male anatomy

The No-Sex Class and (Yet) Another Womens Sexual-Response Study

Sun, 2011-08-07 15:53

The editors at Big Think say something we all know, endlessly, over and over, because... well, first here's the story, arbitrarily truncated because the rest really doesn't matter

What's the Latest Development? The locations of the vagina, cervix and female nipples that correspond to the brain's cortex have been mapped for the first time. The study confirms that there is a difference between stimulating the vagina and the clitoris and that there is a direct neurological link ...

Source: Big Think

Yeah! Whee! Lady parts! We all just love sticking probes in women's ladybusinesses.  "For science" of course.

Extra credit for tossing in the nipple stimulation!

(I'm unable to confirm whether they're now hoping to get additional funding to measure the cortical reaction to researchers shaking their faces between the subject's breasts and going wooba-wooba-wooba-wooba.)

You know why this irritates me beyond all fucking belief?

Because, hello, when was the last time anybody did a study of fucking male orgasms? When was the last time anybody did a cortical assay of men's secondary erogenous zones?

Because, great bactrian camel humps!  Isn't anybody curious about male sexual response beyond "Oh men?  They just stick it in a hole and wiggle, case closed.  Now back to the "mysteries" of the pussy?"

You wanna know something gang?  We know roughly 130 times more about women's orgasms, women's sexual response, women's arousal patterns, women's SES/SIS interactions in the Dual Control Model of Sexual Response model, the maps of women's erogenous zones, women's g-spots, p-spots, a-spots, plus vaginal depth, width, lubrication, relative humidity, and fucking barometric pressure than we do about men.

Because for some crying-out-loud reason (coughRule #1cough, cough women as the "no-sex" classcough) we have to study women's responses over, and over, and over, and over because the very idea of women's sexual responsiveness is inconceivable! Intolerable!

Oh, that plus women are things and we study the crap out of things.  Men, though, even if anybody gave a crap about dime-a-dozen, here's-some-cold-cream-not-go-in-the-other-room-and-take-care-of-that-son men's cortical locations, are human beings.  And consequently studying us men would require, I dunno, human subject research determinations or something.  So nobody bothers.

So.  Anyway.  Two really, really big objections here.

1) It's not that women's sexual response isn't mysterious, it's that men's are no less mysterious.

2) It's not that men's sexual response is mysterious, it's that women's sexuality isn't either.

Men and women aren't identical.  But we're not so different that the unbelievable imbalance in research is warranted.

Update: One possibility that doesn't change my social critique at all: it's actually possible that men's sexual response, erogenous zones, etc., are academically as thoroughly researched as women's... but it's just never reported on blogs or in the press.

Fetish Blogs in Everything, Ticklish Male Celebrities Edition

Wed, 2010-06-30 08:13

Well this is about as random as my posts get. So since the beginning of the year my family has been watching an episode per day of the teenage-Superman soap opera Smallville. Go Netflix. For some reason the combination of angst, adventure, intrigue, romance, danger, lust, and parental modeling has just worked to keep us in all-ages conversation about all sorts of things. We’re currently toward the end of season seven, which is probably more episodes of anything I’ve ever watched. Go figure. But I digress…

Today for some reason I decided I wanted to know what Michael Rosenbaum looks like with hair. He’s the guy who plays the perpetually, almost delightfully complex Lex Luthor character.

Anyway (yeah, yeah, I’m getting to the point) I found a bunch of photos on Google Images (the link, again) and randomly clicked on a thumbnail, expecting to get a better look.

What I didn’t expect, but what I instead got, was a link to page “M” of a blog called Ticklish Male Celebrities, hosted by Lady, evidently from Bulgaria (judging from her email domain’s country code) who’s description reads

I’m a woman of art, who has one weird… weakness – ticklish guys :)

The side description says

The blog’s besically an alphabetical list of famous actors/musicians/writers/footballers, etc, who’ve admitted they’re ticklish. You can check the “Tickling Media Forum” to see their list of male celebs, so you’d know where I got most of the information from. Myspace mesaging also helped LOL :) I’d also upload photos of the guys in question, barefoot if possible.

