Is it true that when a woman is wet, she's had an orgasm?

[ManlyBanisters]

I don't know why you're doing a frustrated "Aaaaaaaaargh" because if you read carefully I'm one of the people who is actually getting your point i.e. that some women may be wet when they orgasm (and therefore that is an indicator for some women) and others might be almost dry and that all women are different when it comes to that area.

You FINALLY have the point, well done.

I just fail to see why you couldn't be polite when explaining that to start with.

Just me being me - you don't like it? There's a handy little 'ignore' feature, I'm sure I'm on plenty of people's lists, one more won't break Rob's server and it damages me not one jot, lest you worry for my fragile ego.

 

[cock23]

You FINALLY have the point, well done..

I had your point to begin with. But the reason the OP doesn't have it is because you were rude to him, and hes not listening to you because you were rude. If you were polite to him he would have listened to you and this thread would probably have died by now. And as I've said before....in life people very rarely listen to those who are rude to them, regardless of whether that person is telling them the right thing or not. So all I'm trying to say here is that a better strategy to get your point accross and get the OP to listen to you would have been for you to be polite to him. (And you clearly did want him to listen and take your point otherwise you wouldn't have made so many posts in this thread trying to get your point accross).

Just me being me - you don't like it? There's a handy little 'ignore' feature, I'm sure I'm on plenty of people's lists, one more won't break Rob's server and it damages me not one jot, lest you worry for my fragile ego.

I don't agree with the way you structured your posts in this thread, no. But I usually like reading what you have to say and you always come accross as intelligent so I won't be blocking you.

 

[AlteredEgo]

If you ask me, in this thread (and sorry ManBan, I usually do enjoy reading your posts, this is an exception) she comes accross as having a rude, arrogant and misplaced attitude and I find it really stupid why she's shot down the OP because she deems the question "dumb" when actually to some people (including me) it wasn't a dumb question. If she replied politely and honestly to start with instead of being rude and sarcastic, this whole argument in this thread wouldn't be going on right now and the OP would be a lot more inclined to listen to what she has to say.

Go back to the first page of the thread. Re-read the first two responses. One respondent was ManlyBanisters. Another was Velvet. Now re-read my question, and see if your answer is still a valid answer to my question. Just to clarify, my question is:

If Velvet's response was acerbic, and ManlyBanisters' response was acerbic, why is Manly banisters the villainess of this thread?

An answer is only an answer if it addresses both parts of the question.

My own proffered answer is that it'[s because she won't be a docile little lady, and not only will she not take back what she's said, or change her opinions, but she also is guilty of actually defending herself.

 

[B_johnschlong]

For some women wetness IS an indicator of how turned on they are.
For some women wetness IS NOT an indicator of how turned on they are.
For some women wetness IS SOMETIMES an indicator of how turned on they are.

For some women extreme wetness as described in the OP IS indicative of orgasm.
For some women extreme wetness as described in the OP IS NOT indicative of orgasm.
For some women extreme wetness as described in the OP IS SOMETIMES indicative of orgasm.

ManlyBanisters, thanks for this colorful way of putting it.

The question I now have is: how do you know that what you're saying is correct?

From the nature of your first reaction and consequent answers, I think you have some prototypical discursive devices in your brain which prompt you to speak in terms of a relativistic perspective with some Derridean différance added to it, no matter which topic we're discussing.

In short, what should we rely on more: on your stereotypical answer, or on Xaviera Hollander's actual, empirical observation of hundreds of women?

 

[B_johnschlong]

My own proffered answer is that it'[s because she won't be a docile little lady, and not only will she not take back what she's said, or change her opinions, but she also is guilty of actually defending herself.

She merely *appears* to be unwilling to be docile. Some psychological scrutinity will tell you that her prompt and hysteric shouting, and her stereotypical, pseudo-postmodern relativism, actually makes her a character of the most docile, submissive and insecure kind. Just my two cents.

 

[AlteredEgo]

I had your point to begin with.

No you didn't. You said more than once that vaginal wetness has no correlation to orgasm. That's simply not true, and wasn't anyone's point. That was the source of the loud scream from ManBan. Orgasm and vaginal wetness are sometimes linked, for some women, but not always linked for all women, not even those who sometimes, or always get extremely wet. There is a very big difference between those two concepts. You did appear to finally get it, but now I'm not so sure. I'm hoping you do understand the difference now. If not, you know I'm always available to you in private messages, or even to attempt to clarify it here.

But the reason the OP doesn't have it is because you were rude to him, and hes not listening to you because you were rude. If you were polite to him he would have listened to you and this thread would probably have died by now.

I was never rude to him, and he still didn't get it. Gillette was VERY generous to him, and he still didn't get it.

