Joleen Baughmann, a 39-year-old New Mexico woman, began to experience strange, new sensations following severe injuries sustained in a bad traffic accident. Ms. Baughmann, who suffered a broken back in the accident, began experiencing an insatiable desire to copulate some six months following recovery. She described intense arousal from day to day activities that “would come out of nowhere and completely engulf [her].”
Sex did not appease her strong urges, but only served to amplify them. When the symptoms first appeared, her husband was quite pleased, and so was she, as she had very little sex drive prior to the accident. However, she soon found that sex did not relieve her of her symptoms, and could be quite painful, despite the fact that it left her wanting more.
Ms. Baughmann has been diagnosed with “Restless Genital Syndrome,” a newly named condition that seems to affect only women. According to Dutch physician Marcel D. Waldinger, RGS has numerous causes, including pelvic varices, hormonal changes, PMS and menopause, among other factors. It also often occurs along with restless leg syndrome and an overactive bladder.
In Ms. Baughmann’s case of RGS, it is suspected that a malfunction in the pudendal nerve is the culprit. The pudendal nerve branches out to the bladder, the perineal region and the penis in men and clitoris in women.
Although this must be a source of embarrassment and frustration for Ms. Baughmann, it is a rather revealing condition that debunks some of the mystique surrounding female sexuality; apparently women are aroused as easily as men, and perhaps even more so, given the absence of RGS in men.
As I read the Telegraph article, I recalled Roissy’s “tingleginaceptor,” a hypothesized nerve he suggested was responsible for female sexual arousal. It appears that, once again, Roissy’s intuition was correct, and the tingleginaceptor does indeed exist. Further research into the condition may better reveal its pathways and regions of control in the brain, which could give us a clearer idea of the mechanics of female arousal.
Subscribe to The Spearhead Newsletter for a free copy of the Book of Zed
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 59 comments… read them below or add one }
Holy Spanish Fly Batman.
Since I was a teenager I could bring myself to an extended whole-body orgasm with thought and concentration alone. There is no ejaculation that comes with it. (P.S. I am a man)
I am sure that anybody can do this. And I basically taught myself how to do it so it’s not like a person has to pay some guru zillions of dollars.
I’ve often wondered if I should write a step-by-step process of how i do it, and sell it.
“I’ve often wondered if I should write a step-by-step process of how i do it, and sell it.”
I would if I were you!
Over the years I have found female arousal to be quite simple.
I started dating my ex when she was 21. She had never had multiple orgasms at that time. I soon taught her to have multiple organsm. Fast forward many years and it was quite easy to give her 20-30 or maybe even 40 orgasms in an evening. She used to call me and COMPLAIN about how sore her legs were and it was “ALL YOUR FAULT”. Yep, women are never happy! LOL!
With the women I have been dating almost every one of them have noted to me that they have never met a man who is able to give them such intense and satisfying orgasms. But what men might wish to understand is that having a great sex life is of practically no importance AT ALL to a woman. They are MUCH more interested in money. My ex is a good example. No new man is ever going to be bothered to learn how to stimulate her fat body the way that I bothered over so many years. She put money as a much higher priority than sex.
My fav#1 now has made it abundantly clear to me that she has never had a man who has bothered to learn her body as well as me (it has taken me 20 months so far) and to give her pleasure the way I can AS WELL AS that she would not be interested in continuing to have sex the same way after marriage. She has made it abundantly clear that she is engaging in our great sex life in order to concinve me to marry her and that after marriage, if I want the same, I should date other women. I like how honest eastern women are.
Now? I really don’t care about whether women have a good time with me or not during sex. I am only concerned whether they give ME a good time or not.
“Ms. Baughmann has been diagnosed with “Restless Genital Syndrome,” a newly named condition that seems to affect only women.”
[snark]… because when males are afflicted with similar symptoms, it’s called “being a man”.[/snark]
On a personal note, I’ve found that it takes relatively little effort to bring my wife to orgasm, and do to some multiple times in any given love-making session. The side benefit to my comparatively small effort is that, due to the consistency of her achieving orgasms, my wife is quite receptive to having frequent sex (to the point that she will often initiate if I do not).
And, I read somewhere, some time back, that a womans orgasm is actually more intense than what a man experiences (the suggests was that a womans experiences in an orgasm might kill a man [ah, found the link]).
From personal experience, I’m quite inclined to agree.
interestingly enough, the civilization has never depended upon a female orgasm.
meh
she just got horny
from hanging around
with all those Doctors
it is a rather revealing condition that debunks some of the mystique surrounding female sexuality; apparently women are aroused as easily as men, and perhaps even more so, given the absence of RGS in men.
How so?
Female arousal is no more complex than male arousal — it is a simple matter of neural stimulation, and does not have much of a psychological component. In fact, it may require even less psychological stimulation than male arousal, because this disorder has not been found to affect men, yet men have a homologous nerve.
Learner – “How so?”
I see Welmer has already answered, but I’ll add my two cents anyway.
