Archive for November, 2010

On Male Orgasm and Prostate Play 2

by Jason Stotts

On the original “On Male Orgasm and Prostate Play,” a reader asked the following question:

This is a really good article. I appreciate that it focuses alot on the anatomy and phisiological aspect of the orgasm, and not just “stroke his cock fast with 2 hands” like alot of male orgasm articles. I think it’s very important to understand the anatomy of a male in order to create a good orgasm.

I would be interested to find out about specificly what goes on inside the male right before and while he orgasms. How long does it take for the sperm to get from the testicals to the opening of the urethra once arousal begins? Does it graduately move from the testicals at different stages of arousal? or does the sperm shoot from the testicals to the urethra opening right at the moment he “peaks” ? also.. when is the most effective time to stimulate the prostate? before during or at the late “almost there” stages of arousal? and.. can you stimulate it adiquitely from the prenium?

Since I didn’t think anyone would actually see my comment on that essay, I’m reposting my answer below.


First, thank you. I also think that understanding anatomy really helps one to understand what’s going on and how to maximize whatever it is that you’re doing.

Unfortunately, I don’t have any information about exactly when semen is produced. I can, however, give you some information that will help you understand how it works. The testes produce sperm constantly and store it up so that there is always some ready (this is why they’re housed outside the body, to keep the sperm relatively cooler). However, the sperm actually make up a very small percent of what we know as ejaculate. Roughly 2/3 of ejaculate is produced in the seminal vesicles and the other roughly 1/3 is produced by the prostate itself. While there are other minor glands involved, these three are the most important. If you think about the location of these organs, you’ll see that nearly all of the ejaculate is produced either in or right around the prostate (where it enters the urethra) and the travel distance is negligible. The prostate actually swells and holds the ejaculate which comes out at the moment of orgasm (through muscular contraction). Although I don’t know for sure, I would imagine as a man gets excited, the sperm makes its way up into the prostate to be ready.

In terms of stimulating the prostate, you can begin this at any stage of arousal. Although, if a man is new to prostate stimulation, you would want him to be aroused before you start so that he will be more receptive to it. While it is most certainly possible to stimulate the prostate through the perineum, it’s not a very direct way to stimulate it. I know that none of the above diagrams show it, but you’ll be trying to stimulate the prostate through a number of different pelvic floor muscles (like the pubococcygeal) and through the base of the penis itself (remember the penis actually goes into the body a little ways where it is anchored, it is not just the external part you can see. The problem with this kind of external stimulation is that it is not very direct and you won’t be able to feel his prostate well at all.  You’ll also be pushing his muscles into his prostate, not touching his prostate itself.

The ideal way to stimulate the prostate is through the anus. Now, many men won’t be open to this right away and will likely balk due to concerns about being gay or hygiene. The first concern is absolutely unfounded and the second can be mediated by a little soap in the shower and a good diet. Either way, there is usually no fecal matter stored in the rectum itself (the area right inside the anal sphincter).

In terms of when to stimulate the prostate, it’s completely up to you and your partner. I would try different ways to see what works for him. If you’re doing it internally, you’ll actually be able to feel his prostate swell as he gets close to orgasm and then you’ll be able to feel it contract when he actually does orgasm. I personally think right before he orgasms would be a really bad time to start internal stimulation, since that will take a second to get set up. If you’re doing external stimulation, it would probably be fine though.

If you do decide you want to work up to internal prostate stimulation, here’s a couple of ideas that might help. First, start slowly! Begin by just slowly rubbing the outside of his anus for a couple of sessions with no penetration. Second, use lube! Use more than you think you need and make sure to reapply. I suggest using latex gloves to make it less messy and to protect his anus from your nails. Third, even after you start penetrating his anus with a finger, you should still go slowly and maybe wait a couple of times before you actually stimulate his prostate so that he has a chance to get used to anal stimulation (which most people really like, if they can get past some mental barriers). If you’re going to go this route, and I recommend you do for prostate stimulation, get Dr. Jack Morin’s Anal Pleasure and Health.

If you have any more questions, feel free to ask them


Big Brother note: if you click on the Amazon link and buy the book, I will make some small amount of money.  So, if you’re going to buy it, use the link and help support Erosophia.

New Discoveries about Penis Birth Defects

by Jason Stotts

The BBC is reporting that scientists have isolated a gene that plays a role in the malformation of the penis during pregnancy and fetal development.  The malformation is called hypospadias and it is when the opening of the urethra is not on the head of the penis in it’s usual spot, but lower on the penile shaft or even at the base of the penis.

