Natural Health and Herbal Remedies Blog
information on herbal medicine
Archive for the 'Men’s Health-Erectile Dysfunction' Category
RESPONSE IN THE FEMALE : SEXUAL EXCITEMENT
Author: admin
read comments (0)
“My father was dependent on me.”
“My mother was dependent on me.”
“I don’t want to admit I’m needy.”
“And I don’t want to admit I’m needy.”
“To be needy means . . .” (Say whatever comes to mind next.)
“Yes, to be needy means . . .” (Say whatever comes to mind next.)
“I needed my mother and it felt bad.”
“I needed my father and it hurt.”
“I need you so much and it’s all right.”
“And I need you so much and it’s all right.”
“You need me very much and it’s okay. I can accept your need and I won’t go away.”
“And you need me so much and it’s all right. I can take it and I won’t ever go away.”
They should embrace and kiss freely during this game and keep repeating these sentences until they feel connected to them.
*264/196/1*
He: “You see? You don’t respect my feelings.” She: “I do respect your feelings, but I don’t believe what you’re saying now. You’re just trying to get back at me!” He: “For what?”
She: “For being so picky about sex.” He: “Do you think you’re picky?” She: “No, but you do.”
He: “Do you think I’m being picky now, because I want to be on top?”
She: “I don’t believe you mean it.”
He: “Suppose I do mean it. Suppose I really do resent having to lie on the bottom all the time? Suppose I really am starting to feel manipulated and raped by you?”
She: “But I’m not manipulating you. I’m just asking you to do something out of consideration for me.”
He: “And now I’m asking you to do something out of consideration for me.”
She: “But you don’t mean that!”
He: “I do mean it! There you go, dismissing my feelings again. I resent that—and I resent your always being on top.”
She: “I’m not dismissing your feelings!”
*230/196/1*
GAMES FOR UNATTRACTED COUPLES – INTRODUCTION
Author: admin
Sometimes husbands and wives, as well as couples who have been together for a long time, begin to lose not only their sexual desire but also their sexual attraction. They come to find certain physical features or personality traits unappealing, ugly, or downright repulsive—and they often dwell on these aversive elements and use them as excuses to avoid sex. A bald head or protruding belly or double chin can be the turnoff, or it can be the way a spouse chews gum or laughs or smells. One of my patients had a habit of making a frog sound with her throat each morning before waking up and each night before going to sleep. She had learned this from her mother, who had no doubt learned it from hers. Her husband complained in vain about how unappealing this sound was.
Despite the popular notion that sexual attraction is based mostly on physical attributes, it is in actuality a complex phenomenon made up of many layers. One layer—the most obvious and most conscious one—is the physical appearance of the sexual object. We see a well-proportioned woman in a bikini or muscular man in a loose tunic, and we are immediately attracted. But once a relationship begins (and particularly when it is in its middle stages), physical appearance becomes the least important factor of sexual attraction, while personality and transference become crucial.
*196/196/1*
“Thank you. And you look quite handsome in your suit. And that mustache is quite manly.”
“Thanks. I grew it yesterday. I think I’ll just sit beside you.”
“Why do you want to sit beside me?”
“In order to see your beautiful eyes up close and personal.”
“Why do you want to see my beautiful eyes?”
“Because I may want to kiss them.”
“I don’t know if I want you to kiss them.”
“Or perhaps I’ll kiss your moist red lips.”
“I don’t know if I’d like that, either.”
“How about this? Do you like my hand under your skirt?”
“I’m not sure.”
“Hmmm. Look what I found under your skirt!” “Stop that.”
“That’s interesting. You’re a woman with a penis.” “Oh, yeah? And what’s that in your pants? You’re a man with a vagina. Wow!”
“There’s nothing wrong with vaginas.”
“There’s nothing wrong with penises, either.”
“What are you doing now?”
“I’m taking off your blouse.”
“Did I say you could do that?”
“May I?”
“I suppose so.”
“And how about your skirt. May I take it off, too?” “All right. But be gentle.” “I will.”
“And promise me something.” “Yes.”
“When you go drinking with the boys, be kind.” “I promise.”
*162/196/1*
The couple either stays home or “runs away” to somewhere (a resort, a cruise, a vacation retreat) and follows the authority’s orders. Whether or not the husband and wife actually achieve a simultaneous orgasm is not really important— the crucial factor is that they are scientifically making an attempt to do so, and in this attempt will be doing exactly what they long to do at the deepest level: keep their sex life under control. And now they have been given permission—in fact, ordered—to do so by an authority.
Being ordered to do something which they had previously done obsessively and compulsively will take the “sting” out of their obsessive-compulsive ritual. It will be rendered meaningless. Its chief purpose is, after all, to defend against both the loss of control and control by others.
In this game, control by another is de facto. So, in their quest for a “”scientific” simultaneous orgasm, they will find themselves doing what they thought they wanted to do but will not be enjoying it. This brings up the feelings that had been previously warded off by their defensive posture—fears of being dirty, angry, rotten, shameful, getting completely out of control, going crazy, or being driven crazy. Encountering these ideas and feelings head-on can lead to another (and higher) level of relating and sexuality.
*128/196/1*
In a calculation of the incidence of overt homosexual activity beginning at puberty and ranging up to age twenty-six, beyond which the increment is small, we find that in four of the six sex-offense types the sexual psychopaths have larger proportions of men with homosexual experience. Among the offenders vs. children, however, the sexual psychopaths display smaller proportions of experienced individuals by any age. The exhibitionists present a mixed picture.
In the light of the previous indications that in the homosexual-offense types the sexual psychopaths were more homosexually oriented than the Other homosexual offenders, it is no surprise that the accumulative incidence measure corroborates this finding. However, what is surprising are the vast differences in the incidence of homosexual experience among the incest offenders vs. children; here the proportion of sexual psychopaths with such experience is often more than double that of the other offenders.