 

[AlteredEgo]

She merely *appears* to be unwilling to be docile. Some psychological scrutinity will tell you that her prompt and hysteric shouting, and her stereotypical, pseudo-postmodern relativism, actually makes her a character of the most docile, submissive and insecure kind. Just my two cents.

I prefer not to dig that deep into what people I will never encounter face to face may be like when I'm not looking. She won't be docile for you (any of you), right here, right now, and that seems to be enough. Or too much, depending upon how one wishes to view the situation.

 

[cock23]

Go back to the first page of the thread. Re-read the first two responses. One respondent was ManlyBanisters. Another was Velvet. Now re-read my question, and see if your answer is still a valid answer to my question. Just to clarify, my question is:

If Velvet's response was acerbic, and ManlyBanisters' response was acerbic, why is Manly banisters the villainess of this thread?

An answer is only an answer if it addresses both parts of the question.

My own proffered answer is that it'[s because she won't be a docile little lady, and not only will she not take back what she's said, or change her opinions, but she also is guilty of actually defending herself.

I don't agree with Velvet's attitude to the OP either and her response isn't any better than ManBans.

As to why she's the "villainess", it's simply because she made the very first response and it happened to be rude and that's what people noticed, whereas Velvet's response is disreectly sandwiched in between various posts on the first page so it doesn't get noticed as much as ManBans response, which happened to be the very first one. The fact that she made several more posts using a similar rude tone (albeit defending herself) didn't really improve things on her part, nor did it make her look any better. And various people in this thread have latched onto that.

And my point is if she handled the OP's question politely to start with this whole argument wouldn't have happened. And if she wasn't rude and he still didn't listen to her, then she could have just styled herself as the "innocent party" and she wouldn't be getting demonised by people in this thread. (And I'm not one of the people doing the demonising, because as I've said before I usually like her and the things she posts).

 

[B_johnschlong]

I prefer not to dig that deep into what people I will never encounter face to face may be like when I'm not looking. She won't be docile for you (any of you), right here, right now, and that seems to be enough. Or too much, depending upon how one wishes to view the situation.

But don't you see the irony? Someone who "never, ever" will be docile, on purpose, (and no matter whether it is in cyberspace or elsewhere) commits the most ultimate act of docility. :wink:

Such a person is docile, because predictable, like a donkey.

 

[cock23]

No you didn't. You said more than once that vaginal wetness has no correlation to orgasm. That's simply not true, and wasn't anyone's point. That was the source of the loud scream from ManBan. Orgasm and vaginal wetness are sometimes linked, for some women, but not always linked for all women, not even those who sometimes, or always get extremely wet. There is a very big difference between those two concepts. You did appear to finally get it, but now I'm not so sure. I'm hoping you do understand the difference now. If not, you know I'm always available to you in private messages, or even to attempt to clarify it here.

I just didn't express myself properly, but I was always trying to say the same thing and in my third post I realised that I wasn't expressing myself properly so I changed the wording.

I was never rude to him, and he still didn't get it. Gillette was VERY generous to him, and he still didn't get it.

Well in that case you can just sit there and say you tried, and if he still doesn't listen then there's not a lot you can do. But being polite to someone is, in my opinion, the best chance and way anyone has of getting their point accross. That has been proved to me again and again in life. And if people still don't listen despite that then that's just their problem.

 

[EboniGoddess]

Being wet don't mean shit.

 

[dolfette]

silly thread!
sometimes i get dripping wet for no reason at all.
i'm not even turned on.

 

[AlteredEgo]

ManlyBanisters, thanks for this colorful way of putting it.

The question I now have is: how do you know that what you're saying is correct?

From the nature of your first reaction and consequent answers, I think you have some prototypical discursive devices in your brain which prompt you to speak in terms of a relativistic perspective with some Derridean différance added to it, no matter which topic we're discussing.

In short, what should we rely on more: on your stereotypical answer, or on Xaviera Hollander's actual, empirical observation of hundreds of women?

She's just a whore who wrote a book. Was she present for every orgasm of those hundreds of women? I think you're giving her far too much credit and validity.

The answer to your question is "no" if any of us knows even one woman (like myself) who is able to be very wet during the act of intercourse without ever once having an orgasm. I know "me". Anyone else want to point to an example? What about your own personal experience johnschlong? Did none of your past lovers become extremely wet before having an orgasm? Did all of them (who became wet) only become wet after climax? What about your own experience with the woman who was wet after arousal, but nearly dry at the point of orgasm? Isn't she a contradiction to Hollander's statement?

