Question: I masturbate by inserting my penis inside a vacuum cleaner’s pipe. Is this harmful to the cleaner, or maybe myself? Please suggest some alternate equipment for the same.
Sexpert: All I can tell you is to not start the vacuum cleaner while you are at it. You may find your penis sucked into the dust bag. I think it is harmful to both — the cleaner and the one who uses it. Why not stick to the good old method of using your hand or a pillow? That will be quite similar to what you will feel during intercourse.
Me: I refuse to believe that it will harm either instrument. If the pipe can handle termites and dust, yours is a pretty easy rider. If anything, press on the lowest level, this will give a quick swish to the insides of the pipe and clean it; once momentum builds up and your efforts see fruition, there might be no need to wash the pipe.
Now, coming to your instrument, the process of suction works the same way that all these sexologists talk about to increase pleasure – the stop and start method. If you are lucky and the air good, then it may pump you up; should there be any dirt particles and they cover you, it will only have a salutary effect. You’d be one gritty guy.
I have been thinking about an alternative you ask for. It could be the hole in a bark of a tree. Try the woodpecker act. Yeah, got the idea from the latter part of the bird…err…its name. Just go tap-tap; the roughness of the bark and the moistness of the weather will work. This would be an organic orgasm. Go green.
"Organic orgasm" is good, but is too close to "organic analogy", which reminds me of sociology, which reminds me of the vicious homophobe teacher/professor, which reminds me of something funny-
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nobodyhere.com/justme/homophobic.here
Imagine. If these guys are so creative at masturbation, how creative will they be at sex. Or how talented they are in general.
ReplyDeleteHunar ko pehchano boss!!!
FV, Where do you find such dodos...where do they live ....whats wrong with having good old orgasm ....
ReplyDeletecome to think of it, when man had hunger , he discovered food and various manifestations of food ...we have gourmet food , theme restaurants and so much about food ...with sex .. we got stuck in politics , it is like free press in china ....you may have it but dont tell anyone ...of you cant have it ...pretend that you do ....
Time to change , identify thats sex influences our thought processes so much as food do ...if you can crave for Vodka red bull or black label or plain kingfisher ....i guess people can crave for orgasms....why bother the poor vaccum cleaner.... thoughts :)
Dear Vexpert,
ReplyDeleteHaha ... actually there's no other place for a man but inside a vagina. That's home - the Uterus. We all try to get back into it, by instinct.
I have a plausible theory about the foregoing statement how it relates to sustenance of the human race, and how intended to be so by nature, but it's not in a light vein. Perhaps another time :)
Mask:
ReplyDeleteWhy are you calling me vicious? I did not get to see the whatever you sent...
- - -
SM:
Who nar? So how I pehchaanoon?
- - -
Manish:
When people tire of dal-chaawal, they try different cuisines. Anmd then when they return to dal-chaawal, they think of new ways to add 'tadka/chaunk'...something like that.
Btw, these are real queries and the sexpert's answers are real too...mine are more practical replies:)
- - -
Zeemax:
Would love to get your theory...whatever vein it is in.
And wherever is a man's place, along the way he can have his pipe dream, no?
Errr...who said anything 'bout you?
ReplyDeleteFV,
ReplyDeleteWell there was a little discourse on another forum regarding arranged marriages Vs those by woman's choice, which sort of encapsulates that 'theory':
(edited extracts)
Me: How and through what measures women would 'not' be objectified? I mean ... would a choice in marriage be enough or something else do you think?
Unless God were to flatten a woman's hull fore and aft, and makes some design changes in the plumbing in the hold to make it purely functional rather than ornamental, women will always be objectified.
Other: It is all functional, is it not? It's our hormones that make it look ornamental.
Me: I meant if God had taken pleasure out of sex, only then women would not be objectified ... you know I mean the purpose of procreation would have been sufficient. No?
Other: But zeemax, why would people continue to have sex over millions of years if there was no enjoyment in it? People aren't always good at doing things out of duty to the species. How would the species have continued?
Me: People still would have had sex because procreation is essential for a social safety net/insurance. You know, another working hand in the field, burhhapey ka suhara, and all that. The species would have still continued, and in a much more practical/calibrated manner where population growth would have stopped at points of full employment. Why did it have to involve pleasure which makes ballooning populations unable to feed themselves?
That was my point. God put pleasure in sex because it was meant to be ... and thus women would continue to be objectified. It is an integral part of the basic nature of things.
you can never deny the role of physiological and biological diffrences in determining the social role of mene and women....people who think that gender is socialy determined or say that..
Another: One can never deny the role of physiological and biological differences in determining the social role of men and women. People who think that gender is socially determined or say that sex is given by nature and gender is the product of society ... miss a damn big point that society itself is the manifestation of human nature. Society is not something outside the realm of nature ... Human nature remains constant and immutable. You see, even the psychology of men (the desire to dominate)itself is the evidence of human nature. Where have men got it from? Of-course from nature. Are men something from outside nature?
Me: interesting. No, men are as much part of nature as are women ... and Nature does not create anything out of a vacuum. This man/woman intrinsic nature which is different from the other is certainly an essential ingredient in the scheme of things, in the greater universe.
Please ignore the repeated unedited para "you can never deny the role of physiological and biological diffrences in determining the social role of mene and women....people who think that gender is socialy determined or say that..
ReplyDeleteMask:
ReplyDeleteHuh? So why didn't you?
Zeemax:
Interesting discussion...whether it is pleasure or procreation, the objectification applies to men as well as women. You talk about what if nature flattened women...what if nature did not provide men with the relevant equipment?
But nature socialises people; it is advantage whatever that society then comes to understand as 'perfect'.
Btw, why do you bring in economic theories into everything?!
FV,
ReplyDeleteYou talk about what if nature flattened women...what if nature did not provide men with the relevant equipment?
That was entirely practical and possible. Then, it would be purely functional. Men would then only have the equipment necessary for instinctive procreation without pleasurable arousal; just as instinctively triggered biological needs such as hunger, or excretory functions - which are as important for survival and sustenance, but not dependent upon any necessary pleasure for their functioning. It isn't so where procreation is concerned. Pleasure is vital here.
Btw, why do you bring in economic theories into everything?!
Do you mean my earlier comment re "procreation is essential for a social safety net/insurance ... another working hand in the field, burhhapey ka suhara, and all that."?
Yes I do tend to do that. It's because I believe the pursuit of socioeconomic justice (futile, but that's another subject) is the ultimate purpose of Creation in the first place.
However, to believe that, a person needs to be convinced in Creation, not Evolution. That disagreement makes the argument moot and ends in circular-reasoning.
FVI.....do.....not.....get....yoooooooouuuuuuuuuu...!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteYou won't, if you stretch it...those lengthening vowels. Try wow-els :)
ReplyDelete