Venus Butterfly

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I was just watching Berman and Berman For Women Only on the Discovery Health Channel. A sexologist described in detail the famous Venus Butterfly maneuver, which is a way to give a woman an external (clitoral) AND an internal (vaginal) orgasm, which is described as \"volcanic\" and \"mindblowing.\"


Here\'s what she said:



Find the G spot. The G spot is about two inches inside the vagina, is about the size of a dime, and is ridged like the roof of your mouth.



Get oriented to the G spot so you can find it as soon as you put your fingers in.



Then. Give oral doing several short strokes at the top of the clitoris and one long stroke down to the perineum. The reason you do the long stroke is because it feels good since it hits the urethra and the labia minora but also because the long stroke keeps her from coming too fast from her clit.


When she gets to an arousal level of 8 on a scale of 1-10 (obviously your partner needs to know herself and maybe this would take some experimenting with her, ah, the joys of fieldwork), you put your finger(s) in and TAP the G spot while you stimulate the clitoris with your tongue without stopping until she comes. (So this time no long stroke, you just stay at the clit.)


The women in the audience who had taught their partners this method said it was the best orgasm they\'d ever had in their lives and although they had done similar things before (oral with fingers inside, etc.), this precise technique tweaked it to a point that gave even more pleasure.

[bundyburger]

This is pretty much what I do!

It\'s hard to complete when a woman moves on you all the time though. The key is definitely to not touch the G-spot until later in the \"schedule\" (lol).
And if possible make it as quick and as much of a surprise as you can make it.
The guy has to be in a comfortable and controlling position to be able to keep in contact with the clit as she moves around. Otherwise it\'ll screw the whole process.

I like the TAP idea. Interesting, as I\'ve find that a semi-knock/rub seems to work the best with the big G. [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Train her to be still and let you do it.SDR and I do a sort of variation on that, but it\'s me with my fingers and his fingers inside. That\'s made me come so hard I couldn\'t get up afterwards. Or even move. Another thing I thought was interesting was the statistic that only 30 percent of women have orgasms from intercourse without any direct clitoral stimulation. Some women in the audience asked about that, their men had concerns and were putting some pressure on them. I\'d heard that number before but they verified it again on the show. Which means since the way to keep her is to make sure she comes every time, it\'s important to learn techniques involving the clitoris at least, and the g spot to whatever extent you can incorporate it.

[bundyburger]

<<Another thing I thought was interesting was the statistic that only 30 percent of women have orgasms from intercourse without any direct clitoral stimulation.>>

Not surprising considering, for starters, most younger females don\'t even seem aware of their g-spot (it seems).

Male attitude of \"I just want to bang, bang, bang\" (lol) probably doesn\'t help either. (Stupid catchy song [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/mad.gif[/img] )

[seadove]

Listen, we don\'t understand all this, oh enlightened one, excepting bundy.

So please elaborate, umm, with pictures.

[img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img][img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img][img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img][img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img]

[Elana]

<<So please elaborate, umm, with pictures.>>

No....Bundy has been showing those pictures way too much. What we do in private is our own business. [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Even among women who are familiar with their G spot. Seems we got a clit for a reason. [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[seadove]

<<< Seems we got a clit for a reason. >>>

Clit? What clit?

There wasn\'t a mis-spelling in Clint Eastwood\'s name?

[img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/shocked.gif[/img]

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Seadove, have Elana show you. [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[seadove]

Yes Elana show me.

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze?

[img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img][img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img][img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

[seadove]

Elana told me I have to use my imagination.

What does Clint Eastwood look like?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

He looks like the little man in the boat.

[seadove]

Got it.
[img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/blush.gif[/img]

[nonscents]

\"Seems we have a clit for a reason.\" Actually Stephen Jay Gould, has [well, I should say \"had\" since he\'s dead now] a pretty detailed theory of the evoloutionary significance of clits in women and tits in men. If anyone\'s interested I can look for it and post it. (His theory is probably wrong, but that doesn\'t make it less interesting. I am sure JVK\'s theory\'s wrong too, but he\'s a very smart man, and handsome too!) [And you should all buy his wonderful book!]

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Dude, what does he say?

