h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This post has been removed.

LN and PP were in Naked Gun, not, as far as I know, in any of the Police Academy films. That was a completely different kind of humour. that quip would have been too subtle for that lot. Sorry, not nitpicking, just quoting what I learn looking at the telly over my kids' shoulders.

Has anyone mentioned 'Snatch' yet? It always beings titters in my family with the weightlifting 'lift and snatch'.

TC - You are absolutely right, it was Naked Gun; which developed out of the TV show Police Squad. Far too subtle for Police Academy, I agree.

Slug - I was talking about this thread last night with my lodger, and he suggested snatch, ("lift and snatch" - *titters appreciatively* and I then reminded myself of "bush". Which I assume means that one in the hand is not worth two in the bush. Comments guys?
*grins sardonically, this time*

Incognitas - I LOVE the idea of "petunia" - "plant it in my petunia, big boy" Ha!

Anyone who is a fan of Jethro the Cornish comedian will know he refers to the 'Twernt', as in 'if it twernt there....'

My Mother, who does actually come from another planet, always refered to it as a 'Pickle' (and the man's was a 'winkle'). I didn't actually discover they were called anything else until I went away to school - no wonder I grew up confused!!

This post has been removed.

had an ohnosecond, there...

What I meant was the *discussion* reminded me of Boys on the Side, not the nappy changing.

*glad to have cleared up confusion...*



A

*Just* remembered...:

A friend's mum used to call her special girl parts her "Mary" as in "Have you washed your Mary...?"

Just remembered this lead, at the time, to extrapolations such as "Have you seen his Joseph"....



A

Back from a brief vacation... I just wanted to get a word in on Percy's question way up above about women and sexual gratification.

Not being a woman, I will never be able to truly understand how they feel and what they think and what sorts of things arouse them. Having taken a lot of biology and psychology (the course "The Biology of Human Sex and Reproduction" helped a bit in this area) I can say that despite not being able to understand them, I have been given a bit of insight into the differences between men and women. Especially sexual differences.

The biggest difference, from what I have learned, is that men can get aroused in a purely physical fashion. Meaning, all you have to do is touch him "there" a lot, and he'll not only get aroused, but he will come to orgasm (times vary - some take longer than others). Women, however, NEED some form of psychological stimulation. They have to feel love, or something to that effect (women out there - comments please? Am I right? Totally wrong?). Also, the statistic is that only about one out of three women experience orgasms - it's not "crucial" to having sex/making love/whatever you want to call it. But in order for a man to impregnate a woman (or at least get the sperm out of him) he has to experience an orgasm. Maybe those two facts are related - I don't remember.

I think the reason why it seems that men are more sexually oriented than women is that for a woman, she needs the psychological stimulation - which she can get through cuddling and necking and making out, etc. That doesn't mean they never want to have sex - it just means they don't always feel the need for it. Men, on the other hand, just need the plain, raw physical... stuff. So they crave sex more. Cuddling can't satisfy them - it only arouses them more.

Hmm, a guy doesn´t need an orgasm to impregnate a woman. He needs ejaculation, but that is nopt the same as orgasm. You can have ejaculation without orgasm, but not the other way around I think they say.

Yep Marduk - what you say certainly applies to me. I am very very wary of generalising or speaking for other females but from what I have gathered from women's magazines it's generally true. Can you give me a lesson in American - what exactly is "making out"?

One thing that would turn me off absolutely and finitely however, would be sleeping with someone who's read books like you have or who is a gynaecologist. I would be thinking the whole time "he's putting his theories and knowledge into practice" .. not doing what instinct tells him or just out of lust or out of desire for me. The biggest turn off for me is having to tell someone to do something and then him doing it. If I told my husband my secrets I wouldn't have anything left that aroused me. This is all in the head, of course - I am telling myself not "I like that or that" but "he's only doing that because I told him to" and willing myself (subconsciously) not to be aroused by it.

Gone off the subject a bit. In fact it's a question of "Who understands women?". I, for one, do not.

Xanatic - a man cannot ejaculate without an orgasm. At least, that's what I have been taught It can be a controlled orgasm, so that he's not shaking and jumping and all that, but it is still an orgasm. It's a series of muscles spasms that are necessary in order for the semen to be pumped out, so to speak.

Trillian's Child - making out is the North American term for what I believe consists of kissing and fondling. I've never been given a specific definition - it's just one of those things that you sort of know when you see it.

And in terms of "testing" out knowledge...if the man is willing to try to find out what makes a woman feel good, is that a bad thing? I mean, that's not why I took the course, but if I know that it makes a woman feel good, why shouldn't I use it? I do agree, however, that it's just not the same if you tell the other person specifically to do something. Even though they're doing it to make you feel good, it doesn't feel like it's natural. (I'm making a distinction between being told what to do and reading up on the subject, because when you read up on it, you're doing it yourself, and takin gthe initiative - you're not being given orders)

When my husband tries something new, I think he's been reading some GQ or Playboy or what and hasn't thought it up himself, why should he suddenly have new ideas after 25 years?

My 2ps worth. You can ejaculate without orgasm (most men know that), but you can also orgasm without ejaculating. This is called tantric sex, and practitioners can delay ejaculation for hours on end. So men can, in fact have multiple orgasms too.
I think it all goes back to an ancient chinese idea that men have a finite number of sperm, so every one needs to be spared for its specific job (ie making babies). So they would train themselves to orgasm without, ahem, spilling anything.

It's a clever trick and one I've consistantly failed to achieve.

Men can have multiple orgasms, it's true, but it has the opposite effect of a woman's multiple orgasms. When a woman has multiple orgasms, they build up on each other, and each is better than the previous one. This is because there are four stages of intercourse; it is the fourth stage in which people orgasm, and women have the ability to go back down to the third stage, and then back up to orgasm again. Men always go all the way back down to the beginning after they orgasm, and so if they do have multiple orgasms, each one is lesser than the previous one.

Men also do not have a limited number of sperm. Women have a limited number of eggs, but men are always making more sperm. And that's not a matter of opinion, or belief, either - it's a proven scientific fact (easier to prove than other things - you can see it happening under a microscope).

Oops... my mistake. It's not the fourth but the third stage of intercourse (rather, the "sexual Response Cycle") in which people orgasm. The first stage is arousal, the second is plateau, the third is orgasm, and the fourth is resolution. Women can go back to the plateau, men go straight to resolution. It's why men are usually very sleepy after sex - all of the muscles relax and the body returns to its usual physiological state.

Mucky pup, Andy.

O God M, all that theory

I didn't understand either of those statements .

You know what's funny and awful at the same time?
That you're asking "Why do men get feelings when they say they won't?"

I've always thought this was a stereotypical man's complaint about women.

Sorry Marduk. Won't elaborate on the first one. Perhaps it's just a typically English expression for a kid who makes a mess.

But it's just that it's all right for people to go around theorising about sexual intercourse, but book-learning has no place in the bedroom. If two people hit it off then gut reaction should produce the best results. Basta.

While your descriptions do tally with my experience, I am happy without having it put into words.

If it helps you with your relationships, I hope you are a good actor and don't sort of go through a checklist or try out new theories when in bed. Please don't take this as an attack, I think you are a very important person around here and have contributed a lot of sense on a lot of subjects. Which is what you are doing here, no doubt. It's just that it reminds me of my husband. Trust men to analyse and put names to everything in sex. (I know there are a lot of women involved in the research, too, from Masters and Johnson on.)

But while you are studying so hard, don't forget there's a human in there too, and a girl wants to be treated as a whole and loved (in whatever sense) before she is physically approached. There we go again - it's all in the head. And no two girls' heads are alike.