Quote:
Originally Posted by AlteredEgo  That does not address the question: "Does vibration/rotation at rates unachievable by human males make climax possible for some women, without clit stimulation needed?" Who cares if I can cuddle the toys, or take them out for fun? No one asked if one was better than the other. The question asks to what extent the two are different. And believe me: just as no toy would make me stop wanting my man, no man could make me stop wanting my toys. EVER. |
Thanks for understanding what I was asking and getting the thread back on track.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlteredEgo She might have been! I squeeze and squeeze as I get closer to climax, and eventually they short out, overheat, refuse to rotate, or snap! I am the rabbit killer, unfortunately. I have two on order right now, so help is on the way! LOL
The rabbit is special because the rotation means that a sensitive spot I have on the posterior wall of my vagina, and my g-spot both get stimulated in such rapid succession as to make it feel simultaneous. This sensation is mind-blowing, and can't easily be duplicated by any human means. This combined with the clitoral stimulation from the rabbit ears is other-worldly. Frequently, however, when I want to make it last a little longer, or I want a more intense orgasm, I shut off the rabbit ears, and forgo the clitoral stimulation. These orgasms I can feel washing over my whole body. A few times I have used this with a lover, and he has made me use the rabbit ears immediately after which is extremely overwhelming, but in a good way. |
And this is exactly what I was expecting to hear from somebody -- thanks so much (again) for understanding what I was asking and directly describing what the differences are. And you also make the good point that this doesn't exclude men from the equation -- we are not being mechanically cuckolded
. It's merely a matter of improved technology in one facet of sexual activity.
It's interesting how careful one has to be sometimes with the smallest of phrases. By putting "vs." in the title, I may have made this look more adversarial than intended. I was going for brevity...
Cheers,
Kevbo