Much along the lines of what he’s already answered, I was going to say that what I though he might be getting at was the notion, often proffered to men, that, in order to get a woman aroused, one first had to get her in the right frame of mind (typically, via suggested capital outlays made on her behalf).
What it seems that the case of Joleen Baughman, who has nearly constant arousal due to her pudendal nerve also being constantly stimulated (in the neurological transmission sense) due to damage, tells us is that, correct stimulation of the normal receptors (clitoris, “G” spot) associated with that nerve is all that it really takes, in the end, to fully arouse a woman.
In my own personal experimentation (with an admittedly small sample size of one), I find that this it is, in fact, true. Regardless of the state of mind my wife might be experiencing, it turns out to be merely a matter of, shall we say, “hitting the right spots” that does the trick.
it is a simple matter of neural stimulation, and does not have much of a psychological component.
I dont know how the complexity of male versus felame sexual arrousal differs physiologically speaking, but I don’t think that the presence of “RGS” in women really illuminates the issue that much. I think perhaps the misfiring of a damaged nerve is being confused with how an intact nerve is stimulated and how that stimulation is percieved. The two are not really comparable. Also neural stimulation is not as simple as neuro transmitter meet receptor and poof nerve stimulation occurs the same way every time. Mood, intrinsic psychological bents (ie; emotional outlook), laughter, etc. etc. have all been demonstrated to mitigate and influence how stimuli are percieved.
Slwerner, I do not doubt what you say but I think you may be minimizing the fact that you are referring to your wife with whom you have had a long standing and loving relationship. There is no way for you to know that it is just about hitting the “right spots” with your wife…..because she is your wife.
If it were just a matter of “hitting the right spots” – this ginatingleceptor – performing the same actions on a woman – regardless of her mood – would have the same effects. But it doesn’t.
A woman’s state of arousal varies at times even while you as the man are doing the same things to her – hitting the same places.
The article tells me that a woman has some sort of mechanism that controls sexual arousal, but it doesn’t tell me how or when that gets turned on and off. That’s the important key to arousal – the turning of the switch in the first place.
How do you explain the small percentage of women who can’t have orgasms at all, even self induced? That doesn’t exist in young men. I tend to agree that we are over simplifying things here.
The fact that women can become constantly aroused simply from a tingleginaceptor that’s gone haywire suggests that mood and arousal are two separate things. I mean, this woman would become aroused while doing household chores! So while a woman may not be in the mood, she can still be highly aroused.
The same is true for men. Sometimes you may have an erection, but you don’t actually want to have sex. Willpower can (usually) override arousal.
What this condition highlights is that female arousal is far from a mysterious, elusive thing. In fact, women are probably aroused at least as often as men, and possibly more, but that doesn’t mean that every woman you see is going to take her pants off as soon as she’s behind closed doors. So what I’m suggesting is that the tingle is an exceedingly common phenomenon, and actually somewhat mundane, roughly equivalent to a man getting an erection, which happens several times daily.
I actually think I need to here what Roissy has to say about this. Can one of his minions round him up for us? He’s been slack about posting articles anyways. He needs to shovel some gravel.
And Welmer, what happened to Kis? Did I miss some fallout or something? Just curious.
This is what I’m getting at:
Mood, psychological bent, etc., may change how arousal is perceived, but they don’t much influence whether it occurs.
Can’t a woman be aroused but not willing to have sex? I think men focus far too much on a woman’s sexual arousal, when that is actually the easiest job of all.
It really doesn’t take much to turn a woman on, and that’s something people ought to recognize. No more than it takes to turn on a man, evidently.
Learner – “There is no way for you to know that it is just about hitting the “right spots” with your wife”
What I was trying to get at, without going into the details, is that, in the case of my wife, her overall mood may determine her willingness to engage in sex; yet, regardless of her state on mind at the beginning of the act (makes it sound kind of sterile), there are a couple of “techniques” I can employ which will rather consistently work to drive her into wild arousal. Depending on her exact mood, it may take differing amounts of such stimulation, yet, it does seem to be extremely reliable.
Of course I realize that women will vary greatly, and this will certainly not be true of all women (I did note that I was being highly specific as to it working with her, and not suggesting that it would apply to others).
But, this is where Baughman’s case begins to become more revealing. In her case, regardless of her mood, the neural stimulus reaching her brain IS producing the same arousal response all the time. I think that this shows that while normal modes of stimulation may vary with a woman’s disposition, when the neural pathway is “short-circuited” an electrical impulses are being generated by means other than stimulation of the receptors (the article did not detail the nature of the damage, but I’m imagining that the signals are occurring at some point of damage along the axon), the resulting signals reaching the brain ARE creating a response apparently unrelated to any other conscious behavior – even when poor Mrs. Baughman wish she could stop being aroused.
Obviously even this one example is anything but “clear-cut”; yet, it does suggest to me that women’s arousal is more determined by neurological signals than by mood. Mrs. Baughman’s case cannot demonstrate that mood might/might not have an effect on the responsiveness of normally functioning neural receptors, only that once a signal is generated, it will, in turn, create an arousal response.
