clitoris in terms of a penis, but in the next sentence I
> defined testicles in terms of ovaries!  I'm disappointed that you
> didn't notice!

I did. I wanted an argument, not a discussion! Besides, I'm "female-centric."

	-- Charles

P.S. Not smiley captioned for the humor impaired - go find a translator.

    >I wanted an argument
    
    No you didn't.
    
    D!

    In some sense, a penis *is* a hypertrophied clitoris:  an xy foetus
    that is insensitive to androgen (there are such cases) will remain
    female in appearance into adulthood, though without ovulation (the
    gonads are really testes) or womb.  It comes quite a shock to these
    women to learn they are genetic males!

    re:.130
    
    	� I defined a clitoris in terms of a penis, but in
    	the next sentence I defined testicles in terms of
    	ovaries! I'm disappointed that you didn't notice! �
    
    Which just goes to prove how inconsistent you are.
    
    And gee, D!, I wouldn't have thought you'd be here for an Argument,
    but Abuse. That's down the hall...
    
    --- jerry

    >And gee, D!, I wouldn't have thought you'd be here for an Argument,
    >but Abuse. That's down the hall...
    
    I don't need abuse lessons, I've mastered abuse, tyvm.
    
    Wooooohhhhh!   See?
    
    D!

Are you sure you *mastered* Abuse D!?

	WAAAAHHHH!!!

	I guess you did.

	-- Charles

    Regarding the male orgasm san ejaculations, this is an excerpt from an
    excerpt from an excerpt from some unknown net.discussion, that might be
    of interest.
    
    >There are a number of techniques - commonly attributed to Taoists -
    >which enable male orgasm without ejaculation.
    >
    >The best work available in English in this area is 
    >             "The Secret of the Golden Flower"
    >an original Taoist text, interpreted by buddhists and translated into
    >German by Richard Wilhelm, with foreword by Carl Jung. The English
    >translation of this book is published by Routledge, Keegan, Paul -
    >although I've recently discovered that in the USA it is a different
    >publisher.
    >
    [...]
    >
    >The fact is, - when life in not stressed but travel etc.. - I make
    love,
    >on average, more than once a day (and have done for the past ten
    years),
    >I experience multiple non-ejaculative orgasms, and ejaculate perhapss
    >once a month (I'd prefer less). But this is a simple physical
    >manifestation. The real benefit is to my general well-being, health
    and
    >spirit, and that of my wife too.
    >
    >And incidently, these orgasms are full body orgasms. They are similar
    >orgasms experienced by women. Ejaculative orgasm is a second class
    >experience.
    >
    >The technique you refer to can be used in the early stages of learning
    >the mechanism required to "redirect" orgasm - in fact after a some
    >months using
    >this and meditation techniques you should be able to withhold
    >ejaculation without "hand holding".

    Ah, this brings back memories of a note Roberta Piket posted several
    years ago that basically said "the Tao of Love should be required
    reading for all males."
    
    I got my copy via a noter in Australia a year or two ago.  Fascinating
    reading, learned a lot, but was never very dedicated.  Definitely a
    good read about the techniques, though.
    
    Jim

    >"the Tao of Love should be required reading for all males."
    
    I prefer the Tao of Pooh....  (Hey, it's Friday.)

    RE: All,
    
         In terms of sexual egos, I'm suprised no one has brought up the
    fact (in my experience at least..) how alike men and women CAN be when
    it comes to their sexual ego.  A lot of the things I heard described
    here from men and women can and do occur to both sex.  I have been in
    the situation with every women I've ever been sexually intimate with
    where I may not be able to reach orgasm and not lose the erection. 
    BTW, I've never really had a "one night stand"....every woman I have
    been with, I've been with more than once is what I'm saying.   ANYway,
    they all were VERY fragile (ego-wise) until I explained to them that an
    orgasm isn't always the ultimate goal.  Plus, I take PROZAC which
    inhibits the stimuli somewhat.
         Just curious, does anyone in this forum that takes prozac find it
    to be "sexually numbing"?  This question is especially for the women. 
    I've never been with a woman that takes it....uh, the prozac that is!
         Oh yeah and another thing...;-)  I agree with the guy earlier
    that said he'd much rather know than to have someone fake it for his
    benefit.  I sense that maybe some of the men aren't as fragile sexually as
    you may perceive.  As a matter of fact, I have more confidence in
    myself as a lover than in anything else in life.  And I don't mean that
    to sound like a brag, it's just that I know that sexually I am VERY
    caring and giving.  
    
