Try This & Report Back

[MR.GGG]

SQUIRT - GUSH - glug glug glug *looking for my snorkel and fins

If you're one of those "poor" women who can CUM over and over over and over over and over again from GSpot stimulation and you find yourself discharging a little fluid throughout this ordeal, perhaps if you read this a few times you'll dry up.

************

Clinical Opinion
The G-spot: A modern gynecologic myth

Terence M. Hines, PhD
Pleasantville, NY

The G-spot is an allegedly highly erogenous area on the anterior wall of the human vagina. Since the concept first appeared in a popular book on human sexuality in 1982, the existence of the spot has become widely accepted, especially by the general public. This article reviews the behavioral, biochemical, and anatomic evidence for the reality of the G-spot, which includes claims of female ejaculation. The evidence is far too weak to support the reality of the G-spot. Specifically, anecdotal observations and case studies made on the basis of a tiny number of subjects are not supported by subsequent anatomic and biochemical studies. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:359-62.)
****************

You read it here first .... Duzn't exist. NO proof whatsoever! Figment of your imagination. You're just peeing yourself. Got it? Shame on YOU!!!

MORE ( I couldn't resist) - it's a long article.

""Two conclusions emerge from this review. First, the widespread acceptance of the reality of the G-spot goes well beyond the available evidence. It is astonishing that examinations of only 12 women, of whom only 5 “had” G-spots, form the basis for the claim that this anatomic structure exists. Second, on the basis of the existing anatomic studies reviewed above, it seems unlikely that a richly innervated patch of tissue would have gone unnoticed for all these years. Until a thorough and careful histologic investigation of the relevant tissue is undertaken, the G-spot will remain a sort of gynecologic UFO: much searched for, much discussed, but unverified by objective means.""

************

Hey, Psyche why not volunteer and help these guys out. They're used to cadavers. They'd probably poop their gotchies if a REAL woman showed up and showed them what VERIFIED was all about. These guys couldn't VERIFY shit if their mouths were full of it!!!

 

[Sadfrog]

If you're one of those "poor" women who can CUM over and over over and over over and over again from GSpot stimulation and you find yourself discharging a little fluid throughout this ordeal, perhaps if you read this a few times you'll dry up.

************

Clinical Opinion
The G-spot: A modern gynecologic myth

Terence M. Hines, PhD
Pleasantville, NY

The G-spot is an allegedly highly erogenous area on the anterior wall of the human vagina. Since the concept first appeared in a popular book on human sexuality in 1982, the existence of the spot has become widely accepted, especially by the general public. This article reviews the behavioral, biochemical, and anatomic evidence for the reality of the G-spot, which includes claims of female ejaculation. The evidence is far too weak to support the reality of the G-spot. Specifically, anecdotal observations and case studies made on the basis of a tiny number of subjects are not supported by subsequent anatomic and biochemical studies. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:359-62.)
****************

You read it here first .... Duzn't exist. NO proof whatsoever! Figment of your imagination. You're just peeing yourself. Got it? Shame on YOU!!!

MORE ( I couldn't resist) - it's a long article.

""Two conclusions emerge from this review. First, the widespread acceptance of the reality of the G-spot goes well beyond the available evidence. It is astonishing that examinations of only 12 women, of whom only 5 “had” G-spots, form the basis for the claim that this anatomic structure exists. Second, on the basis of the existing anatomic studies reviewed above, it seems unlikely that a richly innervated patch of tissue would have gone unnoticed for all these years. Until a thorough and careful histologic investigation of the relevant tissue is undertaken, the G-spot will remain a sort of gynecologic UFO: much searched for, much discussed, but unverified by objective means.""

************

Hey, Psyche why not volunteer and help these guys out. They're used to cadavers. They'd probably poop their gotchies if a REAL woman showed up and showed them what VERIFIED was all about. These guys couldn't VERIFY shit if their mouths were full of it!!!

How about some citations eh? Cut+Paste dosen't make it a legitimate study.