Researchers from King’s College London, and Radboud University Njimegen Medical Centre in the Netherlands joined forces to carry out a large scale genome study.

This compared the genetic code of hundreds of boys, with and without the condition, to uncover genetic mutations which appeared more commonly in those with hypospadias.

They found that boys with a mutated version of the DGKK gene were 2.5 times more likely to be born with hypospadias.

This is fascinating research and hopefully it will lead to the ability to stop hypospadias from forming in the future.

Book Update

by Jason Stotts

I am pleased to announce that Chapter 3 of Eros and Ethos is now complete!



Part 1: Theory

Chapter 1: Sexual Ethics [DONE!]

Chapter 2: Emotions [DONE!]

Chapter 3: Love [DONE!]

Chapter 4: Relationships

Chapter 5: Sexual Attraction and Fantasy

Chapter 6: Sexual Identities

Chapter 7: Sexual Perfection

Part 2: Applications

Chapter 8: Erotic Decadence

Chapter 9: Faith, Mysticism, and Sex

Chapter 10: Reproductive Issues

Chapter 11: Sex for Sale

Chapter 12: Children and Sexuality

Chapter 13: Orientation and Identity

Chapter 14: Relationship Issues

Chapter 15: Kink

Chapter 16: Public and Private

Chapter 17: Obscenity and Legal Issues



by Jason Stotts

In case you haven’t heard about it yet, you should definitely check out this news article on FoxNews about the computer virus stuxnet, which has all but crippled Iran’s nuclear program.

Simply put, Stuxnet is an incredibly advanced, undetectable computer worm that took years to construct and was designed to jump from computer to computer until it found the specific, protected control system that it aimed to destroy: Iran’s nuclear enrichment program.

I think whoever designed and implemented stuxnet should get a Nobel Peace Prize for hampering the crazy and destructive Iran.  It really is a work of art and can be credited with delaying the inevitable war with Iran.

Sex and Spelling

by Jason Stotts

This new CollegeHumor video explains why good spelling is important if you want to get laid.

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

Aporia: Love

by Jason Stotts

Aporia (Gr.) – a difficulty encountered in establishing the theoretical truth of a proposition, created by the presence of evidence both for and against it.

Here, I am going to just think through some of the problems related to love.  I’m not necessarily looking for answers here and you should be forewarned that engaging this essay may have the effect of the Socratic torpedo fish, that leaves one numb and reeling.  I take no responsibility for that.  I am here like Socrates:

As for me, if the torpedo fish makes itself numb while it numbs others, I am like it; but if not, not.  For it is not that being myself full of resources, I cause others to be at a loss; rather, I am completely at a loss myself and it is in this way that I cause others to be at a loss as well. (80c7-d1)


When writing about love, a problem arises: what kind of love are we talking about?  It is generally agreed that there is a wide range of love: love of friends, love of family, love of sexual partners, love of country, etc. The terms for most of these are not complicated: we have “familial love” for love of family, “friendly love” for love of friends, “romantic love” for love of sexual partners, “patriotism” for love of country.  But, and you likely noticed this, what is “romantic love”?  Who are these sexual partners?  Are they people we’re in relationships with?  Are they people we love?  If so, what kind of love is this?

The point I’m trying to make here is that we lack a good word for the kind of love we have for the people that we are in relationships with, the people we spend our lives with, the people we have sex with.  We might call it “romantic” love, but this ties it to the romantic tradition and the idea of denial of sex in order to elevate the spirit.  We could call it sexual love, but then people might think that if the sex were to end, the love would also dissipate.  We could call it relational love, but what kind of relationship?  Perhaps erotic love would be the best term, but even that has the somewhat unfortunate consequence of tying the love and sex together in a way that makes someone think that if the latter were to stop, say due to old age, then the former would also stop.  But, perhaps they should be tied together this tightly.  Indeed, we are potentially sexual until our very last day.

So, what are our better options?  We have “romantic love,” “erotic love,” and “sexual love.”

Romantic love has the advantage of being widely used and one could argue that most people don’t understand it’s origins anyway, so are likely not influenced by them.  However, there is a danger here in that a history of a word can influence its current usage.  Further, I am of the firm belief that one can’t really understand a word until one has some idea of its etymological origin and history of past use.  Given that, romantic love has some serious problems.