Calculation of the median age at first homosexual activity gave no clear findings, but there is a slight tendency for the sexual psychopaths of three of the six offense types to have had their initial experience earlier in life. Two exceptions are the offenders vs. children and the exhibitionists—both, as one will recall, being the offense types for which the incidence of homosexual experience was not higher for the sexual psychopaths.
If the homosexual experience we have been measuring and discussing was rather pronounced—or at least more than incidental in nature— we could easily hypothesize that the clinicians used homosexual experience as a criterion in judging a person to be a sexual psychopath. However, what we are dealing with runs the gamut from a pronounced form to a trivial one-time event shortly after puberty. Consequently the homosexual history of many of our interviewees was of such an incidental nature as to have easily escaped clinical notice or, if found, to have been considered inconsequential. Another indication that homosexuality was not used as a criterion by the clinicians is the fact that the incidence was lower for the sexual psychopaths among the offenders vs. children. Also, it would be odd indeed had the clinicians so efficiently selected the home-sexually experienced from the incest offenders (leaving only about one fifth to one quarter) yet been unable to do so for other offense types.
*405\161\2*
Sex offenses, especially those involving younger children, taking place on or near schoolgrounds, turned out to be so few that they could well have been combined with the miscellaneous cases in the “other places” category. Understandably, they were most often against young girls, but the incidence was only 3 per cent and represents only eight cases. Schoolgrounds were a location in from 1 to 2 per cent of each of the three homosexual-offense groups, there being a total of six cases in the 490 such offenses on which pertinent data are available. School premises were also only a minor factor in cases of exhibition, occurring there 2 per cent of the time. Thus the relative unimportance of schools and schoolgrounds as a place of offense in the present data is clear. It is a fact that California law since 1947 has had very strict penalties for loitering near schools, and the threat of enforcement of its terms (one year to life) may have had a real deterring effect. This would apply at least in the California cases, which represent more than a half of the present sample.
*367\161\2*
HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY: AGE PREFERENCE
Author: admin
Questions concerning age preference for males were asked only of persons with more than incidental experience; consequently we shall deal here solely with the three homosexual-offender groups, the only groups where such persons constitute a majority. Even so, we are plagued with large numbers of unknowns—instances where the interviewer failed to ask for or record the desired data.
It appears that the majority of homosexual offenders would prefer sexual contact with adults, and particularly young adults, just as do the heterosexual-offender, control, and prison groups; only the gender of object differs. However, we did find that some homosexual offenders preferred younger males, and that these preferences correlate with their offense behavior.5 More offenders vs. children preferred children (29 per cent), fewer offenders vs. minors (9 per cent), and very few offenders vs. adults (1 per cent). Similarly, more offenders vs. minors preferred minors (47 per cent), and more offenders vs. adults preferred males in their thirties or over.
In addition to questions as to preference, men with more than incidental homosexual experience were usually asked the age of their youngest male sexual partner since they themselves were at least eighteen years old. Again the number of cases where the question was not asked is large enough to make our statements only tentative.
Seventy-three per cent of the homosexual offenders vs. children admitted to homosexual contact with children (though we assume that most had in fact had such contact), but only 38 per cent of the homosexual offenders vs. minors, had contact with a boy aged eleven or younger. Only 9 per cent of the homosexual offenders vs. adults had had contact with children, but a third had had sexual experience with boys aged twelve to fifteen.
It is clear despite the limitations of our data that there is a tendency among homosexual offenders, even among the offenders vs. adults, to have some sexual contact with very young males.
*329\161\2*
PREMARITAL HETEROSEXUAL PETTING
Author: admin
Petting, by our definition, consists of physical contact, not involving insertion of the penis into the vagina or anus, between a male and female, designed (by at least one member of the couple) to produce sexual arousal. Consequently, it may range from a simple embrace or kiss to more extensive techniques such as mouth-genital contact. In our society, at least, premarital petting has become a rather stereotyped procedure wherein die techniques follow a relatively unvarying sequence: hugging and kissing, thence to breast manipulation, thence to the leg and up the leg by degrees to- the genitalia. Needless to add, petting is usually initiated by the male; the female either encourages, permits, delays, or stops his activity at some one of the transitional points in the sequence. Ordinarily the female does not touch the male’s genitalia until after he has stimulated hers. A sexually sophisticated couple, especially if they have had prior contact, may speed up the sequence of activity or omit the earlier stages.
There seem to be three types of petting, the differences being those of intent. There is petting that is undertaken for its own sake with no intention of consequent coitus; this is common among teenagers and young adults, and also among married adults in special situations such as cocktail parties. One might term this social petting. Secondly, there is petting as a mode of seduction. One member of the couple, generally the male, intends that it should arouse the other to a point where she (or he) will permit coitus. Not infrequently this results in sexual competition that is recognized as such by both parties, with coitus symbolizing victory for the male and defeat for the female. There is a great deal of such seduction-petting, and only a portion of it ends in coitus. Lastly, there is petting as acknowledged coital foreplay: this is the petting used by couples -who intend to have subsequent coitus.
While there are no inflexible criteria differentiaing these three types, generalities can be made. For example, complete nudity and mouth-genital contact are more common in foreplay petting and less common in social and seduction petting (although they may occur in the terminal phase of the latter if coitus results). Differences in sequence and duration also exist. Foreplay petting tends to involve genital stimulation soon, and the duration of the petting is relatively brief. Seduction petting tends to be very protracted, and genital stimulation is delayed. Social petting may be lengthy; for example, it may occupy the whole afternoon and evening of a collegiate picnic, or it may be extremely brief, as a fleeting contact at a party when a couple is momentarily out of the sight of others.
*291\161\2*