        BTW, yes I'm new to this conference and I have found the
    converation in this topic to be most interesting!  Been typing long
    enough, kind of reply and a get-to-know-me all in package!
    
    P.S. Hi Carla!
    
                                                             Capt. Scott
                                                              

    Yes, Prozac does have a tendency to obliterate desire.  When I was on
    it for 6 months last year, I could care less about sex and had no sex
    drive, fantasies, dreams, etc. regarding sex.  It was a unique
    experience and frankly was rather "freeing."  Kinda makes me wonder if
    I'll feel that way after menopause...
    
    Barb

    Is it clear that PROZAC -an antidepressant inhibits/obliterates desire?
    
    An alternative a-priori hypothesis would be that people for whom
    anti-depressant are indicated (people will some level of clinical
    depression) have a lower sexual 'appetite' than the general population.
    
    I'm sure that those who presribe anti-depressants know one way or the
    other. Would like to know if someone in the conference can confirm or
    refute the connection between PROZAC (or any other anti-depressant) and
    sexual desire.
    
    
    				herb

    Let's put it this way, Herb, without it, I have a very healthy sex
    drive.  When I was on it, I had none whatsoever.  Maybe it's just me,
    or perhaps it was the depression (which was not severe), but I felt
    content with no *need* for passion or sexual fulfillment.
    
    Anyone else care to comment?
    
    Barb

    Barbara, I feel a little prickliness in that response.
    

    My wife had no desire for sex at all with Prozac.  After changing
    to another drug (wellbutrin?) there was a very definite change in
    her interest level.  To be honest I was almost shocked at the level
    of interest in sex after going off of Prozac for a few days.  It is
    clear to me anyway that Prozac has this side effect.  While I am sure
    that her depression impacted her interest in sex prior to going on
    Prozac the drug had a significant impact in addition to the depression.
    On a related note I am taking Pamelor and have experience a decrease in
    intensity as well.

    re: .145
    
    I'm not sure I'm reading your response correctly.  My response wasn't
    intended to be "prickly," just a statement of how I felt at that time. 
    Does it fail to come across that way?
    
    Unclear and wondering,
    Barb

re: effects of anti-depressants on sex-drive

actually, I would bet you are seeing a combination of the drug and the
underlying problem that led to the use of the drug.  The brain is our
strongest sex organ, and when a person is experiencing depression, it is
likely that sex is not of paramount importance.  However, many of the
anti-depressants have the side effect of reduced sexual desire.  I have
several friends (both sexes) who are taking different variations on the
antidepressant theme and, in 3 cases, different drugs were required in
order for the patient to maintain a "normal" conjugal life (whatever that is).
Interestingly enough, 1 friend (female) who is taking PROZAC says it has
no effect ...I don't know if she experienced a low sex drive prior to
taking the drug, however, and that may be a factor.

        re .145, prickliness
        
        I read .144's "Anyone else care to comment?" as "Any
        other Prozac users out there care to comment?".
        
        I didn't read it as a dismissal of .143.
        
        Dan

    I spoke to a friend who is a psychiatrist (but NOT a
    psychopharmacologist). Lowered sex drive is a side effect that CAN be
    associated with PROZAC (somewhat more frequently than SOME other
    anti-depressants. Among other factors is the dosage level. If that
    sounds to you like a rather limited/guarded statement then you are
    reading correctly. My friend recommends discussing it with the
    physician who prescribed the PROZAC. 
    