 

[MR.GGG]

Eh ??

SAD said: ""How about some citations eh? Cut+Paste dosen't make it a legitimate study.""


Here ya go, ehh ?

http://www.drgspot.net/Hines.htm

All you had to do was GOOGLE it.

From my perspective I question what DOES make a "legitimate" study. One that carves up cadavers and finds no evidence of anything G-like in any of the usual places one looks for G-like things? One that takes an completely UNturned on female and with rubber gloves pokes the inside of her vagina in a clock-like motion, as one study managed? One that acknowledges the possibility of a G-thing in some women but are incapable of realizing what exactly triggers it and under what circumstances?

I mean what friggin good are those? EVERYBODY has heard of a damn GSpot. How you trigger it is the mystery. That once triggered you can keep her G-gasming until the cows come home is the epiphany that has kept this thread going for 4 years!!

 

[DrFanservice]

This is some good stuff I'm hard just thinking about making a woman cum that way thanks for the advise i'll report back when I get the chance to do it.

 

[psyche]

If you're one of those "poor" women who can CUM over and over over and over over and over again from GSpot stimulation and you find yourself discharging a little fluid throughout this ordeal, perhaps if you read this a few times you'll dry up.

************

Clinical Opinion
The G-spot: A modern gynecologic myth

Terence M. Hines, PhD
Pleasantville, NY

The G-spot is an allegedly highly erogenous area on the anterior wall of the human vagina. Since the concept first appeared in a popular book on human sexuality in 1982, the existence of the spot has become widely accepted, especially by the general public. This article reviews the behavioral, biochemical, and anatomic evidence for the reality of the G-spot, which includes claims of female ejaculation. The evidence is far too weak to support the reality of the G-spot. Specifically, anecdotal observations and case studies made on the basis of a tiny number of subjects are not supported by subsequent anatomic and biochemical studies. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:359-62.)
****************

You read it here first .... Duzn't exist. NO proof whatsoever! Figment of your imagination. You're just peeing yourself. Got it? Shame on YOU!!!

MORE ( I couldn't resist) - it's a long article.

""Two conclusions emerge from this review. First, the widespread acceptance of the reality of the G-spot goes well beyond the available evidence. It is astonishing that examinations of only 12 women, of whom only 5 “had” G-spots, form the basis for the claim that this anatomic structure exists. Second, on the basis of the existing anatomic studies reviewed above, it seems unlikely that a richly innervated patch of tissue would have gone unnoticed for all these years. Until a thorough and careful histologic investigation of the relevant tissue is undertaken, the G-spot will remain a sort of gynecologic UFO: much searched for, much discussed, but unverified by objective means.""

************

Hey, Psyche why not volunteer and help these guys out. They're used to cadavers. They'd probably poop their gotchies if a REAL woman showed up and showed them what VERIFIED was all about. These guys couldn't VERIFY shit if their mouths were full of it!!!

The fucking scientists would not believe their eyes! LMAO!

 

[MR.GGG]

Grant Money and Morons

The fucking scientists would not believe their eyes! LMAO!

Sadly I think you're right. They would have electrodes pasted all over yo ass, watch and record you muscle spasms, brain activity. They'd have little test tubes to measure vaginal fluid ouput (Whoaaa, thar she blows!!). They'd have muscle pulse monitors up yo butt, exhalerometers monitoring you breathing, EKGs and EEGs spewing out streams of data like a Tokyo earthquake.

THEN they'd pour over the data and because it did NOT correspond with their cadaver data YOU would be declared an ANOMALY - a MUTANT and that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the elusive GSpot thingie everybody has been looking for is, indeed, elsewhere - definitely NOT there.

More research GRANT money would be requested and they'd all pour over the data and dream up some other way of proving it couldn't happen. They would post their data and conclusions on the web, I would mockingly re-post it on this thread and all the naysayers and morons would post, "Told ya so. Impossible" notes.

