Herbal Health » Men’s Health-Erectile Dysfunction

RESPONSE IN THE FEMALE : THE RESOLUTION PHASE

admin — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 11:41:57 +0000

The Resolution Phase, when the response cycle moves backward through the Plateau and Excitement Phases to the passive unstimulated state. After climbing the sexual peak, the female returns to the plains. The pulse and blood pressure return to normal. The muscle tension and the vasocongestion also disappear.

The two basic changes which all the organs undergo to return to normal are: release of muscular tension in the body, and return of the blood to the heart from the congested blood vessels. The heart rate, blood pressure and respiration return to normal within minutes. If a woman has had a sex flush of her skin during the Plateau Phase, it will rapidly disappear; she may also have a thin layer of perspiration on her body.

The congested areolas around the nipples return to normal as the venous constriction is relieved. This rapid relief of areolar congestion makes the nipples look more erect. The tell-tale secondary erection of

the nipples is another sure, externally visible sign that orgasm has taken place.

Within five to ten seconds after orgasm, the clitoris returns to its normal position as during the pre-excitement phase. In cases where manual stimulation of the clitoris is resorted to produce an orgasm, its return to the normal overhanging position is another indication that an orgasm has taken place. The contracted outer-third of the vagina relaxes and the orgasmic platform is lost.

Where the female partner has not gone beyond the Plateau Phase, the resolution takes much longer. If an inadequate male partner leaves her high and dry at the Plateau Phase, chronic congestion of her pelvic parts occurs, resulting in backaches, a constant feeling of congestion in the pelvic area and, in some cases, local irritation causing vaginal discharge. Intercourse makes her more tense, irritable and frustrated.

The female is ever ready to scale the sexual summit once again if restimulated, unlike the male who cannot respond immediately. Hence the necessity of an ever-potent male to fulfil the evergreen female. However, in this Stress Century, the civilised man is a tired man and does not have the energy to carry repeated sexual burdens.

*105\262\8*

GAMES TO RESTORE TENDERNESS – GAME 4: EXPRESSING TRUST

admin — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:32:41 +0000

Husband and wife repeat the following sentences: “I’m afraid to trust you.” “And I’m afraid to trust you.”

“If I say I trust you, I’ll . . (Say whatever comes to mind next.)

“And if I say I trust you, I’ll …” (Say whatever comes to mind next.)

“My mother trusted my father, and look what happened.” “My father trusted my mother, and look what happened.” “I don’t want you to trust me.” “And I don’t want you to trust me.”

“If you trust me, I’ll …” (Say whatever comes to mind next.)

“And if you trust me, I’ll …” (Say whatever comes to mind next.)

“My mother trusted me too much.”

“My father trusted me too much.”

“My mother didn’t trust me at all.

“My father expected the worst from me.”

“I’m afraid to trust you because …” (Say whatever comes to mind next.)

“And I’m afraid to trust you because …” (Say whatever comes to mind next.)

“I’m afraid for you to trust me because . . .” (Say whatever comes to mind next.)

“And I’m afraid for you to trust me because …” (Say whatever comes to mind next.)

“I never trusted anybody in my family.”

“And I never trusted anybody in mine.”

“I do trust you, and it feels so good.”

“And I do trust you, and it feels great.”

“It also feels good to be trusted.”"Yes, it does feel great to be trusted.”

“If I trust myself, I can trust you.”

“And if I trust myself, I can trust you.”

“I will be a pleasure to live up to your trust.”

“And it will be an honor to live up to your trust.”

“Trust me.”

“All right. Trust me.”

“All right.”

“Yes, it does feel great to be trusted.”

“If I trust myself, I can trust you.”

“And if I trust myself, I can trust you.”

“I will be a pleasure to live up to your trust.”

“And it will be an honor to live up to your trust.”

“Trust me.”

“All right. Trust me.”

“All right.”

