Unusual Aneros and Super-Orgasm Theories

Posted by: @helghast

 

Posted by: @zentai

Did our early ancestors experiment Super-Orgasm during "normal sex" as a major incentive to reproduce ? 

If we are talking Neanderthal man,I doubt they experimented with much other than pump and dump lol. I don’t think they’d have had the smarts to figure out how to by-pass ejaculation. I think later on humans began to explore things as there are texts from at least Egyptian times discussing orgasms.

 

 

 

 

I don't know about this, I know you lol'd it, but Neanderthals were a lot smarter than we give them credit for. Recent studies are showing they had a lot more going on and honestly its Hollywood and the media taking biological anthropology studies and completely screwing them up and spitting them back out to make a stupid point. Movies are terrible for this too. I agree that there has to be some major higher brain function to bypass ejaculation, but Home sapiens neanderthalensis had larger brains than all Homo sapiens sapiens (or, us) when they were on the earth. What did their larger brains do that our ancestors' slightly smaller brains not do? Who knows!?! It takes a fair more amount of culture, especially material culture, and deeper conversations with each other and oneself to discover ways to explore their prostates. But when cultural development didn't explode with art, music, tailored clothing, advanced forms of housing, and symbology around (officially, the dates keep moving back due to archaeological discoveries) 14-10k years ago, what did the roughly 100k years entail culturally when our ancestors were just about exactly the same genetically as you and me today? That's roughly 80-90k years of the same brain size, same dentition, same body and structural  build and no clothing, no art, no architecture, no music, no good clear symbology, no cave art, no anything. Just stone tools and whatever they made out of vegetal/animal materials for daily uses. I think kinky things when I teach on human evolution and I can't help it! So many thousands of years for bodily exploration. Theories that women were in control and held cultural and even early social power, where maybe their sex was all-powerful and divine, not the male penis. If the male penis is not the powerful thing, maybe the male prostate/anus/rectum/ass became a pleasure center, or was experimented with? Lots and lots of things could have happened through so many thousands of years; Homo erectus was still around till ~50k years ago, what kinds of penises, vaginas and prostates did they have? What did H. erectus do sexually? How did they differ sexually from H. sapiens sapiens and H. sapiens neanderthalensis? What about homosexuality in the prehistoric past? It is RARELY considered and has only just become something studied anthropologically in the last 10 or less years. But there were homosexuals in the prehistoric past, its ridiculous to think there were not. Just trying to make a point here that our prehistoric past, including species that were not H. sapiens sapiens, us, is barely understood after almost 150 years of active studies and excavations to recover our shared hominin past.

Neanderthals buried their dead. They buried their dead with objects (if you've heard of the burial in Israel that had yellow flowers in it, that was contamination during the time of excavation, sadly the grave did not actually have flowers in it this study just came out recently, I was sad to teach it to my students!). Neanderthals appear to have even cared for the injured and seriously wounded based on the burials of grown adults who had major bone breaks healed before they died, injuries that would've required neanderthals to carry them or help them move and walk. That all sounds like love to me and a lot of other anthropologists too!!! So, was there love between a male and female neanderthal? I'm willing to bet there was. There were probably nuclear families too. Nuclear families are hypothesized as the earliest grouping of hominins in the past: a father, a mother, and a child or a few. There were no leader-type males over a lot of people way way way back because population and especially density was very very small and sparsely spread out over Africa, the Middle East, parts of Russian Asia, the Indus region and lower China. It would've been small families roving the landscape in the endless pursuit of food and water. So, what made a male and female pair-bond? What compelled them to stay together? Given our bigger-than-all-primates brain, higher brain functions and senses of personality and consciousness, maybe they had an emotional capacity for love for each other. Maybe care and love was some of the very first emotions since those emotions can be pair-bonded to sex and intercourse? Maybe the female clitoris hung around for over a hundred thousand years because her pleasure was linked to emotional feelings of love for the male, and through pleasurable sex bonding, the emotions of love were ignited and the male/female pair decided to stay together, find food and water together, and raise children together. Hell, even monkeys have fathers and mothers that work together to raise their babies!!! And we ain't coming from monkeys, so far from monkeys are hominins and especially apes and humans!