Chuck – ”If it were just a matter of “hitting the right spots” – this ginatingleceptor – performing the same actions on a woman – regardless of her mood – would have the same effects. But it doesn’t.
A woman’s state of arousal varies at times even while you as the man are doing the same things to her – hitting the same places.”
It might well be the case that, with normally functioning neurological receptors, a woman’s mood can influence the sensitivity of those receptors.
But, with Mrs. Baughman, the neural stimulation is no longer being generated normally at the nerve-endings of the receptors. I’d liken this to the experience of amputee’s continuing to have sensations that seem to be coming from their missing appendages, as the nerves which once originate in those appendages “misfire” at some other point of damage along the neural axon. The point being that, although the signal is generated in error, it still is being interpreted the same way by the brain.
I get the idea that this is what we are seeing with Mrs. Baughman. Her brain is getting the signal that she is receiving genital stimulation, and the result is that her brain is producing an arousal response.
That a given woman would normally experience differing degrees of response to actual physical stimulation based on her overall mood suggests to me that the function of the receptors is what is under the control of her mood – providing differing amount of signaling to the brain even if the physical stimulus is equal.
What I believe I find with my wife is that, while her mood may serve to “mute” the arousal response initially, a little persistence seems to make the difference necessary to overcome what may be muted reception, and get to that arousal response.
Again, not necessarily applicable to all woman, but demonstrative of what I believe a greater physical role than a psychological role in female arousal.
No idea. She probably got busy with something. Maybe she finally met a man.
“Now? I really don’t care about whether women have a good time with me or not during sex. I am only concerned whether they give ME a good time or not.”
Globalman, I am very interested in your comments.
Roosh has also expressed the same view. That the quality of her sexual experiences with him doesn’t seem to have any effect on the girl’s subsequent interest level. So he just enjoys himself with little or no regard for her pleasure… interesting!
And yet others say that knowing how to please a woman can have a very powerful effect on a guys mindset.
Could it be that this is more an “inner game” thing than a benefit to the woman. That once you KNOW how to really please a woman, that you don’t have to actually DO it?
I’m going to get semi-vulgar here…. but a point needs to be made that apparently is missing for a number of posters here.
“Orgasm” is a word in search of a definition.
There is little similarity between a “clitoral” orgasm and a “vaginal” orgasm. Or how they are achieved.
They have different types of nerves, they have different shapes, they look the different….. what could it mean…. oh yeah… they are different!
Is the vagina as sensitive as the clitoris? Ah… NO! Pinch the inside of the vagina…… hurt a little? Can you imagine pinching the clitoris? Bad idea.
This is why many women(like Kis did) get irritated with excessive oral sex……. and why other women who don’t like how submissive they get with “vaginal” orgasms make wild claims to finding “clitoral” orgasms better.
It’s also why, ladies, masturbation doesn’t work as well as you’d like.
And I truly doubt a woman who has been properly vaginally orgasmed is going to be that mouthy.
Clitoral orgasms? Well…. she can do that with her little fingers.
Given how variable women are in that regard, it’s probably more to avoid wasting time than anything else. Some women are very orgasmic, and some are frigid, and it really isn’t up to the man much either way. I’ve noticed that most women are consistently one way or the other, and it’s more a matter of their own physiology than it is of any “skill” a man has. Of course, having some stamina/control helps, because it does usually take more than 30 seconds.
Otherwise, just enjoy yourself.
“And I truly doubt a woman who has been properly vaginally orgasmed is going to be that mouthy.”
I agree with you Internetwood. All orgasms are not created equal.
In my experience also, a “properly vaginally orgasmed” woman is very submissive… she will do pretty much anything you want!
“In my experience also, a “properly vaginally orgasmed” woman is very submissive… she will do pretty much anything you want!”
That’s interesting. My second wife had such a high sex drive, I was averaging about 2 hours sleep per day. Ok, she was drop dead gorgeous, when we went somewhere every guys head turned to look at her. At first, I felt like a kid in a free candy store. But after having all the candy you can eat all the time makes you a bit tired of eating candy (or pizza/ice cream, etc.) I had to slow it down which did not make her happy. When she was horny, she was quite irritable. After between 3 to 5 orgasms she was like a kitten. Our lust for each other was all we had, and that doesn’t keep a relationship together (I had known her from the time she was 12 because our parents were friends–I was 18 and she had a crush on me but of course we didn’t get together until about 16 years later). I have a very funny story about something she did 6 months after I divorced her, but I’ll save it.
The clitoris is homologous to the penis. Unlike the penis however it has no urethra and is not in anyway involved in urination. The sole function of the clitoris is for sexual pleasure. The clitoral glans are highly sensitive and contain thousands of nerve endings, (unlike the vagina) which interact throughout the whole pelvic area.
Australian urologist Dr Helen O’Connell, using MRI technology, noted a direct relationship between the legs or roots of the clitoris and the erectile tissue of the clitoral bulbs and corpora, and the distal urethra and vagina. She asserts that this interconnected relationship is the physiological explanation for the conjectured G-spot and experience of vaginal orgasm taking into account the stimulation of the internal parts of the clitoris during vaginal penetration. Some individuals who experience orgasm from both direct clitoral stimulation of the glans and vaginal access to the internal bodies may distinguish between them in terms of both the physical and general sensations associated with each.