    As a kind of general comment. Our site (ZKO) nursing office contains a
    PDR (Physician's Desk Reference) that contains all sorts of info on
    medications. The nurses at our site have let me use the PDR several
    times. Your milage may vary.
    
    
    				herb

    an anecdote in re all anti-depressants are not necessarily the same
    
    As noted, Pamelor(Nortryptiline?) is an anti-depressant. Its's a
    member of the tricyclic(sp?) family and was characterized to me as a
    'next generation successor' to Elavil (amitryptiline). Elavil
    (amitryptiline) has been characterized to me (by a
    psychopharmacologist) as 'the drug of choice' for the treatment of
    migraine and yet Prozac although also an anti-depressant is
    specifically contraindicated for those with migraine.
    
    
    				h

    I'm entering this for a member of our community who wishes to be
    anonymous at this time.
    Justine
    
    ========================================================================
    >I'm sure that those who presribe anti-depressants know one way or the
    >other. 

    Don't count on it.  I have been on and off Prozac 3 times.  When I
    first reported this side effect my doctor said he'd never heard of it. 
    I obtained the package insert from my pharmacist and it did not mention
    loss of sexual desire as a side effect.  (That was 2 years ago; it may
    be different now.) I was *certain* that it was a side effect of the
    drug.  Then I read in Newsweek that loss or delay of orgasm was
    reported frequently by both men and women on Prozac.

    My experience was that I still had sexual desire (somewhat reduced),
    but found it difficult and eventually impossible to experience orgasm
    even with self stimulation.  Having gone on and off the drug three
    times, for me, the corelation with the appearance and disappearance of
    the side effect was much too strong to be coincidence.   It was this    
    particular side effect that was the reason I discontinued the drug.  
    Too big a price to pay.

    All of which is why I'm trying to learn to cope with my depressive
    cycles without drugs . . .
    
    --bonnie

    
    There's a small article in this month's (April) Glamour confirming 
    that a loss of desire is now an acknowledged side effect of Prozac.
    
    Sue

    I checked in the PDR (edition from perhaps two years ago...waiting
    for the newest to update...I don't do it every year):
    
    "Adverse Effects" for the following medications included the following:
    
    Prozac:  sexual dysfunction, impotence
    
    Elavil (amitriptyline):  increased or decreased libido
    
    Tofranil (imipramine):  increased or decreased libido, impotence
    
    Norpramin (desipramine):  increased or decreased libido, impotence
    
    
    Concerning headaches and the antidepressents...
    	Even though  "headache" is listed as a possible adverse effect
    	for most anti-depressants, they are increasingly used, in smaller
    	dosages than for depression, to prevent migraine.  I tried
    	Norpramin and Prozac.  Had various side effects from both,
    	and fortunately, because they did not seem to help with the
    	migraine, I am not taking either anymore.  
    
    Pennie

    People who are experienced medication users ought perhaps ignore the
    following. It is information that I wish I had in my 20s, maybe a lot
    of folks here might find it useful...
    
    "Adverse effects"

    suggests that those are the things that happen as a result of using the
    medication...

    What "adverse effects" 
    in fact means is something rather more like

    "things that have a probability of happening that is significantly above
    chance."

    e.g. I seem to remember that approx 14% of Prozac users suffer from
    headaches as a result. (I would guess that many of THOSE users would
    find a reasonable substitute.
    
    e.g. it is obvious that increased libido AND decreased libido cannot
    happen to the same person at the same time.

    (it does appear from the PDR quotes that PROZAC when the negative
    impact is present it is more powerful for PROZAC users than for the
    other listed medication. . There was a Newsweek cover story on drugs a
    few months ago. Its contents included extension discussion of Prozac)
     
    In the normal course of events, when one is taking a medication with
    known side effects, the physician monitors the patient for those side
    effects, and together they make some judgement about the cost/benifit
    of the medication in terms of the side effects' presence,intensity,
    dependence on dosage variation etc.
    