WE on the other hand would continue OUR research and our feeble efforts to reveal this to the world.

WHY?

 

[northernhaze]

Back-report. Pls, advise....

In very seldom occasions things sound logical when I read through many messages. However, this discussion did inspire me to make some “in-field” investigations and followed the exact instructions given earlier. My wife was in the recommended position (face down, her bum up in the air and legs wide apart) and about to ask to “go to the next stage” when I proceeded with locating the G-spot with my fingers.

She wondered what I was doing and declared she had a feeling of piss. That was the signal I got to the right place and quite shortly I could feel the “heel” growing. I tried it for a relatively long time and finally she stopped me declaring she felt extremely uncomfortable and with the same “want-to-piss” feeling.

Later, while discussing what had “happened” she told me the “G-Pont” is the pure non-sense. Please, advise, whether I did something wrong … Does her low sex drive have anything to do with all the experiments I try to bring into our life?

 

[Sadfrog]

SAD said: ""How about some citations eh? Cut+Paste dosen't make it a legitimate study.""


Here ya go, ehh ?

http://www.drgspot.net/Hines.htm

All you had to do was GOOGLE it.

From my perspective I question what DOES make a "legitimate" study. One that carves up cadavers and finds no evidence of anything G-like in any of the usual places one looks for G-like things? One that takes an completely UNturned on female and with rubber gloves pokes the inside of her vagina in a clock-like motion, as one study managed? One that acknowledges the possibility of a G-thing in some women but are incapable of realizing what exactly triggers it and under what circumstances?

I mean what friggin good are those? EVERYBODY has heard of a damn GSpot. How you trigger it is the mystery. That once triggered you can keep her G-gasming until the cows come home is the epiphany that has kept this thread going for 4 years!!

This: American Journal Obstetrics and Gynecology
August 2001, part 1 • Volume 185 • Number 2

...is what a citation is. Any asshole can 'publish' something on the internet. It actually takes hard work and alot of know-how to get something published in a professional journal where other experts can read it over and test it out themselves.

 

[MR.GGG]

This: American Journal Obstetrics and Gynecology
August 2001, part 1 • Volume 185 • Number 2

...is what a citation is. Any asshole can 'publish' something on the internet. It actually takes hard work and alot of know-how to get something published in a professional journal where other experts can read it over and test it out themselves.

My whole point though is that his peer reviewed medical publication pretty much kyboshes the possibility of the GSpot. I'm just an asshole who posted (published) a Technique on the internet and from the replies and testimonials which "publication" appears to have the greater validity?

I'm not suggesting that it is a universal attribute. It clearly isn't BUT even if the number of women who have triggerable GSpots is 50% or 60% of the population that is still a HUGE number of the overall population. The reason for my initial post was that I discovered that very few women (or men) knew about its exact position OR and this is the important one, HOW TO trigger it properly and repeatedly.

My "peer review" has been completed by almost 300,000 readers. I don't know how many read, test and validate a report like Dr.Hines' but regardless - if he's dismissing it and relegating it to the garbage pile of myths and urban legends WHICH of the two benefit the most number of women/couples?? A respected Doctor and PhD or an asshole? And what does that tell you about that whole process?

 

[eudaemonia]

I will post later the cites to other papers that not only denounce Hines' research findings due to poor methodology, but also a few of the many others that do assert the existence of the G-spot and explain the (intermittent) phenomenon of squirting.

This is what I was trying to relay upthread: If you're going to argue the case for the existence of something, you don't go about it by lobbing ad hominem attacks on oppositional views. That's lousy logic and lazy thinking.

In a casual discussion forum, such as Lit, if you want to be persuasive you must do three things. First, you state your case without hyperbole. And that is the hypothesis that the G-spot exists, how to discovered it (the experiment design), and whatever relevant findings you've got. Second, you research whether you hypothesis has been taken up before, and if so, you cite sources that validate AND deny your claim. Third, you calmly refute the deniers either on the point of hypothesis or design of experiment. You DON'T resort to childish name-calling to make your case -- for two reasons: 1) Instances where a couple has tried and failed (perhaps several times) to duplicate the findings are less likely to come forward and report; 2) If only the successes report back, then you never really have accurate overall findings of the efficacy of the "technique" as it were.