The friction stroke of a man’s penis going into and out of the vagina can, by pulling and releasing the clitoral root and shaft, produce an indirect stimulation of the glans of the clitoris. Many women are capable of having orgasms like this, although the process, being indirect, may take longer than having an orgasm induced by friction stimulation of the clitoral glans itself. Because they do not see the entire clitoris under its covering of skin and fat, many woman (and their male partners) think that they have not stimulated the clitoris (by which they mean only the glans of the clitoris) — when in fact they have done so — and thus they buy into the idea that they have achieved a strictly “vaginal” orgasm. “
“So what I’m suggesting is that the tingle is an exceedingly common phenomenon, and actually somewhat mundane, roughly equivalent to a man getting an erection, which happens several times daily.”
Why is this news? Duh! This does happen daily, some days stronger than others. When I’m ovulating it seems like it lasts 3 days straight. I think about sex in the car, when I’m working, when I’m working out, when I’m shopping, whenever! What you need to address is the psychological arousal. Your circadian rhythym and hormones control your natural arousal on a daily basis, but yet there are other factors during the day that may stimulate us more than what maybe “normal”. For me I may be aroused, but bringing me to orgasm is a much harder task. It’s both psychological and physical that determines whether or not a woman is going to climax. Men have an easier time mentally letting go, but for women it’s a little bit more difficult and that’s where the difference lies. Really it’s as simple as that.
Kimberly
The few women I’ve slept with have rated me a very skillful and caring but unusual lover. I did have a relationship with a woman who could only orgasm after 10 minutes alone with a vibrator. She knew this was just the way it worked with her and it never became an inferiority issue between me or her.
Welmer,
The fact that women can become constantly aroused simply from a tingleginaceptor that’s gone haywire suggests that mood and arousal are two separate things. I mean, this woman would become aroused while doing household chores! So while a woman may not be in the mood, she can still be highly aroused.
I agree that mood and arousal are two different things. However, damaged nerves do not respond in the same way as healthy nerves do. Because this woman gets aroused by doing simple things like walking across the room etc does not mean much if anything about women with healthy pudendal nerves.
Mood, psychological bent, etc., may change how arousal is perceived, but they don’t much influence whether it occurs.
I disagree. Arousal is a physiological response to a stimuli, not just the occurrence of the stimuli alone. For that response to occur the stimuli is not just recieved, it must be percieved, or filtered if you will, through the central nervous system (whether it is the spinal cord for reflexive responses or the brain for higher level responses). Factors within the individual and outside the individual aside from the stimuli itself can and do influence this.
slwerner,
What I was trying to say was that even if your wife responds to the techniques you her husband use to produce arousal in a similar way all the time, the techniques, or stimuli if you will, are delivered by you, her husband all the time. So, it cannot be known how much her arousal is dependent on the physical stimuli versus other factors such as past experience with you, her feelings for you etc. etc. To say it was purely, or even largely, a response to the stimuli your wife would have to have the same response to a variety of people performing the same techniques. (Sorry, that seems crude to say, but I hope you understand what I mean).
Obviously even this one example is anything but “clear-cut”; yet, it does suggest to me that women’s arousal is more determined by neurological signals than by mood. Mrs. Baughman’s case cannot demonstrate that mood might/might not have an effect on the responsiveness of normally functioning neural receptors, only that once a signal is generated, it will, in turn, create an arousal response.
As I mentioned before I don’t think this conclusion can be drawn from the behavior of a damaged nerve. The case only demonstrates that once a signal is generated in a damaged nerve that it can in turn create an arousal response.
Also, you said to Chuck The point being that, although the signal is generated in error, it still is being interpreted the same way by the brain. . But those signals are not interpreted in the same way for a person with an amputation as they are for someone with an intact limb. The person with the amputation may experience burning and cramping sensations that the person with the intact limb will not feel.
And That a given woman would normally experience differing degrees of response to actual physical stimulation based on her overall mood suggests to me that the function of the receptors is what is under the control of her mood – providing differing amount of signaling to the brain even if the physical stimulus is equal. How about the amount of neurotransmitter released in response to the stimuli? That is also influenced by things other than the stimuli itself.
Learner – “The case only demonstrates that once a signal is generated in a damaged nerve that it can in turn create an arousal response. “
Perhaps I didn’t word it very well, but that is what I was saying. And in Mrs. Baughman case, the fact that teh nerve is pretty much constantly misfiring has meant the signals be sent to her brain are causing a corresponding constant arousal response – in her own words: “Being aroused pretty much 24-hours a day is exhausting.”
The fact that this signal alone can produce such a constant arousal response is what I’m pointing to in saying that it appears that the physical input (normal stimulation of the clitoris, where the nerves normally functioning receptor lie) could produce an arousal response simply by sending signal (of sufficient strength – I’d imagine there’s some threshold level) to the brain – entirely independent of any psychological parameters (like a woman’s mood, or as we see with Joleen Baughman, her desire to NOT be aroused). Essentially, this errant stimulus is over-riding everything else going on in her mind.