I know this is a detraction from @zentai call for super-O theories. But if the emotions of love were possibly paired with sexual pleasure, when culture was not as complex, but brain power was getting stronger all the time, it is possible that the idea for a person--a sentient individual--got the idea to explore their own bodies sexually and maybe used a carved piece of wood or polished stone (they had stone tools back then, a really long long long time ago) to insert it in their ass and receive pleasure? Or, everyone was more open sexually back then anal sex among males was more common, maybe because it was pleasurable?? Modern humans coined "homosexual" and "gay" and "straight" that's Western thought. Other cultures could give a shit. Some cultures openly celebrate sexualities in-between male and female. Not to say that prostate stimulation HAD to come via penis-in-ass stimulation, but it was probably easier to get it that way than exploratory tools. However, if it was gained through another penis, and the feeling was good and replication was wanted, maybe a wooden or stone device was called upon????

In the end though I think for sure Neanderthals likely had the capacity for love between males and females because they had some kind of compassion for their own kind, Neanderthals absolutely interbred with modern Homo sapiens that may have resulted in a deeper sense of sexuality as the thousands of years of H. sapiens-Neanderthal pairing occurred, and Neanderthals were a lot smarter than we've given them credit for based on continuous archaeological discoveries of their technologies and cultural practices.

@techpump

That's quite a trip to read, in a good way! I'm stuck on my phone right now so won't go for a long reply but I'll try to come back to this, I've often tought about the Super-O as either a reward mechanism or a "primal orgasm", both in a time period where life was (probably) shorter and harsher and you would need some incentive to carry on, and I wonder how and when this mechanism would get triggered, or if it would stay dormant but was still kept usable even today for some strange reason. There is a *ton* to cover here, like a whole branch of evolution that no one ever touched, and that's quite a thing, isn't it ?

@lanoix

That's a very interesting take! So that would mean that Super-Os would be some kind of modern discovery, in the sense that it was always possible to reach that state but we just did not actually do it before, or those who managed to do it couldn't really share what they had found for a variety of reasons.

Another idea is that the Buddhist idea of Nirvana could be related, but with the sexual component removed ? In other words, is Nirvana a kind of sanitized, more socially acceptable Super-Orgasm ? 

@techpump

Posted by: @techpump

I don't know about this, I know you lol'd it, but Neanderthals were a lot smarter than we give them credit for.

Don’t take that the wrong way that I was poking fun at them. I wasn’t. Man has learned and evolved from day zero. That much is certain.

I personally think early man was guided almost entirely by instinct. As you said,constantly searching for food/water and reproducing instinctively instead of the modern day ‘she’s sexy with big tits,I wanna  bang her’. 

The pump and dump is simply because I doubt with all the predators and large game around,and the lack of private and secure accommodation,they’d have thought to take the time to enjoy and explore sex. They’d have been very alert to the world around them,in survival mode or perhaps a state of constant anxiety,and what’s the primary cause for premature ejaculation in modern man? Anxiety. So for me,a stretch to think they lay about thinking about their pc,sphincter muscles and wooden handles as away of by-passing seed expulsion so they could enjoy super o states for 2-3 hrs per day. More likely they got on with the business of survival. Having said that,what would I know lol. It’s theory and guesswork for the most part. 

Yes I can get on board with compassion and possibly love,particularly between mother and child.I just  think the world was a hard territory back then and the time to fully explore our bodies was likely not a luxury they had.

Posted by: @helghast

So for me,a stretch to think they lay about thinking about their pc,sphincter muscles and wooden handles as away of by-passing seed expulsion so they could enjoy super o states for 2-3 hrs per day.

Maybe they did not have to think about anything, what if the "normal" ejaculatory orgasm back then was a short Super-O, like I don't know, 30 seconds or so, followed by a refractory period ? And don't forget about Aless or just slipping a finger in or massaging the anus, no wooden handle required... 

@zentai

I did say above without all the stimuli we have,orgasms were possible longer and harder back then.

Again,I think early man much more led by instinct. Not sure they’d have been drawn to stick fingers where the waste comes out,but who knows lol.

Posted by: @helghast

I did say above without all the stimuli we have,orgasms were possible longer and harder back then.

Yes you certainly did, just restating this for page 2. I also think that if they existed, these short S-Os didn't need training or a lot of introspection to achieve. So I wanted to separate this from the super-long calm seas we can experience today, maybe these were not reachable "back then" because of what you say, lack of tools and understanding, limited "leisure time" etc. 