Erotic love has the advantage of being direct and not trying to obscure the real nature of the relationship.  It correctly references the passion that love brings and perhaps even the madness that love can give rise to, the tumultuousness of spirit that we feel when love is new.  On the other hand, love is not always tumultuous and mature love can even be downright mellow.  Further, if a person has good control over his emotions and doesn’t succumb to madness, he can still be said to be in love.  Perhaps, though, this is tying erotic too closely to eros and in its current meaning it can fulfill the role we want it to.  It does literally mean “sexual love” from Greek, but the attendant passion is part of this.

Sexual love has the advantage of being completely direct without being couched in any way.  It’s easily understandable and no one would confuse this kind of love with another.  The problem is that since it so directly points to sex, that one could, quite reasonably, think that without sex, the love would end.  This seems wrong, at least insofar as it can be said that an older couple that no longer has sex can still love each other.  But, perhaps this love is of a different kind.  If my wife was in a tragic accident and could no longer be sexual in any way, it’s a hypothetical, just go with it, it’s not as though my love for her would suddenly cease.  Might it be objected, though, that my love would have to change forms?  Would the love become the kind of love of character friends?  Would the shared history and sense of mutual identity prevent this shift?  Another complication is this: would I feel sexual love for any person with whom I had sex?  That is, would sex cause sexual love?  This simply seems wrong.  It’s clear that people can have sex without being in love or without developing deep feelings of attachment.  Whether they should is not germane.

The problem is that for so much of our history, sex has been entirely shameful and even though everyone knew that there was a particular kind of love that goes with sexual relationships, it couldn’t be named.  Consider in our current culture, we use the vague “I’m in a relationship.”  But what kind of relationship?!  It is purposely vague.  Or consider: “this is my boyfriend” or “this is my girlfriend.”  Really?  Are you just friends?  Consider that “fiancée” comes from the Latin affidare “to make an oath.”  The oath in this context is to be wed.  To be wed, of course, means to combine or unite.  But a relationship is also a union.  What defines a wedded couple from a “regular relationship” is that they have made a formal commitment.  What if there were a ceremony for a formal commitment of friendship?  Would they be wed?  Doesn’t the fact that spouses have sex make it different from a formal declaration of friendship?

In order to untie this mess of language around relationships, we need to recognize that sex makes a relationship different than it would be without it.  On the other hand, one can have sex with a friend.  Does this mean that they’re now “in a relationship”?  Weren’t they already before?

We need a term for “relationships,” the kind that involve sex and love and all of the things we pack into “relationships,” the things we might have with our “boyfriends” and “girlfriends”.  That term certainly cannot be “loving relationships,” as all of the relationships we’ve identified are types of love!  It cannot also just be “relationships,” since, similarly, all the relationships we’ve identified are instances of relationships.  Perhaps “love, sexual, relationships”?  But that is too cumbersome and who has ever heard of a kind term with commas in it?

Perhaps a new term is called for.  But what?  Could we perhaps draw on other languages?  It is only our own that suffers thus?  I have my doubts.  (I welcome comments on other languages and what words they use for this kind of relationship and what it means.)

Since I, like Socrates, am as numb on this as are you, my poor reader, I shall simply conclude that we need a good term here, but that one does not yet exist or has yet to be defined in such a way to serve the function we need it to without any objections.

Although, perhaps that is the answer!  Perhaps we need to simply take one of the terms we already have and redefine it, breathe new life into it with a new, firmer, identity and function.

Alternatively, maybe the term we need is just “love.”  Maybe sexual love, the love of “relationships,” is the primary sense of love and other kinds of love are lesser versions of it, related to the primary sense by sharing characteristics, much in the same way that friends of utility are related to character friends (you’ll need to know your Aristotle to get this one).  This would solve the problem and preserve the way we use love in our culture, although it would restrict its scope and application.

It seems like one of these alternatives is our only option.  It remains to be seen which will end up being the better option.

Alcohol and Sex

by Jason Stotts

Recently, I went with some friends out to one of the local bars, which is not something that I regularly do.  Frankly, I don’t really enjoy paying way too much for alcohol in a place that’s so loud you can’t hear yourself shout.  However, I’m glad I did go because while there, I was reminded of how sad a state of affairs sex is in our culture.

I think it’s incredibly sad that as a culture we are so repressed about sex and ashamed of it that the only time we feel like we can be our sexual selves is when we’re so drunk that we can deny any agency in our actions: “it wasn’t me, it was the alcohol.”  Everyone at the bad, excluding those in our party, everyone was dressed as sexually as they could get away with: the women displaying as much of their bodies as they dared and the men trying to dress in a way that made them look intimidating and as though they would make a good lover and provider.  The people were awkwardly grinding on each other, trying to flirt as well as possible over the music, and generally doing whatever they could to try to make sure that they didn’t go home alone.