*267/196/1*

GAMES FOR POLITICALLY OR MORALLY CORRECT COUPLES – GAME 4: EROTIC CARDS (PART 1)

admin — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:26:39 +0000

This game uses the competitive spirit to motivate the politically or religiously correct spouse—whichever that is—to let go of sexual inhibitions that are precluding a more authentic marriage. The couple takes the aces, kings, queens, jacks, and jokers out of an old deck of cards and spreads them on a table—in no particular order. Then they write brief descriptions of various kinds of sexual acts on the removed cards, each card citing an act that offends the other person. For instance, on a king they might write, “Let the king take you from behind.” On a queen. “Let the queen sit on your throne.” On a jack, “Great oral sex.” On an ace, “Lie back and submit to heavenly ecstasy.” On a joker, “Do with me what you will.”

This game, in effect, puts politically or morally correct

spouses in a no-win situation. If they “play,” they lose, since they must submit to some politically or morally incorrect form of sexuality determined by the “opponent.” If they refuse, they eventually lose the jackpot. Hence the game tends to bring out feelings that have long been warded off by avoiding certain forms and postures of sexuality. In that sense, the game is also a “no-lose” situation. A tie is the most common ending of this game—for good reason.

*233/196/1*

GAMES FOR UNATTRACTED COUPLES – GAME 1: BLINDFOLD (PART 1)

admin — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:21:09 +0000

Players: Husband and wife. Activist/s: One or both. Setting: Home or hotel.

Aim: For those who are visually turned off by their spouse, this game offers a way to eliminate that element and go to a deeper place.

Game Plan: This game is for couples wherein only one partner professes to be unattracted. The other partner surprises the unattracted spouse by putting a blindfold on him or her one evening while they are lying in bed at home, or while they are spending the night at a hotel. “Try it,” the activist may say. “This was recommended by a therapist.” If the unattracted spouse protests, the other should add, “Try it. What have you got to lose? Maybe you won’t be repulsed by me anymore.” In cases where both partners are unattracted, this game may be activated by both, with each donning a blindfold. (Note: If blindfolds are too uncomfortable, an alternative is to make love in pitch darkness.)

*199/196/1*

GAMES FOR PERVERSE COUPLES – GAME 2: TIE ME UP (PART 1)

admin — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:08:57 +0000

Players: Husband and wife.

Activists: Both.

Setting: Home or hotel.

Aim: Appeal to perverse fantasies in order to awaken repressed feelings and memories.

Game Plan: The perverse couple will already have played— or thought about playing—games like this. Indeed, they may have engaged in sadomasochistic sex to the point where they are saturated and cynical. To some, this game may seem mild, but if the instructions are followed precisely, it contains an important twist that can bring about change.

Basically, in this game one spouse ties up the other and pretends to degrade and ravish him or her. However, in this game the spouse who in actuality or fantasy generally prefers to be the dominant spouse is encouraged to take the role of the victim, and vice versa. When the spouse who wants to be dominant is asked to be submissive, and the spouse who wants to be submissive is asked to be dominant, each is forced to confront aspects of themselves that they unconsciously deny. The one who prefers being dominant disowns his or her potential “weakness” and the associated negative judgments of a degrading sort, projecting them onto the victim. The one who prefers being submissive feels guilty and seeks punishment, denying his or her rage and masochism yet identifying with the aggressor (the spouse) as the latter performs degrading and abusive acts.

*165/196/1*

GAMES FOR OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE COUPLES – GAME 2: THE NUDE CLEANING LADY/MAN (PART 3)

admin — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 10:59:28 +0000

The neat spouse will most probably be amused and beguiled by this surprising turnaround. He or she may pop right out of bed and grab the slob-spouse and begin kissing or mounting behavior. However, the slob-spouse should resist this initial attempt.

“Don’t. We have work to do.”

“It can wait.”

“How can you say that? You who have always been so gung-ho about everything? Look at the dust on those window sills! Look at the scum on those beams! Please—we have work to do.”

“Just one kiss.”

“I said no. Not until we finish.”