I think it's more helpful to know that this method works for 30% of the respondents all the time or 50% most of the time or whatever the numbers crunch out to be, rather than just another 2500 posts of speculation, bickering, intermittent "woo hoos", etc.

As I said, I'll report back with cites in a few days. For now, other research calls. But I do want to say that I'm glad this thread exists, I does seem to be helpful overall and I hope it can stay on topic. But it's only helpful if it's usefull, which means it must reflect an accurate accounting of what's going on.

 

[MR.GGG]

Thanks for all the great advice on how to present a position but Geeez Eud, this is a fucking BLOG - not the New England Journal of Medicine or the Lancet. If I wanted to be perfect, impartial and read by the "white coats" I woulda submitted my findings in some peer reviewed medical paper.

Is it completely beyond any possibility to be just taken for a guy posting on the Net with nothing other than a "Hey guys, TRY THIS" in mind? Either you're taking ME way too seriously or yourself.

Up-thread nit-picking and occasional hijacking notwithstanding this doesn't have to reflect ANYTHING other than a "TRY THIS." If it wasn't "useful" 300,000 people wouldn't have read it and I wouldn't have over 200K of notes and IM's thanking me for the info and NO I did not save the few comments I've received that insulted me or told me the Technique was BS. That makes my "saved" file "inaccurate." Pity. I'll have to remember that the next time I read it to feel good.

Unlike your earlier claim (speaking of accuracy) to the contrary I have said from the start that it may not work for every one. It may not be enjoyed by every woman but that's up to them to try or determine if they even want to try. It doesn't have to reflect accurate percentages of those who do and don't, those who can or can't. In FACT there is NO WAY on Earth that a random BLOG could ever hope to achieve anything approaching an accurate reading of what's happening in the general pop. Anybody who isn't interested in the Gspot even if they are visiting this site just won't read it - won't bother posting. That ensures a randomness that most readers are aware of.

In other words if they like the thread they may or may not post. If they don't like the thread the majority will simply move on. Others will post nonsense about "I haven't tried it but I don't like it and I don't like you." I, personally, don't consider that even relevant let alone "an accurate accounting of what's going on."

I look forward to all your further research and posts but, again Eud, its a friggin BLOG, OK? Let some of that STARCH outta your lab coat, already!

 

[eudaemonia]

My whole point though is that his peer reviewed medical publication pretty much kyboshes the possibility of the GSpot.

One paper hardly puts the kibosh on one aspect of human anatomy. Furthermore, it's disingenuous of you to suggest it in order to "prove" your case.

My "peer review" has been completed by almost 300,000 readers.

As someone else suggested upthread, each view is indicative of one thing only: How many times the thread has been opened. (Myself, I've probably opened this thread 75-100 times.) The view count is nowhere near indicative of unique viewings.

I don't know how many read, test and validate a report like Dr.Hines' but regardless -

Then why keep bringing up Hines?

f he's dismissing it and relegating it to the garbage pile of myths and urban legends WHICH of the two benefit the most number of women/couples?? A respected Doctor and PhD or an asshole? And what does that tell you about that whole process?

I dunno about the 'whole process' but I do know that you're looking for praise for your contribution. I think you've gotten quite a lot of it, and deservedly, too. You've definitely helped dozens of happy couples.

But to imply that, because of one publication, the whole of the peer-review process isn't beneficial is sour grapes. Talking smack is better left on the basketball court than in a forum for human sexuality.

Your contribution could be even bigger, I contend, by bringing up cases of peer-reviewed papers that say exactly what you're saying. (Yes, those examples are out there; I've found them.) What you may find, Mr. G, is that you indeed have landed on something very specific to the explanation of triggering of multiple Os and/or squirting which I would guess could be pretty important. It may be that face-up versus face-down explains a lot in terms of efficacy. That's something to really get excited about and to be proud of.

