Monday, 7 March 2011


A very quick post to reassure you that I am still alive, just insanely busy, and to ask a somewhat delicate question. Assuming that most who read this are fellow virgins, how many are aroused by, shall we say, mechanical substitutes for the real thing? A huge fuss is made about toys that supposedly give women immense pleasure, but it seems to me that without the actual experience to provide material for the mental element of arousal, the whole premise is flawed. Research shows that most women are sexually aroused by the emotional and mental side of sex just as much, if not more than, by the physical aspects. Without the experience of being desired, it is difficult to imagine the actions and words that lead to arousal in the verbal and emotional brain centres. Then too, is the female predisposition to aural and emotional stimulation inherent, or taught by a society that persists in the 'Happily ever after' mentality in representing love and sex to women?

I have more to say, not least about various friends' recent attempts to set me up, but I'm falling asleep as I write, so forgive me if I wander off to the great big field of fluffy sheep. More sooner rather than later, I promise


  1. I'm not a virgin but I can hopefully shed a little light on this. In my experience, I need to at least have someone on my mind to fantasize about while using some form of stimulation, whether it's from myself or a toy. I have to have someone on my mind or I can't climax. I think that you'd be able to as long as you have someone to picture.

  2. i've somehow always been hesitant to use plastic. i just don't think i'll be comfortable with that. but i mean, whatever floats your boat right?

  3. Which was rather my point - I've always been reluctant as well, because I just can't see how battery-operated plastic can realistically substitute for 'the real deal'. Scientifically speaking, a huge amount of arousal for most women is the aural, tactile, visual and emotional stimulation that a flesh-and-blood partner provides, and without that, I don't think the experiences are in any way comparable. For someone with no experience of sex with a partner, particularly if they have body or self-esteem issues that have played a part in their inexperience, I rather doubt that imagination is enough to supply a sufficient stimulus, and the purely physical can be frustrating in its' inadequacy.

    The deeper problem of course is that these aids are marketed quite aggressively as a sure route to sexual pleasure for women. Failure to achieve the release that seems so easily and effortlessly attainable, according to popular culture and advertising, from such physical stimulation could very easily add to the issues experienced by someone of limited or no experience - the whole, hideous 'frigid' label is still a big issue for many women - and when paired with other issues, and/or any sense of being 'defective' in some way to have remained virginal for a longer-than-average time, it could be very damaging indeed.

    It seems to me, stereotypes coming out to play, that women are being encouraged more and more to view sex in a way more typical, traditionally, of males. Unfortunately, what this trend tends to ignore, is that for many, if not most women, sex, or sexual-substitute, without intimacy is simply not enough. Experienced women in sexual relationships report high levels of unsatisfactory ie. non-orgasmic sex, especially when the relationshiop is not emotionally intimate. Not to say that emotional intimacy is a guarantee or orgasm, but it does seem to improve the chances! Obviously intimacy of this kind also enhances the experience for many men, but physical pleasure/release is undeniably more easily attained for the male of the species, and usually achievable without any emotional connection.

    Essentially, what I've taken a post-length reply to say is: I'm not sure how much good 'plastic' does for an inexperienced female, and it may very well do some mental and/or emotional harm.