That’s pretty much exactly what the blog is about. It’s been around since September, 2008, which makes it fairly venerable in blog years. And though the unusual method of just adding new entries to one of 26 “alphabetical” posts makes it hard to tell, Lady keeps it active and up to date.

Anyway, if you’re into very, very soft-core “man candy” images, or if you’re into mostly-barefoot men, or if you’re into ticklish men, or you’re just looking for unusual celebrity trivia the site could be just the ticket.

-==-

Doh! While researching fetishes (there’s this persistent but obviously mistaken belief, going back to Freud no less, that only men have fetishes) I discovered that, according to The Manual of International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10 version 2005), something is technically a fetish if and only if it involves a fixation on or use of inanimate objects for sexual gratification. If one is instead attached to activities instead of inanimate objects then the technical vocabulary is “paraphilia.” I think most people have probably heard the term paraphlia. What I didn’t know was that when one is erotically fascinated by specific body parts like feet or hair it’s called “partialism.” Since most people’s sexual attachments to objects, activities, or body parts aren’t obsessive enough to count as “diseases and related health problems,” though, it’s fine to lump them all together or to mix or match them. Or you could just call it all “kink.” Or, as long as it really isn’t interferingly obsessive, since appreciation for sexual variation is actually pretty common you could do what I do and call it “normal.”

-==-

Getting back to my original obscure intention, the photos of Michael Rosenbaum didn’t really show what he looks like with hair so my search continues. But just for the record here’s her entry on Rosenbaum, bare feet and ticklishness quotes included.

From http://ticklishmalecelebrities.blogspot.com/2008/09/letter-m.html http://ticklishmalecelebrities.blogspot.com/2008/09/letter-m.html

Michael Rosenbaum (plays Lex Luthor on “Smallville”) This is how his AOL Live interview went (9/02)..
Hi Michael! Are you a ticklish guy? If so, where?

MichaelRLive: “Sure. Where am I not, that’s the question.”
http://www.michaelrosenbaum.com/aol.html

Scroll way down to find the entry.

Cool and completely unexpected discovery.

What We Think We Know About Men's Sexuality, Plus "Proof" Men Have No Prostates

Wed, 2010-01-06 12:53

Not sure you can get there without registering, but after my server logs told me a poster on sex-fetish forum site Fetlife.com had linked to my post about the g-spot researcher’s other theories about women’s orgasms I found a startlingly common but I think pretty backwards assertion by another poster who said

It’s a fact that the study of female sexuality lags decades (or perhaps centuries) behind that of male sexuality so we shouldn’t be surprised that stuff like this continues to surface…

You might have to register to see it but she said here.

Instead I think we know almost exactly nothing about male sexuality except, pretty much…

  1. men will put their penises in anything vaguely orifice-like
  2. men have orgasms effortlessly if they put their penis in anything vaguely orifice-like
  3. the two items above are obviously and universally true of every man
  4. unless there’s something wrong with the man

This would be yet another consequence of assuming men are the “norm” against which everyone else is “other.” (Update: A consequence which would more tolerable if items 1-4 were even superficially correct. See also Holly.)

In fact what we don’t know about men’s sexuality would fill bookstores. Assuming anyone was a) curious and also b) unintimidated by item #4, above.

Penises aren’t uniformly sensitive, for instance. Nor, as I’m pretty sure anyone with more than a couple of male partners could tell you, is each man’s penis sensitive in the same spot. If we were curious, in fact, I’m pretty sure we could map homologous “spots” on men, from the glans (“obvious!” except when it’s not) to the frenulum to various spots in the corpus spongeousum between the corpus cavernosa to the base to the perineum to the prostate.

But we’re not. So we don’t.

Quick question for Dr. Spector: What would you get if screened out gay and bisexual men who’s “digital manipulation” might bias the results, then asked 1500 paired-twin men “do you believe you have a so-called prostate gland, a walnut-sized area on the front wall of your rectum that is sensitive to deep pressure?”

Quick answer: Proof that there’s no such thing as a prostate gland.