 

[eudaemonia]

Up-thread nit-picking and occasional hijacking notwithstanding this doesn't have to reflect ANYTHING other than a "TRY THIS." If it wasn't "useful" 300,000 people wouldn't have read it

You're begging the question: 300K views doesn't make the thread useful. It makes the thread read 300K times. That's it. That's like saying because 30 million people read screaming tabloid headlines at the supermarket checkout line that those headlines are true, or useful, or xxx. No, it just means that 30 million people read the screaming tabloid headlines.

Unlike your earlier claim (speaking of accuracy) to the contrary I have said from the start that it may not work for every one.

Yes, you've stated that. And you've also blasted some people pretty harshly and unfairly when they've come back to report, and who will not now come back and subject themselves to your bullying.

I look forward to all your further research and posts but, again Eud, its a friggin BLOG, OK?

You're mistaken: Lit isn't a personal blog; it's an open discussion forum. (Well, as open as the owners of this site wish it to be.)

And speaking of ownership, whatever is posted here becomes their intellectual property, so neither you nor I -- or probably anyone else who's posted here -- owns this thread.

Anyway, as long as I abide by the posting guidelines, I'm welcomed to post here. My intent is to contribute value-added content and share factual knowledge about human sexuality, not dish obnoxious cheek.

 

[MR.GGG]

Ya Ya Ya

One paper hardly puts the kibosh on one aspect of human anatomy. Furthermore, it's disingenuous of you to suggest it in order to "prove" your case.

Then why keep bringing up Hines?

Because he's the "best" one I've found so far. He epitomizes the vast bulk of research done to prove the NON-existence of the G thingie

I dunno about the 'whole process' but I do know that you're looking for praise for your contribution. I think you've gotten quite a lot of it, and deservedly, too. You've definitely helped dozens of happy couples.

I've got a few hundred THANK YOU notes. That's good enough for me. What I would LIKE to see in this thread is some contributions, some positive feedback, help for those who haven't achieved it yet - real simple stuff like that. Little to no nitpicking, "I don't like you" and taking ourselves and this thread a little too seriously would be nice too.

But to imply that, because of one publication, the whole of the peer-review process isn't beneficial is sour grapes. Talking smack is better left on the basketball court than in a forum for human sexuality.

But Eud, isn't that exactly what you're accusing me of doing? I'm making an example ONE seriously FLAWED peer reviewed paper submitted to a prestigious medical publisher. It isn't the first flawed and inaccurate paper and it sure as hell won't be the last. THAT makes it an "accurate accounting of what's going on." You're making both sides of that argument against me. I don't think you're allowed to do that ... well you can but it just kinda looks DUMB, no?

Your contribution could be even bigger, I contend, by bringing up cases of peer-reviewed papers that say exactly what you're saying. (Yes, those examples are out there; I've found them.) What you may find, Mr. G, is that you indeed have landed on something very specific to the explanation of triggering of multiple Os and/or squirting which I would guess could be pretty important. It may be that face-up versus face-down explains a lot in terms of efficacy. That's something to really get excited about and to be proud of.

""That's something to really get excited about and to be proud of."

Believe me, I am, despite your diplomatically brilliant way of calling me a caustic egotistical bastard. I appreciate the effort.

Like I've said many times. I do take this site a little personally sometimes. I do NOT suffer fools that well as I age and I'm exTREMELY happy that my post has, in your estimation, contributed somewhat positively to the lives of a dozen or so couples. My guess, again based on a few hundred INaccurate emails and IMs, is that it could be more than a dozen or so but that's probably just my ego.