It’s not the fact that these people were trying to find sexual partners that I find sad, but what the way they were going about it says about our culture.  These people are so ashamed of their sexual nature that they couldn’t seek out sexual partners while sober, they can only do it when freed from the responsibility of thought by alcohol.  And this is incredibly sad.  If you can only ask for sex when you’re drunk, and sex frequently leads to relationships, then it’s no wonder why so many relationships fail: they’re based on nothing more than the simple fact that the two people were willing to have sex with each other.

As a culture, we need to move to a place where it doesn’t take the mind-numbing influence of drugs or alcohol for us not to be so ashamed of our bodies and sexual nature.  But how can we do this?  How can we overthrow 2000 years of christian hatred of the body and sex-negativity?  We must start by simply admitting to ourselves that we are sexual beings and that we like sex.  By admitting that we are sexual beings and opening ourselves to this, we can begin to move to a place where we can enjoy being sexual without first drowning our mind.

Consider a group of friends who get drunk together and get in a hot tub naked.  Would this group of friends do this sober?  It’s not likely.  Or consider a group of friends who get drunk together and decide to play a game of strip poker or the like.  Would this same group of friends do this sober?  Almost certainly not: not in our culture.  But why?  If they wanted to do it drunk, then they also want to do it sober.  Drinking doesn’t create new desires in us, it simply lets us admit the desires we already have, that we have to keep suppressed due to societal expectations.  In this case, most people have a fascination with the bodies of other people, whether they want to have sex with them or not.  There is an inherent curiosity about the bodies of others that begins in our childhood and only intensifies after sexual maturity.  Now, to be fair, some of us have had this desire so completely crushed in them that they no longer feel it, but for those of us that have our natural desires intact, the desire is always there.

So the question is why does this group of friends need alcohol and the pretext of the hot tub or the artifice of a game in order to get naked, or nearly, with each other?  It is because they are ashamed of their bodies, ashamed of their desires to see their friend’s bodies, and ashamed of anything that might be considered sexual.  Besides, what would people think?  We’re so debilitated by shame and fear of censure in our culture that we can’t even consider our natural desires.  What harm would there be in friends being naked around each other?  None.  In fact, it would probably bring them closer together and help to satisfy some of their desires and curiosity.  Of course, someone is probably thinking: “but their sacred bodies are private and shouldn’t be revealed to anyone but their lover, and then only for as long as necessary for procreative sex as god intends.”  This is just crazy sex-negativity, born of a fundamental shame in the fact that we have a body and a sexual nature.

It is that kind of sex negativity, born of religion, that leads to absurd states of affairs like we have here in the US where a man can go to a beach dressed in a Speedo, but a woman being topless is beyond the pale and frequently can’t even breast feed in public because of censure, if it’s not outright illegal.  We are so focused on oppressing sex here that we forget that breasts can be used to nurture babies: that sometimes parts of our bodies can have multiple functions.  Why is it that we can’t be nude on beaches [LINK], when bathing suits are encumbering, feel horrible when wet, and are completely unnecessary?  Why is it that a person urinating in public can be charged with a sex crime in some places? Why is it that a young adult taking a nude photo of him or herself is now a felon and sex offender?  Why is it that hatred of the body and shame over it and our sexual nature is so strong that our very laws reflect it?

I call for a return to reason about our bodies and sex.

Let’s move to a place where we don’t need alcohol to be open about our sexuality, where we accept our bodies and our sexual natures, where sexuality is considered natural and hatred of the natural is considered abhorrent.

Let’s reclaim our human nature, including our bodily nature and sexuality, from the sex-negativity of religion and be proud of who we are.  While I don’t think that we’ll be able to get back to the pagan Greek days where the body and mind were both held up as valuable and the ideal was “a strong mind in a strong body,” I still think that we should seek this as a goal.  Let’s free ourselves from the shame that requires us to drown our mind in alcohol and embrace our sexuality as a natural right.

Happy Veterans Day

by Jason Stotts

I want to take a moment and thank the past and present men and women of the armed forces for keeping our country safe.

I also want to recognize my recently deceased maternal grandfather, who was a fighter pilot in WWII in the Pacific and my father who served in the Air Force.