With Joleen Baughman, who experienced a lack of arousal prior to suffering teh nerve injury, the only difference is that now the nerve is sending signal, whereas it was not previously doing so.
Now, this suggests to me that the functioning of the receptors is the key to level of response. A woman’s mood, for instance may suppress the production of the neurotransmitters necessary to initiate the neurological impulse. Or, it could be that other factors, such as varying blood flood serve to modulate the responsiveness of those receptors (I don’t have the right “equipment” to test this myself, but I do know that, for instance, if a man has been in rather cold water, the nerve endings in the penis are noticeably less sensitive to what would normally be pleasurable contact).
Mrs Baughman doesn’t give us intimate details about her previous ability to br aroused, but we are told that she went from low (to no) sexual desire, to constant desire. This tells me that arousal CAN be entirely generated via teh neurological stimuli normally generated at the clitoris.
restless genital syndrome. hilarious. priapism might be the male version of RGS.
separating mood from sexual arousal is tricky business. as a man, whenever i’ve sported wood, no matter when or where, i would have welcomed release in a warm wet vagina. so in that sense the wood precedes the mood. indeed, the wood creates the mood. women, i believe, are a little bit different in that their sexual arousal is more tightly bound to their mental state. it takes an injury to a pudendal nerve to sever that mind-gina interconnection.
like ohmahgawd….I agree with Roissy….*faint*
slwerner,
I said “The case only demonstrates that once a signal is generated in a damaged nerve that it can in turn create an arousal response. “
I probably wasn’t clear enough either. Maybe we are talking past each other? I was questioning the drawing of conclusions about normal female sexual arousal and response based on the experience of women with nerve damage. Because of that I do not believe her case is illuminating about normal female sexual response. Does that make sense?
We’ve learned a great deal about the “normal” function of the brain from brain damage, so I, for one, don’t really think that makes sense.
I guess the question is does this really mean that women are as easily aroused as men are under normal conditions, or does it mean that, if the normal functioning is severed or compromised (as here), that arousal patterns can become uncontrollable (as here)? It sounds more like the latter to me than the former, in terms of what we can conclude from this piece. In other words, it seems to describe what happens when things are not functioning normally as opposed to suggesting that women normally are as easily aroused as men are.
Learner – ” I probably wasn’t clear enough either. Maybe we are talking past each other? I was questioning the drawing of conclusions about normal female sexual arousal and response based on the experience of women with nerve damage. Because of that I do not believe her case is illuminating about normal female sexual response. Does that make sense?”
Ti hopefully be a bit more clear on my position here, what I’m getting from this particular case is that the mood-modulation of a woman’s physically induced arousal happens not in the mind (as Joleen Baughman cannot mentally overcome the power of the nerve impulses reaching her brain), but rather via some mechanism which controls the ability of a woman’s receptor sites to translate physical stimulus to her clitoris (in doing a bit more reading, it seems the pudendal nerve is only associated with the clitoris, and not the interior walls of the vagina – I was mistaken in thinking that the “G”-spot might also be involved). Which is to say, what Roissy has recently termed the “mind-gina interconnection” takes place more at the clitoris than it does within the cerebral cortex.
While it is admittedly a bit of a leap-of-faith, what I believe this means in the larger context is that, since a woman could potentially be aroused by physical stimulation alone (assuming the receptors could, in turn, produce strong enough nerve impulses), getting a woman to a state of arousal in which she will essentially be demanding sex, does not so much depend on a man doing things to get her to the right state of mind as we (men) have so often been mislead.
Since it is Christmas Season, my 47-in. glowing oracle has been telling me that the way to make my wife happy (so that she will want to have lots of passionate sex with me) is to buy her another luxury car (complete with big red bow) and gaudy (read: expensive) jewelry. And, it’s seems, lots of men take this as Gospel truth. I cannot speak for Welmer, but I think he was getting at this angle as well.
Now, while his approach is perhaps a bit “ham-handed”, Mark Rudov has been telling men for some time now that they SHOULD NOT be buying sex from their women, but rather using modes of physical stimulation to make them want to have sex. He even wrote a booklet (pamphlet, really) called “Under the Clitoral Hood” to explain his physical arousal based approach. My own experience tends to closely parallel what he proffers.
While you are no doubt correct in pointing out that my wife’s sexual response to me is highly correlated to the nature of our relationship and her feelings for me, what I had meant to stress was that with that established sexual relationship, I am able to bring her to the same level of arousal, even when she has not been of a mindset particularly favorable to having sex. She is a trial attorney (a prosecutor) and often feels quite a bit of stress from her days events when she gets home. She will report that she is specifically “not in the mood”. But, I have learned that, if I persist a bit, she will acquiesces to the point of allowing me to “try” to get her in that mood (yes, I’m sure that her knowledge that I’ve been quite successful in previous efforts serves to make her more receptive to my advances), and low and behold, within a short frame of time, she’s begging, if not demanding, full intercourse. Her “mind-gina interconnection” may be weak to begin with, but that CAN be overcome.