The slob-spouse must insist on finishing all the work before he or she is willing to give in to the sexual desire. This, of course, mirrors the way in which the neat spouse generally operates—and it may well infuriate the latter. But this is as it should be: The anger that is generally acted out through the obsessive-compulsive rituals of orderliness will come to the surface and be dealt with. Both partners will be able to express their anger. The discussion—or argument—will at first center on the importance of orderliness as opposed to slovenliness, but eventually it will go deeper, to fears of inner disorder, filth, shame, loss of control, and insanity. These are fears that may lead to memories of past traumas.

The couple may or may not have sex on this occasion. When they do, it will have new meaning as a result of this game, and will be less hampered by obsessive-compulsive rituals.

*131/196/1*

THE SEXUAL PSYCHOPATH: CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSE

admin — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:13:37 +0000

It seemed worth investigating whether or not various aspects of the sex offense itself might distinguish the sexual psychopaths from the other offenders. One of the items studied was the age of the object of the offense. There were differences, but they were small and apparently meaningless. A possible exception to this statement concerns the aggressors vs. adults; within this offense type about half of the sexual psychopaths chose victims under twenty, whereas only about one quarter of the other aggressors did so. However, some of the difference can again be attributed to the relative youthfulness of the sexual psychopaths.

Turning to the question as to whether or not the offenders employed threat or force and whether they employed conventional preliminary behavior before seeking more specific sexual activity, we find no meaningful differences between the sexual psychopaths and other offenders.

In terms of the sexual behavior involved in the offense, some differences occur and merit discussion. Among the aggressors vs. adults and the incest offenders vs. children the sexual psychopaths less often had coitus or attempted coitus, and more often confined their behavior to genital petting. The lack of interest in or inability to obtain coitus is in accord with our findings that the sexual psychopaths in general tend to have less coitus and with fewer partners. In this connection it is interesting that more than twice as many of the sexual psychopaths as other offenders were involved in a generalized attack upon their victims without any specific sexual techniques being employed. Such an assault, with confused sexual motivation, may well have been considered a criterion of psychopathy.

The only other finding derived from differences in sexual techniques concerns the two homosexual-offender groups. In both of these there is a trend for the sexual psychopaths to use mouth-genital contact more than, and anal coitus less than, the other offenders. This finding may tie in with our contention that the homosexual offenders labeled sexual psychopaths were more strongly homosexually oriented than the other homosexual offenders. The strongly homosexual male is generally interested in fellating his partner as well as being fellated, so that his total mouth-genital activity exceeds that of the less homosexual male who is interested only in being fellated. On the other hand, while the less homosexual male often recoils from the idea of fellating another male, he is often more receptive to the idea of performing anal coitus on a male partner. In brief, the old dichotomy of the “heterosexual” male engaging in acts that cause himself to reach orgasm, but refraining from acts which would cause orgasm in his male partner, may explain this difference in sexual techniques between the sexual psychopaths and the other offenders.

*408\161\2*

THE OBJECT OF THE OFFENSE: RELATION TO THE OFFENDER.

admin — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:05:12 +0000

A series of classifications describing the character of the relationship between the offender and the other person involved was drawn up on the basis of whether the other person was a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend, or a relative of the offender. In the stranger category were included both prostitute pickups and police officers, who while acting as decoys became the potential targets of homosexual offenses. An acquaintance was defined as someone known usually by sight, as, for example, a neighborhood child. A first or “blind” date was also so classed. The term friend was interpreted to span a wide age differential, but in each case a social relationship of some kind was assumed to exist. Under the heading of relatives were included wives, both legal and common-law. Table 146 shows the percentages of each such relationship by offense types. The three incest groups are omitted since these were offenses committed exclusively with daughters or stepdaughters.