Just sayin’

Studying Hard

Sat, 2008-02-02 23:33

Miss Wolfe of Love in the Capitol has a short post about erections

while talking to a friend recently, i learned some very weird information. she told me males can have erections while in the womb. it isn’t only in the womb though, men can have erections at any point in their life and have them quite frequently as an infant. now, i have never been pregnant and my brothers are older or just around my age so i never experienced this. i guess what it comes down to is men just don’t stand a chance. i should have to cut you some slack because its just out of your control. out of curiosity, when is the youngest age you can remember having an erection?

I’ve copied the whole post but I got it from here.

Yes, we can get them at any time. Yes, sometimes infants are born with them and they certainly get them any time thereafter. I guess we probably get them before we’re born too but I’d never thought about it. Oh, and very, very often men allegedly get erections when, or soon after, they die. So yup, any time.

When a small boy says his tee-tee-er hurts it’s a good idea to suggest he reach in and adjust himself. (My mom, at the time socially very conservative but also very up on pediatric medical lore, told me about that.) What hurts is usually that it gets caught on clothing as it gets hard and — since it’s not going to stop — it gets a bend in it and that’s quite painful.

Unverified rumor: the penis gets insufficient oxygen when not erect and so men have erections on and off for up to 60% of the time we’re sleeping. (I’m not positive about that. We certainly have erections most of the night but one of the risks of a “stuck” erection is… more oxygen issues. That could be from the risk of blood pooling and clotting though. I’m not sure.)

Anyway, last thing is that a lot of people, ok, women, seem to have the impression that if we get hard we have to ejaculate, or possibly a cold shower or big scare, before it’ll go away. Nah. They go away by themselves. Another thing, we get our erections way earlier in the arousal cycle than women so they’re more like the equivalent of your first hint of lubrication than “must do something about this now!”

I think it’s a shame they’re so misunderstood. By women, of course, but also by men. Some times they freak us out as much as they freak out anyone else but they’re not that bad. Ok, actually they’re kind of nice even if they don’t get petted.

Now.

As luck would have it, I’m studying boning up for an exam in my combined communications theory / women’s studies / sex education class and a huge component of the test will be male and female sexual anatomy. Including, unfortunately, correct spelling (where does the “y” go in epididymis again?) But including, fortunately, detailed drawings we get to label with those correct spellings.

And that’s cool. Everyone should get a chance to see what grown up men and women are made of. (Must see, incidentally, is this sweet video Lux Alptraum linked to called Cunts for Fags. It’s a hands-on workshop for gay men to get to know about women’s bodies. At least one of the volunteers is a trans man which is kind of cool, and the two main guys they interview for their reactions are just adorably surprised and positive-sounding about it.)

Anyway, while it’s nice to have diagrams I’m always surprised how even external anatomical drawings just don’t look the way we really look. Goodness knows we can find pictures enough of real people, or at least some subset of them, simply by opening a spam email if you’re looking for women’s bits, or posting almost any kind of personal ad at all on Craig’s List if you’re looking for men’s. But even so it would be really nice to have a study partner because real life is just… cooler.

For one thing, unlike 99.9% of the photos we see, real life study partners aren’t always already wet, or hard, or engorged, or tumescent, or… any one thing. Which is, of course, what real people are all about and one of the things that’s really missing from porn! Actually if it wasn’t missing those things I’m not even sure we’d recognize it as “porn.” Though we may never know. :-)

Incidentally I’ve thought about posting a series of strictly instructional photos of me. Because, as I’ve mentioned, one almost never, ever sees them anything but soft, in “erotic” photos, or completely hard in “pornographic” ones. For extra credit I suppose it would be fun to label the parts with a felt-tip pen (maybe a moisture-proof one?) but one complication would be that whether I marked them while I was soft or erect my writing would be difficult to read after the transition to whatever state the other was.

Oh yeah, and while I’m at it, to help get people over the notion that they won’t go away, I still think about photographing the whole erection cycle from very small (I’m a serious “grower”) to full size and then using ice to shrink myself all the way back down again.

The main reason I don’t is I’m not positive the interest level would be particularly, well, positive. Comments always welcome though.

Sigh. Meanwhile, since I have no study-partner volunteers I’ll soldier on with my textbook and notes. Oh, and can’t forget the mirror!

User login