This comes back to my original post, which was probably overly simplistic. Let's say your orgasm is longer and more powerful, it makes sense to cut it short before it turns into a full blown Super-O, for some of the reasons we already talked about. But it does not make much sense to have things end so quickly with the rinky-dink Trad-Os we have today; if they're truly less powerful than the "ancient" ones, then we don't have a use for a refractory period that is, I don't know if I'm explaining this right, so aggressive in action. Separating orgasms and ejaculation, I can get very close to Super-O states while masturbating and I don't need to edge, I think it's just the body being able to handle more pleasure before ejaculating, thus the idea that a lot of the mechanics of the Super-O are about bypassing or avoiding the refractory period, and this does not have to be 100% prostate centric. As long as you can ramp up pleasure without ejaculating, this *should* lead to Super-Os. 

It's just incredibly convenient that the prostate is such a powerful erogenous zone and that stimulating it gently won't generally produce an ejaculation like simulating the penis to high levels of pleasure will do. That's up for debate, as I can get an ejaculation from prostate play only, but the way to achieve this, the type of movement and pressure, is very different than what the Aneros does. 

@zentai

Posted by: @zentai

Let's say your orgasm is longer and more powerful, it makes sense to cut it short before it turns into a full blown Super-O, for some of the reasons we already talked about. But it does not make much sense to have things end so quickly with the rinky-dink Trad-Os we have today; if they're truly less powerful than the "ancient" ones, then we don't have a use for a refractory period that is, I don't know if I'm explaining this right, so aggressive in action. Separating orgasms and ejaculation, I can get very close to Super-O states while masturbating and I don't need to edge, I think it's just the body being able to handle more pleasure before ejaculating, thus the idea that a lot of the mechanics of the Super-O are about bypassing or avoiding the refractory period, and this does not have to be 100% prostate centric. As long as you can ramp up pleasure without ejaculating, this *should* lead to Super-Os. 

The use of the refractory period might be multi pronged,first of all,the more loads you blow,the lower your sperm count. Struggling couples are told to leave a few days or even a week to let numbers build. Natures simplistic way would be to give a man a break lest he just keep going and going dropping fertility along the way which will be less helpful the more females he encounters. Then there’s blood flow  and cardiac protection. Most things are elevated during sex,without a refractory period,a lot of men would just keep going and going and going lol. A heart working hard constantly and pumping blood to the erections is going to cause problems. Look how many long distance runners end up with arrhythmia and other heart issues. Damage to vessels and arteries due to a constant elevated bp. There’s more than a few problems constant sex would cause.

Like someone said above,the super o was probably just not nature’s intention for men as we have some things to factor in that women don’t.

Posted by: @zentai

It's just incredibly convenient that the prostate is such a powerful erogenous zone and that stimulating it gently won't generally produce an ejaculation like simulating the penis to high levels of pleasure will do. That's up for debate, as I can get an ejaculation from prostate play only, but the way to achieve this, the type of movement and pressure, is very different than what the Aneros does.

It is convenient and probably has some luck attached where men are concerned. To be fair,what a woman’s g spot does is also debated. It does play a big part in women’s mo and super o,some call it the female prostate and some wonder why it’s not so easier to typically reach same as the prostate.

I think your ability to ejaculate from prostate play alone is down to your learned and rewire skills and better mind/brain control to spike arousal to the level needed for orgasm without typical stimulation. Not so different from the Kung fu master types train and meditate to feel nothing when getting hit with a wooden bat or something lol.  A lot of guys on the forum have chased a hfwo without success. I’ve had them from pegging,but it took the wife to pull the right strings at the right time to balance my relaxation and arousal level to produce the desired outcome. Still by passed the need for the usual stim.

Posted by: @helghast

Natures simplistic way would be to give a man a break lest he just keep going and going dropping fertility along the way which will be less helpful the more females he encounters.

Posted by: @helghast

Look how many long distance runners end up with arrhythmia and other heart issues. Damage to vessels and arteries due to a constant elevated bp. There’s more than a few problems constant sex would cause.

Both very good points. Man the scope of this is just too wide to explore. In a small group, once all the women are pregnant, fertility does not matter as much, but we can take the guess that nature intended each sexual encounter to have the best shot at ending in pregnancy, so there must be some kind of balancing act going on between frequency/sperm count. Sex for pair bonding and group stability does seem like something to consider, too. 

Saying that Super-Os as we experience them today were probably not supposed to happen, maybe I'm the odd one here, but I have trouble with this. I'm more in the "we had this and lost it for a long while" camp, but yeah, lots of evidence against my theory.