    So for one to say "I will not take PROZAC because it causes sexual
    dysfunction/impotence" is inappropriate. What would be appropriate
    would be something like "I am unwilling to take an n% chance on 
    temporary impotence even if it is only temporary. On the other hand a
    doctor might say -to another patient- "lookit: you have tried to kill
    yourself three times now. The only medication that has had an impact on
    you are the tricyclics. Even though Nortrypiline results in a temporary
    libido loss in your case, it is the only medication we have found so
    far that keeps you out of the suicidal depression. I think it is worth
    the risk. What do you think." 
    
    What the pharmacological companies will have said is something like n%
    of PROZAC in the study became (temporarily or permanently?) impotent
    this impotence was reversible in m weeks in p% of the users. X% became
    permanently impotent (if there were any)

        I've been taking Prozac for 1 1/2 yr's now and it hasn't decreased
    my interest/desire for sex, only the ability to achieve orgasm on
    occasion.  I also take a pretty high dosage...60 mg/day (3 - 20
    mg. capsules).
        As far as what is official about Prozac, depends on who you ask. 
    The manufacturer has several suits pending.  My doctor told me that the
    only side effect I should experience is be what I have
    explained...delayed/no orgasm.  Had he told me of possibility of
    impotency, I probably would have never taken it.
    
                                                             Capt. Scott  

Slightly off the topic but pertinent to PROZAC. One rather unfortunate side
effect has been an increased tendancy to suicide. There is still a lot of chiken
and egg debate over this though. liesl

    Glad you added the chicken vs egg.
    
    Otherwise, would have left the VERY dangerous (and irresponsible)
    impression that somehow perhaps PROZAC _causes_ suicide (e.g. by making
    people even MORE vulnerable to their depression).  (of course, that
    COULD be the case, perhaps it IS the case that PROZAC _causes_ suicide,
    but I doubt that either is the intent or is accurate).
    
    A priori (as you seem to be suggesting) the 'cause' of the 'increased'
    suicide could be as innocuous as  ...
    The pool of people who take ANY antidepressant may well hold a very
    significant percentage of the people who ultimately take their life.
    				or
    The pool of people who take PROZAC may include MOST of the people who
    commit suicide as well as all the other people who have some level or
    more of depression.
    
    If it is this kind of connection then 'side effect' is not even the
    right word. Maybe 'anomoly' might be a more accurate word. Maybe
    oddity..., maybe 'bizarre corollary'?

    Herb,
    
    A friend asked her doctor about it, as the GP wanted her off Prozac
    because it had been involved in suicides.  The Psychiatrist explained
    that with any antidepressant being used on a severly depressed person,
    they need to be monitored very closely.  Sometimes  severely depressed
    persons would be suicidal but they are, believe it or not, to depressed
    to think about it.  The first side effect of some anti depressants is
    an increased level of energy and enough lessening of the depression for
    the suicidally depressed to be actually able to do something about the
    constant gloom. (IE commit suicide to get out of pain.)  Since prozac
    had worked so well for my friend (she has been on it almost since it
    came out), and other anti depressants had failed so miserably with her
    she will continue on the prozac per the psychiatrist.
    
    Meg  

    Meg:
    
    I understand you to be saying that even the GP who wanted her off Prozac
    has a distorted view of 'side effects'.
    
    If that's your point then...
    

    Herb,
    
    Yep

    
    This was typed in from Cosmo by a noter who wishes to remain anonymous. 
    I thought it was interesting, so here it is.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
                   The New Intercourse by Philip Nobile
                       Cosmopolitan September 1991

      Nature has been generous in passing out the joys of sex:  We  get  to
 fill up our senses with the sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and touches of
 the esteemed object of desire.  And that's only the  foreplay.   The  best
 comes  last  -  orgasm,  the Japanese word for which translates as "I have
 died and gone to heaven."