I'm a phone sex operator, and have been for 8+ years. From that perspective, let me tell you something about adult entertainers. We tell clients what will make them happiest. We never take off the character we're playing in the presence of the client. We are willing to say whatever it takes to keep his fantasies alive. If one of his fantasies is that every time he's been with a woman who was really, really wet it was his skill or penis that made her that way, and she had an orgasm, then by George, that's what we'll tell him! A madame, like a phone sex dispatcher, is just another character you encounter on your way to purchasing your fantasy. Further, if you buy her book, you've become her client. But that's just my own point of view. Perhaps your mileage will vary.

 

[AlteredEgo]

I just didn't express myself properly, but I was always trying to say the same thing and in my third post I realised that I wasn't expressing myself properly so I changed the wording.

:biggrin1: Understandable! Words are so important in text-based communication. Here, we're all from all over the world, so sometimes the words get in the way.

Well in that case you can just sit there and say you tried, and if he still doesn't listen then there's not a lot you can do. But being polite to someone is, in my opinion, the best chance and way anyone has of getting their point accross. That has been proved to me again and again in life. And if people still don't listen despite that then that's just their problem.

I agree with you. But perhaps we're not here to meddle with the established personalities of grown folks. We either like them, or we don't. perhaps we need to accept each other here, or keep our distance. Isn't that an option?

 

[ManlyBanisters]

ManlyBanisters, thanks for this colorful way of putting it.

The question I now have is: how do you know that what you're saying is correct?

From the nature of your first reaction and consequent answers, I think you have some prototypical discursive devices in your brain which prompt you to speak in terms of a relativistic perspective with some Derridean différance added to it, no matter which topic we're discussing.

In short, what should we rely on more: on your stereotypical answer, or on Xaviera Hollander's actual, empirical observation of hundreds of women?

Ah - you are a fan of Derrida - all becomes clear.

And, to answer your question, I can't tell you what to rely upon. You must draw your own conclusions. I will, instead, ask you this - Unless Hollander was present during the sex all these 100's of women had then really she is just reporting what she has been told. Which is what I am doing. You describe her as having the perspective of "empirical observation" - was she present? And if she was how did she measure the orgasm? How do you know her reports of orgasm in these woman are fact and not just what the woman report, which may or may not be factual?

She merely *appears* to be unwilling to be docile. Some psychological scrutinity will tell you that her prompt and hysteric shouting, and her stereotypical, pseudo-postmodern relativism, actually makes her a character of the most docile, submissive and insecure kind. Just my two cents.

Quite a few people here actually understand those long words, son. Those are the folks that are laughing at you right now.

 

[AlteredEgo]

But don't you see the irony? Someone who "never, ever" will be docile, on purpose, (and no matter whether it is in cyberspace or elsewhere) commits the most ultimate act of docility. :wink:

Such a person is docile, because predictable, like a donkey.

I think I understand your point, but as a fan of etymology, will disagree. There's a reason we have so many words. Is she predictable? Perhaps. Is being able to predict that she'll respond to a given set of stimuli with venom making her submit to you? No. You might be able to be manipulative, but this doesn't mean she's opted to submit. This doesn't mean she's calmed down, or chosen to be peaceful.

 

[AlteredEgo]

...
Quite a few people here actually understand those long words, son. ...

Yes, and in this case, I found them oddly-placed, which is why I ignored them in my response. In this case, isn't the only evidence someone's personal feelings? Isn't he asking, in a fashion, if anyone's personal vagina has felt anything which contradicts the concept up for discussion?

 

[B_johnschlong]

silly thread!
sometimes i get dripping wet for no reason at all.
i'm not even turned on.

Mmm, interesting observation.

But in the (unlikely?) event that you orgasm, are you wet?

 

[AlteredEgo]

Mmm, interesting observation.

But in the (unlikely?) event that you orgasm, are you wet?

More relevantly to your original question: If a woman is very wet when she orgasms, is she also wet before she orgasms? If so, does that mean that if the act is cut off before the actual orgasm, that she canbe that wet without the orgasm?

 

[Gisella]

As a young guy, I once read a book by the famous "Happy Hooker", Xaviera Hollander. In it, she answers questions about sex, speaking from her experiences as a female pimp.

One question she answers is: "how can a man tell whether a woman has had an orgasm during intercourse?"

Her answer: "when your penis is wet to the balls, you can be sure that she's had fun".

Now is this really true? Some of my sex partners are spontaneously very wet, even before the sex starts, and then, when you enter, they just remain as wet. With others, they are not so wet at the start, but end up soaking the bed-sheets. Finally, some are wet at the beginning but dry up near the end.

Confusing!

The book you mentioned is from 1971..

I am confuse also...about you still have no clues of your own? Better source informations, asking a MD or RNP..reliable sources are no pimp adventures, lack enthusiams and the fantastic..but at least are more reliable and how the body realy work and etc.

Erase the pimp phrase from your mind, it is time to let it go and start all over paying attention..not much for wetness, by now you are Ph.D on it ..but other clues.

I was a late learner too.