[nonscents]

Stephen Jay Gould The Structure of Evolutionary Theory


Page 1258 defines \"spandrels\" as \"features of nonadaptive origin,\" which are \"structural by products or side consequences . . .\" This is a term from architecture, but Gould sees it applicable to evolutionary theory as well.

Page 1261: \"In complex sexual animals, a particularly interesting class of spandrels originates as consequences of a developmental constraint leading both sexes along an initially shared embryological pathway that later branches to differentiate a set of homologous structures into the two major facies of a species\'s sexual dimorphism.\"

Page 1262: Example, \"why do men grow apparently non-functional nipples? The puzzlement of so many people, including several accomplished scientists, flowed from adaptationist biases that demanded an explanation in utilitarian terms: perhaps males can suckle babies in certain circumstances; or perhaps they once did, and male nipples persist as a vestige?\" But the answer is that nipples on men are spandrels, \"males probably grow nipples because females need them for an evident purpose, and many aspects of development follow a single pathway. So females grow nipples as adaptations for suckling, and males grow smaller and unused nipples as a spandrel based upon the value of single developmental channels.\"

[nonscents]

Page 1262: \"The female clitoris is the developmental homolog of the male penis, and the adaptive value of male orgasm seems no more problematical than the biological function of the female breast. The clitoral site of female orgasm need not hold any special adaptive value per se, but may arise as a developmental consequence of selection upon the same organ in males.\"

1263: He continues by denying that he is claiming that the female orgasm is not useful or that it is not significant from an evolutionary standpoint. \"I cannot speak from direct experience of course, but I accept the clear testimony that clitoral orgasm plays a pleasurable and central role in female sexuality and its joys. All these favorable attributes, however, emerge just as clearly and just as easily, whether the clitoral site of orgasm arose as a spandrel or an adaptation. (As a spandrel, the clitoral site would represent the different expression of a male adaptation, just as male nipples may be the spandrels of a female adaptation.) . . .\"

[nonscents]

I broke this up into 3 posts because I was getting tired of all this typing from his book. His basic claim is that social scientists, biologists, and armchair philosophers often make the error, first identified by Nietzsche, of confusing the current utility or usefulness of an organ, or structure, or social practice, with the explanation of its origin. The famous example is Dr. Pangloss from Voltaire\'s Candide who responded to the question, \"Why do humans have noses?\" with \"To hold our spectacles.\" The error he makes is to confuse the current usefulness of noses, they can support our sunglasses, etc., with an explanation of their origin. A Darwinian would explain their origin by demonstrating that organisms with noses are better adapted to their environment than those without. Gould\'s point is that although the current utility might deviate from the original adaptive value, the current utility might be extremely important and beneficial.

With regards to clits and tits, his point is that there is value to having a single developmental pathway in both sexes. The explanation of nipples is that they function to nourish infants when women nurse. Men have them because women have them. The explanation of orgasms is that they function to motivate men to fertilize women. Women have them because men have them.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I appreciate your typing all that out.

But the difference between male nipples and the female clit is that the clit actually does do something. It functions for sexual pleasure in the same way that the penis functions for sexual pleasure in the male. It has a purpose, which is to give the female sexual pleasure/orgasm. It\'s been proven (with cameras) that the female orgasm has a role in reproduction, because when a woman has an orgasm, her cervix sucks fluid from the vaginal canal - in other words, the orgasm is what helps the semen get where it wants to go. Not that it\'s not possible for the little swimmers to get their on their own. But female orgasm facilitates reproduction. And the clit facilitates (arguably, governs) female orgasm.

I think the error is to compare men\'s and women\'s genitals in terms of looking for exact correlations, with the male genital system as the model.

[nonscents]

Males are no more a model than females. In the case of nipples, females are the model. Some males happen to get physical pleasure from stroking their nipples. Male nipples become erect when they are aroused. But it would, according to Gould, be incorrect to explain why men developed nipples by referring to their current utility. Men have nipples because they were adaptive for women.