Posted by: @helghast

I think your ability to ejaculate from prostate play alone is down to your learned and rewire skills and better mind/brain control to spike arousal to the level needed for orgasm without typical stimulation.

Maybe, but again I feel like "rewiring" is more like removing a tarp that's covering an old mysterious piece of equipment you don't have an instruction manual for, rather than switching wires and making modifications on something already in use. You do need some practice, but I don't think it comes with the need to "unlearn" things you already know. 

@zentai

Posted by: @zentai

Sex for pair bonding and group stability does seem like something to consider, too

That’s if there was bonding. A lot of pair bonding is rooted in the teachings of religions. Of course,science and many ppl no longer believe a guy sits on a chair in the sky and watch’s us like the Truman show.

Thing about attraction,sexual attraction and sex itself etc is that it wanes with time. Religion says you can be with one human all your life. Is that how it’s meant to be? Debatable. How many ppl in long term relationships who have an affair say,get them chills and the exhilaration of a new unknown partner,all of them. They call the first few years the honeymoon period for a reason. Sex after 20 years is great,but it’s not just like it was at the beginning. We are experiencing the honeymoon period now due to all the new fun,games and role reversal stuff.

Posted by: @zentai

Saying that Super-Os as we experience them today were probably not supposed to happen, maybe I'm the odd one here, but I have trouble with this. I'm more in the "we had this and lost it for a long while" camp, but yeah, lots of evidence against my theory.

No,I don’t think lost. Maybe they are part of our evolution. There was a time we couldn’t speak. We hadn’t lost the ability,we were meant to speak as we evolved,just not back then. Just because we can super o now doesn’t mean we did then,or were necessarily supposed to,maybe it wasn’t the right time. Small in number,reproduction the primary goal. Now we are many,super o less likely to cause risk of extinction.

Posted by: @zentai

Maybe, but again I feel like "rewiring" is more like removing a tarp that's covering an old mysterious piece of equipment you don't have an instruction manual for, rather than switching wires and making modifications on something already in use. You do need some practice, but I don't think it comes with the need to "unlearn" things you already know. 

Perhaps dr Watson,perhaps. But the prostate has been there working through all of mans sex life. Pumping at orgasm to help semen on its way,making fluids necessary for procreation,radiating pleasure  as it’s massaged through the physical movements of intercourse,helping to amp us all the way to glory. All in the background until we learn to tap into it’s powers. A TO probably is a version of super o like you’ve said cut short by refractory. We learn to have the prostate do it’s dance while having the other players remain in seats at the side of the dance floor,and viola! Super-o! 😉

Is it a modern human supremacy, meaning all of us, to claim the ancients (Sapien or Neanderthal) were only able to achieve basic reproductive sex?

@techpump referred to pre 15,000 years ago +/- when women were in charge. There’s a lot evidence for this and from some existing hunter gatherer cultures. By now the modern hunter gatherers have probably all have been corrupted by us and gone as they were, even from 20 or 30 years ago. 

The dynamic of matriarchal societies is nothing like patriarchal. They were or are much more egalitarian. In a pre-birth control time, the risk of pregnancy didn’t matter as is does now because everyone took care of the kids. There was a strong notion of communal family. The 'it takes a village' thing. Sex was likely more free and less restricted activity than now. 

From modern hunter gatherer tribes studied in the Amazon they found that their workday is generally just 4 hours! In “the jungle” the rain forest, even today those tribes have an incredible abundance that we don’t have in terms of access to food (real healthy food, not sugary treats) and certainly earlier agrarian cultures didn’t have. Those “ancient” hunter gatherers were generally the size of modern humans today. The “advanced” cultures people were often undernourished and smaller, though the ruling class wasn’t. This statistic has always stuck with me. At the turn of the last century the average height of an Englishman was 5’-6” and Frenchman was 5’-3”. They were starved eating a lot thin soup while the upper classes gorged themselves. Average means there were shorter guys. This was an acknowledged problem in WW1. 

For the ancients, besides taking care of kids, there was likely a lot of time to take naps, create art and music, dance and have sex. And even if not during the day, when the sun goes down (12-ish hours in southern realms, greater or lesser in north) that’s pretty much it, more opportunity to have sex. So why couldn’t they develop sex to a higher level than our culture gives it the time and priority for?