      Yet there seems to be a hole in the grand design, a giant splotch  on
 the art of love.  Apparently, nature has short changed women in the orgasm
 department.  Although men climax like clockwork  during  intercourse,  the
 *majority*  of  women  do  not.   The  most  blissful sex act in the known
 universe practically quarantees men a flight to heaven,  while  women  are
 generally put on standby and must take other means of transport.

      If only somebody could discover a new position, maybe  this  orgasmic
 inequality  would  fade away.  Actually, a Manhattan psychotherapist named
 Edward W.  Eichel has devised an innovative  method  of  intercourse  -  a
 variation of the missionary position - that not only increases the chances
 of coital orgasm for women but also tends  to  bring  on  that  rarest  of
 ecstasies  - simultaneous orgasm - as well.  Eichel calls his breakthrough
 the coital-alignment technique (CAT).  His study of forty-three of the men
 and  women who tested the method was recently published in the prestigious
 Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy.

      The results were astounding.  Before being taught Eichel's technique,
 only  23  percent  of  the  female  subjects  said  they had orgasm during
 intercourse always or often.  But  afterward,  the  figure  jumped  to  77
 percent.   Prior  to  participating  in  the  study,  not  one  woman  had
 simultaneous orgasms "almost always," yet more than  one-third  did  after
 trying the technique.  "I threw away my vibrator as soon as I learned it,"
 said one female enthusiast.

      It was actually Alfred Kinsey, the pioneering sexologist from Indiana
 University,  who  first  challenged  in his report, Sexual Behavior in the
 Human Female,  the  two  major  misunderstandings  about  women's  orgasm.
 First,  Kinsey  shot down Freud's notion of the vaginal orgasm, calling it
 "a biological  impossibility."  Since  the  vagina  has  almost  no  nerve
 endings, said Kinsey, stimulation of the vagina alone could hardly lead to
 climax.  Second, women were not sexual tortoises, as was commonly thought.
 Kinsey  timed the masturbation speeds of both men and women and found that
 men crossed the finish line merely seconds before women.  "It is true that
 the  average female responds more slowly than the average male in coitus,"
 he conceded, "*but this seems due to  the  ineffectiveness  of  the  usual
 coital techniques* [emphasis added]."

      This  was  a  huge  clue  in  the  case  of  the  missing  orgasm  in
 intercourse.  There was nothing wrong with women; rather, the fault was in
 the *craft*.  The traditional style  of  lovemaking  -  prolonged  petting
 followed  by  intense in-and-out thrusting - was an unreliable approach to
 climax.  Kinsey did not describe a better way, but he  suggested  that  an
 important  key to female orgasm was in masturbation, in which women depend
 on  "brief  but  uninterrupted  pressures   and/or   continuous   rhythmic
 stimulation" to push themselves over the edge.

      Almost twenty-five years later, Shere Hire, another sexpert, reported
 the  same  conclusion  in  the  famous Hite Report.  Over and over, the 30
 percent of women in her sample who reached orgasm during intercourse  told
 her  that thrusting did not do it for them.  Instead the trick was "more a
 kind of pressing together (with the penis inside)  so  that  the  clitoris
 could  get  the kind of continuous stimulation necessary for orgasm." Hite
 was on Eichel's wavelength when she commented, "Intercourse need not be as
 gymnastic  as we usually thought, and it is probable that what we think of
 as natural  physical  movements  of  intercourse  are  nothing  more  than
 'learned' responses."