Again, my experience with her may not translate well to other women. Some one with a wider array of experiences, like, say, Roissy, might be able to suggest if what I’ve noted with my wife extends to (some) other women.
Still, I think the most salient point in all of this is that men are wasting their time (and lots of their money) trying to wine, dine, and gift women into arousal. I may be wrong, but I think this is what Welmer was getting at with his title “Female Arousal May be a Simple Matte” –it’s not the great mystery as to how to achieve it, and (much to the chagrin of many women to have their men learn of, no doubt) it is both cheap and easy to do.
Yup. We probably won’t have much luck getting women to admit it, though. I’d even go so far as to say that it’s easier to arouse a woman than a man, with the exception perhaps of teenage boys. Why else would women go to such great lengths to arouse men throughout the day?
I really think we’ve got it all backwards in terms of sexuality. Men are the more limited sex when it comes to that. It only appears that men are more sexually oriented than women, because the feeling is more urgent when it grips them. However, in terms of sheer volume and proportion of time, women win hands-down.
Whatever the case, as I see many valid ideas throughout this thread, I still believe, at the least, that women’s sexuality is more complex than men.
Welmer,
We’ve learned a great deal about the “normal” function of the brain from brain damage, so I, for one, don’t really think that makes sense.
What we have learned about the brain from brain damage has to do with what parts of the brain are associated with what mental functions. The function of the pudendal nerve in sexual arousal has been known for some time now. The damage to this woman’s nerve did not tell us anything about how the nerve functions, or what part in the brain perceives the input, or how the input is modulated. It just told us what can happen when the nerve is not functioning.
slwerner,
what I’m getting from this particular case is that the mood-modulation of a woman’s physically induced arousal happens not in the mind (as Joleen Baughman cannot mentally overcome the power of the nerve impulses reaching her brain), but rather via some mechanism which controls the ability of a woman’s receptor sites to translate physical stimulus to her clitoris
That is possible, however by no means more plausible than the idea that Mrs Baughman’s mind may not be able to modulate the impulses because they are abnormal impulses, not because the modulation does not take place in the mind.
Still, I think the most salient point in all of this is that men are wasting their time (and lots of their money) trying to wine, dine, and gift women into arousal. I may be wrong, but I think this is what Welmer was getting at with his title “Female Arousal May be a Simple Matte” –it’s not the great mystery as to how to achieve it, and (much to the chagrin of many women to have their men learn of, no doubt) it is both cheap and easy to do.
I have no problem with this idea at all, just with the application of this particular case as evidence for the idea.
Maybe, Learner, but maybe her mind is simply reacting to perceived stimuli. If you see something flying toward your face, you flinch, right? The mind reacts to things — it doesn’t just control. And I don’t think arousal is an entirely – or even a majority – conscious response. Sometimes we don’t have control over what arouses us, no?
I think the implications of this are potentially revolutionary. Say, for example, one could invent some electrode that could stimulate said nerve. This could be surreptitiously sewn into underpants and activated by a remote control in the husband’s pocket, obviating the need for flowers, dinner, diamonds, etc:
Imagine you’re sitting there having a beer, the wife appears with a frown on her face and starts nagging you about raking the leaves or whatever, and instead of attempting to argue or obeying in sullen resignation, as you sit there pretending to listen to her you surreptitiously reach into your pocket, pressing the small remote control, which is disguised as a handy little keychain. Suddenly her face flushes and her voice starts to trail off. She forgets what she was talking about and starts fidgeting with her belt, bashfully looking down and batting her eyelids. With a knowing smile, you finish off the beer, rise from the easy chair and lead her into the bedroom. After giving her what she desires the leaves are forgotten, and your grateful woman is in awe of your inexplicable ability to understand her deepest needs. All is well in the world.
Welmer – ”…activated by a remote control in the husband’s pocket, obviating the need for flowers, dinner, diamonds, etc”
While I sure you meant this (primarily) in jest, I had thought of the potential therapeutic possibilities. What I found particularly intriguing about this particular case is that it involves a woman who had been suffering from a lack of sex-drive (I gathered from this, that she had at least wished to be aroused: “I was delighted too. I thought: ‘Finally I’m getting a sex drive and I can give my husband what he wants’.” – unlike a lot of non-sexual wives who simply don’t want to have sex with the husbands to whom they are no longer at all attracted), suddenly went to “non-stop” arousal/sexual desire.
While you and I may well be making too much out of one single case, It may also be that Learner is just a bit too quick to dismiss the potential implications.
Even if the nerve impulses are abnormal, they are never-the-less triggering a response which is not abnormal – just not normally activated in women who suffer from very low sex drives. It is often suggested that the inability to become aroused is ENTIRELY a mental issue, and mood-altering medications are often used to try to treat the disorder. Yet here we see, quite clearly that a woman (and, yes, she is but one lone woman, and it may not hold true for all woman) can become aroused by no other means than the impulses from the pudendal nerve.