The degree to which strangers were selected as partners or became victims is the first matter of interest. Peeping and exhibition lead the list with well over 90 per cent of the females being previously unknown to the offender. A stranger is clearly the preferred choice in these two offenses. The three offense groups involving force rank next highest, each showing about two thirds of the cases as victimizing females who were strangers. About three fifths of the homosexual offenses vs. adults involved strangers, and in this group fall the many enticement cases using police officers as decoys. An additional number of these homosexual offenses stemmed from general surveillance of public toilets, where an attempt to find a homosexual partner usually results in a contact with a stranger. The figures for the remaining offense types diminish to a point at which about a third or fewer of the persons approached were strangers to the offender. The offenses vs. adult and minor females were lowest, with strangers representing only about a fifth and a sixth of the cases respectively. This is in contrast to the corresponding homosexual offenses which much more frequently were against strangers.

Turning attention to objects known in varying degrees to the offender, we find that in eight out of the 11 categories casual acquaintances ranked far below friends as objects of the sexual offense. A second point clearly shown in the tables is that relatives also played a comparatively small part in the picture, incest cases excepted, of course. The other exception to the minimal role of relatives is in the homosexual offenses vs. children. Almost 10 per cent of these 102 offenses with known data were committed against boys who were related to the offenders. Aggression offenses vs. children show a heightened percentage at this point (8 per cent), but this represents only two cases in this small sample.

The remaining large category, that of friends of the offender, is an important one, especially in heterosexual offenses vs. adult women and minor girls. Here three fourths and two thirds of the cases concerned females classed as friends. Thus it can be seen that nonforce sex offenses with females past the age of twelve primarily involved persons well known to the offender. This was true to a lesser degree of the homosexual offenses vs. minors and children, about half of which were with friends. A considerable proportion of the offenses against younger girls also were directed toward friends (41 per cent). The other groups drop down to the point at which the involvement of a friend ranges from 2 per cent to 31 per cent (homosexual offenses with adult males). The three aggression groups cluster around 15 per cent, showing that a consistent remnant of these offenses is directed at persons well known to the offender. Probably they represent only a small segment of the true picture of sexual force behavior per se, since it is self-evident that aggression against a friend has to be more severe and drastic, before it is reported as criminal behavior, than force used by a person unknown or barely known to a female. Offsetting this is the factor of easier identification and, hence, evidence against a molester known to the victim, which would tend to increase the ease of his apprehension and conviction.

To summarize, it can be said that in the present sample:

Strangers are selected more often than others as victims of aggression offenses, and very typically in homosexual offenses vs. adults, as well as in peeping and exhibition offenses.

Friends predominate in heterosexual offenses vs. minors or adults, and also are fairly evident in homosexual offenses involving children or minors.

Mere acquaintances or relatives play a minor part as objects of offenses.

The homosexual offenses with males of twelve or over reflect somewhat more promiscuity than the heterosexual offenses in comparable age-of-object brackets, as shown in the greater degree to which strangers appear as partners in the offenses.

The cases in general heap at two points on the relationship spectrum, that of friends and of strangers, showing a strong bimodal distribution.

*370\161\2*

INCIDENCE OF ANIMAL CONTACT

admin — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:56:53 +0000

The control group contained the fewest members who had had animal contact (8 per cent) and the heterosexual aggressors vs. minors contained the most (33 per cent). However, the number of aggressors vs. minors is uncomfortably small and the 33 per cent figure is unusually large. Aside from this group, the incidence of animal contact ranges from 8 to 24 per cent. Within this range the only significant clustering is that of the homosexual offenders who occupy second, third, and fourth places in a rank-order, with from 22 to 24 per cent of their members experienced in animal contact. Interestingly enough, the homosexual offenders are not particularly rural—indeed, the homosexual offenders vs. adults are the least rural of any group. However, the homosexual offenders are characterized by high frequencies of self-masturbation, which leads us to formulate the hypothesis that animal contact and self-masturbation are functionally and psychologically akin. The aggressors vs. minors also displayed high masturbation frequencies at the ages when animal contact is most likely to occur, higher than any group save the homosexual offenders. Animal contact also seems to correlate with early puberty: the homosexual offenders and the aggressors vs. minors all experienced early pubescence.