I think I've asked this before and got a lab report back BUT other than nit-picking my style and posting drag and drop research papers do YOU have any experience with things that start with the letter G??
This HAS been referred as a PORN site (persih de thort) so I would much rather think of you as getting G'd by some research assistant between posts than a pickle up your ass fuss-pot, tsk-tsking me Ruth Buzzy-at her phone console, type.

Get human.

""... not dish obnoxious cheek."

Where ARE you from? Are you sure you're not some retired school Marme? I haven't heard "obnoxiouscheek" since ... since ...since ... I forget. Which war was that now?

Oh Ooops. I guess that was more obnoxiouscheek, wasn't it? My bad.

One more.

""You're mistaken: Lit isn't a personal blog""

No, YOU'RE mistaken. I never called it a personal blog. I called it a FRIGGIN BLOG. As in: NOT to be taken anywhere NEAR as seriously as you are taking it or yourself.

It's been fun and COMPLETELY off the topic as usual. I'd love to keep this up 'till the sun comes up but I have some work to do. If I knew where you were I'd be more than happy to call 911 so you could get some help hauling that pickle out but alas .... I don't and my guess it is WELL lodged at this point in your life. Nite.

 

[thecharlieman]

Eud & GGG-----

these last few posts from you two brought a smile and a chuckle from me......


that notwithstanding, lighten up guys!!

bonafide research methodology be damned! the research aspect (at least to me) is secondary or even terciary [sp] to the fun that can be had in just trying it!

on a better note, though, my late wife actually did squirt several times while we were making love, presumably because i had unintentially given her the right stimulation internally. she told me after that those were the most intense orgasms she had ever had. and no, it wasn't pee. the taste, texture, viscosity, smell, etc. were very different.

there is a website out there that i receive newsletters from (holisticwisdom.com) that has a great deal of info on this.

enjoy!

 

[MR.GGG]

a good link

There is SOME useful reading here. Starting at $39.95 plus shipping and handling there are some good articles by the world's leading sexperts on the subject of GSpot orgasms and female ejaculation. There are a number of books and booklets and how to series of videos and DVDs.

http://doctorg.com/FemaleEjaculation.htm

One relevant excerpt sez, " Sex is very important to human growth and development. Without it, we become irritable and ill tempered. " (and nit-picky)

So now we know.

 

[MR.GGG]

Wooohoooo !!!!

12:35 20TH JAN.07


300,000

CONGRATS EVERYBODY.

LONG LIVE THE REESEERCH !!

 

[kaledonia]

good grief......

.......my attention wanders for a couple of weeks and now this important thread is on the #rd page. maybe all readers are happily conducting research : I did think the world felt a little more peaceful!

 

[Gil_T2]

There is SOME useful reading here. Starting at $39.95 plus shipping and handling there are some good articles by the world's leading sexperts on the subject of GSpot orgasms and female ejaculation. There are a number of books and booklets and how to series of videos and DVDs.

http://doctorg.com/FemaleEjaculation.htm

One relevant excerpt sez, " Sex is very important to human growth and development. Without it, we become irritable and ill tempered. " (and nit-picky)

So now we know.

i'm so glad i never became a doctor.

 

[Mr.G]

http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=31761


*edit*
I found / posted this for two reasons. One: to give some a better idea exactly (or the general) whereabout of this mysterious G thang. The second was to illustrate that if you haven't heard of it, haven't found it or don't know what to do with it when / if you did then you're NOT alone. I was surprised that a few of the people interviewed actually did the "cum hither" move with their fingers.

The description of where to find the GSpot is kind of misleading. Sure it points to the right area but in my limited experience the GSpots I've encountered have been a comfortable thumbs length inside - not up near the top of the vagina near the uterus. I have no doubt some GSpots are that far up but from the feedback MOST are not.

Another thing is that some have a GSpot which is a very small fairly well defined as far as feeling them - their texture is different from the rest of the vaginal wall and the more turned on she is the more it feels different. Some women have a ridge which feels like the GSpot but extends from the lower area of the vagina up towards the uterus. To stimulate a ridgie the travel of thumb/fingers/toy movement has to be much greater to reach all of it but the reaction appears to be no more or less spectacular than if the G is just a wee dime sized patch.