There is a highly developed refutation against the claim that female orgasmic muscular contractions enhance fertility for those who have access to the journal American Psychologist 53, 1998, pages 533-48, Buss et. al. \"Adaptations, exaptations, and spandrels.\"

I think that Gould might very well be wrong, but it\'s very hard to refute. His claim is not that clitorises have the same significance in female utility as nipples have in male utility. What is the same for both is that initially, female nipples and male penises were adaptive. Side effects of these adaptations were male nipples and female clitorises. But what was a side effect way back when can come to have significance later on, that overshadows the initial reason for adaptation.

For example, why do people have such big brains. Well, today it is possible that we have big brains because we need them for language. And with language we have been able to organize ourselves into huge complex societies that dominate the ecosystem. But that might not be why we initially came to have big brains. One theory is that we initially got big brains because they were adaptive for hurling objects to capture prey. That very complex behavior increased the relative reproductive fitness of those with bigger brains. That explanation of the origin of big brains is completely overshadowed today but the current linguistic utility of big brains.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

How should this information be translated into behavior? Or are you sharing it purely from the standppoint of a discussion about evolutionary biology, for which subject Gould is one of the more controversial thinkers.

\"What is the same for both is that initially, female nipples and male penises were adaptive. Side effects of these adaptations were male nipples and female clitorises. \"
I don\'t have any argument with that, but, meaning no disrespect, this information leaves me somewhat non-plussed. What am I to understand from it, or, more importantly, what are the young guys on the forum to understand from it, who are still struggling to find the little man in the boat, and call everything between a woman\'s legs \"vagina.\" For practical purposes, one had best consider the clitoris biologically necessary, because if you don\'t know what to do with one, your chances of getting laid are diminished considerably.

I suppose I\'ll have to suffer hissings of \"feminisssst!\" but I just mention in passing that these scholarly works in which female orgasms are said to have no purpose and our organs are merely vestigal remains or something that started out to be a penis but didn\'t quite make it is a little irksome. This is an aside and I don\'t mean it to become the focus of a further argument. An attempt at consciousness raising which I hope you (forum, young dudes) will indulge me in without too much flaming.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I shared this thread with my senior attorney and here is his viewpoint. [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img]

\"Here\'s a better theory, and it has the added benefit of being supported by no scientific data whatsoever. In the early days, men were oaf-like cavemen, and oral sex was probably not a high priority. In fact, intercourse was probably a purely utilitarian and unpleasant experience resembling the chimp or gorilla sex you see on the Discovery Channel. In other words, not something a woman was looking forward to after a long day of grinding plants into food. Plus, childbirth was life-threatening and hurt like hell, what with the total lack of drugs, Lamaze breathing techniques, and supportive mid-wife types.

Problem was, procreation was essential to continuation of the growing social groups and the increasingly agrarian and eventually urban lifestyle that was developing (as opposed to the nomadic hunter-gatherer mode). So something had to be done to convince the females to give it up. Enter the sensitive clitoris and reacreational orgasm. This worked. In fact, combining the increased pleasure of intercourse due to clitoral stimulation with the developing religion-based condemnation of masturbation, intercourse, and by extension procreation, became both a pleasurable and socially acceptable activity for women.

Now, however, as a species we are at an ideal population level, so female sexual activity, and hence procreation, need no longer be evolutionarily encouraged. So, men are naturally becoming less concerned with ensuring that sex is enjoyable for the woman, returning intercourse to its rightful place as a purely utilitarian procreative act. Indeed, the undeniable pleasure of clitorial self-stimulation acts as a further mechanism to marginalize intercourse as the source of psycho-sexual enjoyment for women, and adds to the population control evolutionary movement. This might also explain the rise in pseudo-lesbian behavior among women, particularly on the internet.\"

He funny. [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[Mtnjim]

Much simpler--economy in evolution. Build a basic blueprint and modify.

[nonscents]

I think that what many find objectionable to Gould\'s analysis is that it appears as if he is assigning secondary importance to female orgasm and he seems to be arguing that there is a biological basis for subordinating the female\'s orgasm to the males. In fact, Gould was a fierce opponent of sociobiology and was always quick to point out the fallacy using reductionist biological arguments to justify whatever social scheme happens to be in fashion at the moment.

[Lucky]

My gosh, nonscents is multi-orgasmic AND has a brain. Yummmmm.