The repeated indirect association between animal contact and homosexuality motivated us to investigate further. We examined every case history in the control and prison groups and found in both a direct positive relationship. In the control group 34 per cent had had postpubertal homosexual experience; and 15 per cent had had more than incidental experience; among those members of the control group who had postpubertal animal contact, 52 per cent also had had homosexual experience and 23 per cent had had more than incidental homosexual experience. In the prison group the equivalent percentages for the total group vs. those with animal contact are 60 vs. 89 per cent with homosexual experience, and 39 vs. 74 per cent with more than incidental homosexual experience. There was no particular tendency for one activity to antedate the other, and one is left with the impression that the relationship stems from a common polymorphism and experimental attitude. Since this is more a subject for a study of homosexuality than for a study of sex offenders, it was not pursued further.

It is interesting that the influence of a rural background is not readily evident. In the general population this is a factor of prime importance. Yet in this present study we observe that the most rural group, the incest offenders vs. adults, rank low in incidence of animal contact whereas the least rural group, the homosexual offenders vs. adults, rank second. However, the correlation between rurality and incidence of animal contact becomes evident when one compares within each group the percentages of individuals with experience in animal contact according to whether they were urban, incidentally rural, or more than incidentally rural. In nine of the 12 available comparative groups the percentage with such experience is highest among the more than incidentally rural, and in nine groups the figures for the incidentally rural exceed those of the urban.

*332\161\2*

PREMARITAL HETEROSEXUAL PETTING: NUMBER OF PREMARITAL HETEROSEXUAL COMPANIONS

admin — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:49:13 +0000

Omitting prostitutes, we have tabulated the number of females with whom the members of each group petted before marriage, including pelting that led to coitus. Very few, usually not over 5 per cent, re7 ported none. Those exceeding 5 per cent include all of the homosexual offenders, the peepers, the exhibitionists, and the incest offenders vs. adults.

Those with the most companions are the prison group, the heterosexual offenders vs. minors and adults, and the heterosexual aggressors vs. minors and adults. Note; that all are groups whose offenses involved females beyond the: age of puberty to whom they were not related. Nearly a fifth or more of each of these groups had had contact with over 100 females. Those; with the fewest partners include the incest offenders vs. minors and adults and the homosexual offenders vs. adults. In addition, there is a general trend for those who were later convicted of offenses against children under twelve to have had few female sexual companions before marriage. In other words, small numbers are associated with incest, homosexuality, and pedophilia. The control group occupies a central position.

Despite the fact that a fair number of the interviewees could report their number of petting and coital companions only in terms of a range or could make only gross estimates, we calculated medians. These agree well with the data we have just presented. The average (median) individuals of the prison group, offenders vs. adults, and the aggressors and offenders vs. minors (in that order) had the largest numbers of sexual companions, ranging from 45 to 35. Next are the remaining aggressors with from 26 to 29 companions. The control-group individual was centrally located with 19 companions, while the peepers, incest offenders vs. minors and adults, and homosexual offenders vs. adults brought up the rear with under 15.

In connection with the number of premarital sexual companions, it is worthwhile looking at the number and proportion of female friends (not necessarily sexual companions) of the members of the various groups at ages sixteen and seventeen. One finds again that the five who had the most are the prison group and those convicted of sexual contact with females aged twelve and over who were not relatives. In all these groups nearly (or slightly more than) half of the men reported numerous female friends; about one third of the control group, in central position, was equally fortunate. However, if one takes into account those who said they had no female friends, the picture alters: the control group drops to a low rank while the aggressors vs. minors fall to an intermediate status, since between one fifth and one quarter of their members had no female friends at ages sixteen to seventeen. Thus in the final analysis those who got along best with females at this age are those whose later sexual interest and/or sex offense focused on women unrelated to them—the prison group, the heterosexual offenders and aggressors vs. adults, and the control group.

*294\161\2*