I don’t think it’s any secrete that women who are normally able to become aroused can be physically stimulated as well (going back to your “remote control” thought, I am reminded about a scene in the movie ”The Ugly Truth” in which the remote control to a sexual device being worn by a woman falls into the hands of a boy – with humorous consequences). But, that a woman who seems to have tried, yet failed to achieve the same desired outcome one her own – likely having tried both mental and physical approaches – can be mere happenstance of sudden, if excessive, nerve functioning could start to experience what she could not previously achieve, does, rather emphatically, point to a primarily physical and subconscious mode for female arousal that IS hard-wired into the brain (a primitive-brain function, if you will).
I would not entirely dismiss the role of a woman’s state of mind as having some control over her level of arousal, but clearly we see that at some level of nerve impulse, even her most focused efforts to NOT be aroused cannot override it. And, I cannot imagine that Joleen Baughmann is so atypical that what has happened with her would not be expected to apply to women in general.
Knowledge of the underlying mechanisms of what “motivates” women is key to what we all now refer to as “Game”. But, as employed by practitioners such as Roissy, the utility therein lies in “getting into a girls pants”. Likewise, understand the possibility of how well a woman can be aroused, should allow men to know what to do once they managed to get into her pants.
I know that some guy’s really aren’t interested in just how much a women enjoys it; but for those of us in relationships, developing such a skill can pay-off quite nicely. I would also suggest that men might also consider taking a little pride in their “work”.
And that remote control idea for your’s… well, I think there might be some serious money to be made if it should pan-out.
“Still, I think the most salient point in all of this is that men are wasting their time (and lots of their money) trying to wine, dine, and gift women into arousal. I may be wrong, but I think this is what Welmer was getting at with his title “Female Arousal May be a Simple Matte” –it’s not the great mystery as to how to achieve it, and (much to the chagrin of many women to have their men learn of, no doubt) it is both cheap and easy to do.”
You’re right, slwerner. Really .. it.. is ..just ..that simple.
“Yup. We probably won’t have much luck getting women to admit it, though. I’d even go so far as to say that it’s easier to arouse a woman than a man, with the exception perhaps of teenage boys. Why else would women go to such great lengths to arouse men throughout the day?”
I am quite happy to admit it, Welmer. And ,speaking for myself, no, it does not take much. Of course hubby knows what buttons to press, so it is a piece of cake for him.
This morning at 5.00am, when I was half asleep he pressed the right buttons.
Yep, it didn’t take much!
I don’t understand why men act like the female body is some sort of labyrinth to be navigated only by a master. I have never had a problem personally being “turned on” by the usual normal forms of physical arousal. In all honesty, if you cannot turn a woman on physically, you just aren’t trying very hard.
Second, what is this ridiculous talk about “mental seduction”??? Women do not need any sort of emotional or mental connection to be aroused anymore than men do. I have never felt any sort of “emotional” tie to sex, sex acts, or having sex. I don’t believe for a second that all these women are having problems getting turned on because “they don’t have the emotional connection”??? Yeah, right.
That’s a huge myth and any woman who tells you that is just trying to spare your feelings. If you didn’t turn her on, its’ what you did or did not do physically….nothing else. Doesn’t mean you are bad at what you do and how you do it, but it means you aren’t adjusted to what she likes.
I don’t know where that weird myth about “sex is about your feelings” thing with women, but it is far from true.
As far as the men that are like “Well I don’t CARE if she likes it.” Well you should because if you fail to turn her on and are intentionally lazy, you can rest assured that every other woman in the free world will also know you lack sexual skills, so that’s really a lose-lose if you have that particular attitude.
Basically, all this discussion I see here about “say this and do this”…..I can’t speak for everyone, but when a man is talking and going through the niceties I’m always thinking “God can you shut your mouth and get this started? I have an early morning!”
Feminine arousal has nothing to do with her “feelings” nor with her “emotions” so please throw that tired, antiquated myth out the window if you’re going to try to have a serious discussion about female arousal.
LR, get rid of the Roissy posts on your blog. Last warning.
Huh??? What are you talking about? Why are you trying to tell me what to do on my own blog? I already told you if you want to de-link me, go ahead…..why is my blog any of your business? I’m a little confused as to why you’d say that also as to why you thought that I had ANY intention of EVER taking them down. I don’t intend on removing them at any point and time and have no reason to.
Again, I don’t come to your blog and demand that you remove things so what the hell are you talking about?
Oh, and don’t ever “warn” or TELL me anything to do. Not on my own blog about my own posts and not about anything else.
Didn’t get the email (server issues). You have to delink yourself.
I never went to your blog to demand anything. I’m doing it here.
Keeping the Roissy stuff up longer than it already has been is unnecessary. You made your point. It’s over, and now it’s just beating a dead horse.
Don’t be stubborn, LR. It isn’t like Roissy is an ex-husband or anything.
You wanna blog on the level now? Just get rid of the stuff.
Welmer–
I’m going to say this calmly just once. There are STILL links to the original post with my son’s photo popping up here and there. Because some slimebag posted a picture of a little kid on a sex site. I have left those posts up to make sure that he is searched, copied, pasted, reposted, and relinked just like he did to ME and my FAMILY.