      Back in the seventies, Ed Eichel, a young psychotherapist immersed in
 the  human-potential  movement,  began  directing  encounter  groups.   He
 decided to focus on couples and earned his master's  degree  in  New  York
 University's  Human  Sexuality Program.  At the time, he noticed that many
 of the couples he knew seemed happy enough yet felt strangely  incomplete.
 "These people were committed to each other, but excitement was diminishing
 in their relationships," Eichel recalls.  "Sexual  communication  appeared
 to  be  a  big  part  of the problem.  I became aware that intercourse was
 unsatisfying for women mainly because they didn't have orgasm."

      Eichel started  to  ponder  this  fundamental  incompatibility.   Why
 *weren't*  women  orgasmic during the act ?  "It didn't make sense to me,"
 he says.  "Intercourse couldn't  be  naturally  discordant.   The  problem
 wasn't intrinsic to the species.  Men and women are designed to complement
 each other, and I couldn't accept that intercourse was  one  part  of  the
 design  that  didn't  work.   My  intuition  was that we were lacking some
 fundamental insight."

      But  as  Eichel  looked  for  answers,  he  saw   that   professional
 sexologists  had  largely  given up trying to bring men and women together
 through  more  fulfilling  intercourse.   Masturbation  was  in.   Orgasm,
 however you got it, was okay.

      Eichel realized that  intercourse  would  never  be  "fixed"  without
 paying  attention  to the clitoris.  Yet the usual forms of thrusting left
 this crucial organ out in the cold.   There  was  one  position,  however,
 known  as  the  male  pelvic  override - in which the man rode high on the
 supine woman, allowing the  shaft  of  his  penis  to  press  against  her
 clitoris  -  that  provided  the  required contact.  Despite its potential
 advantage, the override position never caught on in the love manuals.   It
 seemed  too  awkward  - the angle prevented men from hard pumping and deep
 penetration, and women felt pinned down  by  the  extra  weight  on  their
 chest.   Although Masters and Johnson acknowledged the arousing quality of
 the override in Human Sexual Response, they reported that women complained
 of  vaginal and rectal discomfort as tension increased during intercourse.
 Their critique virtually quaranteed  the  unpopularity  of  this  position
 among professionals.

      Still, Eichel was not deterred.  He thought Masters and Johnson  were
 too  hasty  in  dismissing  the  override.   "They  didn't  understand the
 importance of coordination," he says.  "If the man speeds up his thrusting
 rather than allowing orgasm to unfold at its natural pace, of course there
 is discomfort.  What I tried to do in my research was find a way to smooth
 out the rhythm."

      With a lot of experimentation - everybody wore  clothes  in  Eichel's
 seminars and practiced in private at home - the coital-alignment technique
 emerged.   It  combined  the  pelvic-override  position  with  a  rhythmic
 pressure-counterpressure  of  the  penis and clitoris.  Here is how Eichel
 described the five elements of CAT in the Journal:

 1.  Positioning.  The man assumes the "riding high"  coital  posture  with
 his  pelvis  overriding  the  woman's, and the shaft of his penis pressing
 against her mons veneris.  The man rests the full weight of his body  upon
 the  woman  -  not propping his torso up on his elbows.  The weight of his
 torso gravitates forward, toward her shoulders and  head;  he  should  not
 slide  backward,  which causes his pelvis to slip below hers.  The woman's
 legs are wrapped around the man's thighs, with her ankles resting  on  his
 calves.

 2.  Kinetic principles.  Sexual movement in the position of  alignment  is
 dependent  on  spinal  articulation  -  primary  pelvic mobility - without
 additional leverage from pulling or bracing with the legs and arms.

 3.  Coordinated sexual movement.  Partners  must  establish  a  rhythm  of
 sexual movement that is identical in pattern and pace.

      The woman leads in the *upward* stroke of  sexual  movement,  forcing
 the  pelvis  of  the  man  backward; he allows his pelvis to move backward
 while providing a resistant counterpressure against the woman's  clitoris.
 As  the  woman's  pelvis  moves forward and upward, the vagina engulfs the
 penis more deeply.