The main thing is to read her as she becomes more and more stimulated and with most women, use much more force than you'd ever think mof using on the clit .... slow after a good massive series of contractions and then ... DO IT ALL AGAIN until she can't take any more.

 

[texan4836]

Thinks for the video. Best one I have seen showing location of g-spot. Looks like I need to go a little deeper. I will try this a report back if it works.

 

[Gil_T2]

If you're one of those "poor" women who can CUM over and over over and over over and over again from GSpot stimulation and you find yourself discharging a little fluid throughout this ordeal, perhaps if you read this a few times you'll dry up.

************

Clinical Opinion
The G-spot: A modern gynecologic myth

Terence M. Hines, PhD
Pleasantville, NY

The G-spot is an allegedly highly erogenous area on the anterior wall of the human vagina. Since the concept first appeared in a popular book on human sexuality in 1982, the existence of the spot has become widely accepted, especially by the general public. This article reviews the behavioral, biochemical, and anatomic evidence for the reality of the G-spot, which includes claims of female ejaculation. The evidence is far too weak to support the reality of the G-spot. Specifically, anecdotal observations and case studies made on the basis of a tiny number of subjects are not supported by subsequent anatomic and biochemical studies. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:359-62.)
****************

You read it here first .... Duzn't exist. NO proof whatsoever! Figment of your imagination. You're just peeing yourself. Got it? Shame on YOU!!!

MORE ( I couldn't resist) - it's a long article.

""Two conclusions emerge from this review. First, the widespread acceptance of the reality of the G-spot goes well beyond the available evidence. It is astonishing that examinations of only 12 women, of whom only 5 “had” G-spots, form the basis for the claim that this anatomic structure exists. Second, on the basis of the existing anatomic studies reviewed above, it seems unlikely that a richly innervated patch of tissue would have gone unnoticed for all these years. Until a thorough and careful histologic investigation of the relevant tissue is undertaken, the G-spot will remain a sort of gynecologic UFO: much searched for, much discussed, but unverified by objective means.""

************

Hey, Psyche why not volunteer and help these guys out. They're used to cadavers. They'd probably poop their gotchies if a REAL woman showed up and showed them what VERIFIED was all about. These guys couldn't VERIFY shit if their mouths were full of it!!!

next time she is trembling & shaking after our supposed G spot play i'll have to point out that it isn't really happening to her.

 

[kandie]

It Works..............

I know this works as my husband has done it several times. AND YES, I have trouble walking right now, but love the way it makes me feel. I have known about the Gspot for a long time and the how intense their orgasms will be. But it was not until I was in my forties that I really experienced one from a male who knew what he was doing. My new hubby does and all I have to say is WWWWOOOOWWW! Try it, you'll like it. Kandie

 

[Don K Dyck]

next time she is trembling & shaking after our supposed G spot play i'll have to point out that it isn't really happening to her.

Ho hum . . . another sceptical scientist . . . probably seeking the G-Spot on a cadaver . . .

I must remember that Mr G's technique is just a figment of imagination . . . just like the moaning and groaning and screaming and whimpering and spasmic contortions that happen when I use it . . .

But then, cadavers are so responsive to physical stimulation . . . of all kinds . . .

How many thousand replies have you had Mr G??? How many positive responses have been recorded on this thread???

Oh . . . and a very belated reply to your earlier comment Mr G . . . some ladies like the size . . . but ALL ladies like the Mr G technique . . . again and agaian and again . . .

 

[redruin3]

thanks to this we are getting closer and she has had a couple of close encounters (just a little leaks out and I can taste it on my tounge, so sweeeet tasting). I am determined to make it work. and who says dont get in the spray, I have been with one woman who had this talent mastered, and I tell you my face and hair would be totally soaked. She told me however it wasnt with all guys just a couple of the dedicated pussy lickers!!