Wild Horses couldn’t make me take that post down. Not until I make sure that he has to see it pop up all over the place just like I do. THEN we will be even. I can compartmentalize. To me, he is no longer human nor a person at all and therefore doesn’t deserve any of the rights a “human” gets (at least not from me!)
Stop blaming ME for what HE started and started in a MUCH worse way. Besides you aren’t helping him by bringing it up, again.
And I’ve blogged ‘on the level’ since day one. Just because some people don’t like what I have to say they wanted to dance. Now we are dancing and I guess they don’t like it nearly as much as they thought they would. I can be very forgiving, and I WAS forgiving for awhile.
That ship has sailed and now I’m out for blood.
LR, as much as I hate to admit this in front of everyone here, I actually see some potential in you. Maybe just a tiny little bit, and maybe just because you have a fine boy, but keeping up this fight is a waste of everyone’s time. Haven’t you seen how quickly I banned Ellie and other little twats? I don’t actually want to ban you! Can’t you get that through your thick skull?
Hey, you want to out somebody? Here, I’ll give you a bad picture of me:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2615/4162192247_89853ea8a5_b.jpg
You can call it “Redneck Welmer.”
That’s me at my biggest ever (230 lbs. @ 6′2″), practicing with my Taurus 85 CCW in the North Cascades.
Welmer and slwerner,
I started to type out a comment about how I don’t think arousal is a largely conscious response either and about spinal cord reflex arcs and the dorsal horn and erections in quadraplegics and blah blah blah, but I think that this is probably too complex to effectively discuss in the comments on a blog (and perhaps that I am applying standards of evidence that laymen just do not care about). So I think I will leave it at that and agree to disagree.
Admit it, Learner:
You just can’t handle the prospect of the remote-controlled tingletron.
LOL, yeah, that’s it
Welmer:
I often enjoy your articles. And I often agree with your viewpoint. But you are wrong here. And while I don’t mean to be an ass; I believe men who don’t bother to please a woman most likely hide behind the fact that they never had much luck with doing so. There are players that are very good in bed and there are some that have a truly nerdy, insecure sexual persona and hide behind spite and cockiness. As much as Roissy’s indifference regarding women grosses me out, he is correct in his statement above. I believe he and a few others know exactly what they are talking about sexually with women. There are others who sound clueless to me. Pleasing a woman is mechanics (dexterity, pressure, movements, teasing, pace, etc.), connection (whether lust, love, or energy/timing), and atmosphere (phycholigical for her). And like others have said, it is a nerve issue for this specific woman. Her condition cannot apply to woman as a whole.
Men ever call efforts they love an art or science. However, your statement about men not bothering to please a woman because they’ve never had luck doing so is not only unmitigated bullshit, it’s the worst kind of shaming language. As for your agreement with Roissy, you should be aware that he advises men not to worry about pleasing women in bed. I advise the same in every aspect of the relationship. The harder a man works for a woman, in fact, the more likely she is to despise him.
As for this business of men having to approach a sex act as though it’s a delicate, complex and, above all, laborious act, I don’t see it as worth all that trouble if that’s the case. I’d advise men simply to avoid women with these kinds of difficult requirements if they are truly worried about the woman’s pleasure; there are plenty of women who enjoy normal sex and don’t require hours of labor and significant expense to enjoy it with them.
I am truly aghast at how demanding American women are: they take all the enjoyment out of every aspect of a man’s experience with them and make everything entirely about themselves.
This article and subsequent comments have reminded me of something I read about some women having orgasms during rape, which (if true) might indicate that arousal is a physiological phenomenon rather than a mental one.
Jesus Welmer….
I know I listed a few things that I thought was required, to some extent, to please a woman, but by no means should it be a labor for a guy. I think you’re forgetting that there are many types of males, and many ages are out there, dating, having sex and reading this blog. I was simply stating that there are those that haven’t a clue as to what they are doing. There are women out there in the same boat. I already know of Roissy’s belief in not pleasing a woman but he obviously has, hence the constant correctness of a lot of his insights. I was not trying to shame anyone in that sense. If you are not having FUN during sex or enjoying yourself than you shouldn’t be sleeping with that person. You sound angry towards the act of sex. If you have found women, and American women in particular, demanding, that sucks. I don’t sleep with women so I wouldn’t know. Mutual stimulation and pleasure would be ideal I would think. Sounds like you have known some very selfish women.
Definitely. I look back at when I was practically a boy, and feel that more than a few used me by taking advantage of my own desire to please.
In fact, I can recall many times when I was the one who never climaxed.
Welmer:
sorry for that. That’s not the way it should have been.
Female orgasm is so easy that even a dildo can do it.
Besides, why so much talk about this lame subject?
Sex is for reproduction. It”s a bodily function like evacuation of liquids, menstrual blood, solid matter and climate modyfying gasses. (number 1 and number 2).
All that which is crap has been gathered around the same region of the body, for convenience.
But why talk about it so much??