      In the *downward* stroke of sexual movement,  the  process  reverses,
 with  the male forcing the female pelvis backward and downward.  The woman
 provides a resistant counterpressure by pressing her clitoris against  the
 base  of  the  man's  penis.   As  the  woman's  pelvis moves backward and
 downward, the penis shaft rocks forward against the  mons,  sliding  to  a
 shallow position in the vagina.

 4.  Complete genital contact.  This penile-clitoral contact is held steady
 during  intercourse  by  means  of  pressure  and counterpressure, exerted
 simultaneously  by  partners  throughout  the  sex  act.    This   differs
 distinctly  from  the more-conventional form of genital interplay in which
 the penis slides in and out of the vaginal barrel - with  intermittent  or
 no  clitoral  contact  - making sensation dependent upon friction from the
 speed  of  the  coital  thrusting.   The  frictional  type  of   sensation
 associated  with  normal  coital  thrusting differs qualitatively from the
 electric, vibratory type of sensation associated with pressure stimulus in
 the alignment technique.

 5.  Orgasm.  It is crucial that partners maintain a steady, even  pace  of
 movement,  and  do  not  respond to mounting sensations at the approach of
 climax by speeding up and "grasping" at orgasm - or by  slowing  down  and
 tensing  up.   Uncoordinated  sexual  movement can inhibit or fragment the
 orgasmic process for partners, rather than facilitate it.  If  bodies  are
 properly  aligned  and sexual movement is well coordinated, the transition
 to reflexive involuntary movement in orgasm can occur naturally, without a
 disruption in the pattern of motion.  The pattern of movement may continue
 unbroken and deepen throughout orgasm.

      In addition to raising the rate of coital climax  for  woman,  Eichel
 argues  that CAT has somehow tapped into a higher sexual consciousness for
 both genders, hypothesizing that orgasms attained  by  his  technique  are
 superior  to  other  types.  The data obtained in his study appear to back
 him up.  Ninety percent of his male and  female  subjects  said  that  CAT
 "intensified"  their  orgasms,  and  60 percent reported that it increased
 their desire to have sex more frequently.

      The surprising leap in simultaneous orgasm is another  indication  to
 Eichel  that  CAT  is a significant advance in lovemaking.  "Although it's
 not a good idea to insist on simultaneity in intercourse,"  he  says,  "it
 seems  to  be a natural by-product of coordination.  The fullest degree of
 sexual response occurs when a man and a woman climax together.  I think we
 should stop telling couples it's a myth."

      Connie, a thirty-two-year-old book editor, claims  that  since  using
 CAT,  she  and  her  husband have almost nothing but simultaneous orgasms.
 "The technique feels a little odd at first," she admits.  "But once you do
 it  right, you'll never go back to having sex any other way.  Orgasm isn't
 just confined to the genitals.  Instead, you can feel it  running  up  and
 down  your  spine;  it's  so  full,  so  complete  - the sensation is just
 unbelievable.  Also, the emotional factor is more intense.   We've  become
 closer, committed in a way we never were before."

      Eichel, who is something of a philosopher as well as psychotherapist,
 hopes  his  discovery  will  help  alter  the  troubled  history of modern
 marriage.  "Monogamy is associated with boredom and obligation," he  says.
 "Society  tolerates,  even  romanticizes,  extramarital  affairs.   Why  ?
 Because we've lost confidence in achieving erotic compatibility  at  home.
 But  CAT  really  can  reshape  our  understanding and appreciation of sex
 within marriage.  Think what the world would be like if total  harmony  in
 the bedroom were the norm rather than the exception."

re: .163

if only we could offer real, practical technical information to the young
before they get into sex...imagine how many women might actually enjoy
sex.  This should be taught as a requirement before marriage.

    Well, it all sounds entertaining, but I'm not sure I believe anything
    that was printed in Cosmo. It would make fantastic reading on an
    airplane, though. ;-)
    
    -b

Re: .165

Believe it.  I know whereof it speaks, and it's right.

-d