The G spot is exists, isn't particularly hidden or hard to find. It's just highly overrated. There is also the P spot and the A spot. Most people also aren't aware there are two points in the backdoor as well. And then of course there is the head of the clitoris. Technically, all of these spots are actually part of the clitoris which is as long as the average male penis.

Those are all stage 1 with the backdoor points being the most critical to achieving sustained high intensity orgasm. For some women, on the right day, you can get there in just a few moments pushing the right button, others will require stages of varied stimulation over a good hour or even two, most will flit somewhere between most of time and hit these extremes sometimes. But in every woman exists the potential for a level of sustained high intensity orgasm that doesn't stop as long as stimulation continues. Get her there and you can do whatever you want for your own pleasure and she won't mind a bit, she'll be too busy contorting and spasming with whole body wracking waves of pleasure.

In that state you can still build orgasmic peaks that for lack of distinctive word she will still call orgasms and you can change it up and do those at various points. No matter how long it took to get there in the first place, triggering an orgasm peak from the clit, vagina, or anally will take only a few seconds. Which is very satisfying for a man. Even hopping in at this point for what would normally be the duration of a lackluster quickie will trigger a multiple highly intense orgasm.

A couple words of warning though. Go about figuring her out wrong and she'll feel like you are treating her like a machine. Also there is a point of sustained orgasm where you've started with the clit head to get things moving and completing an orgasm with that point will bring a finale to things. So when she starts repeating from stimulating her somewhere else don't go back to directly stimulating that place for awhile. Also, she'll need a recovery period afterward. She's going to be a little sore the next day from all those muscle spasms and contractions. And if you do it too much she'll desensitize. If she goes for direct clitoral stimulation with any frequency she probably won't desensitize at all especially using something like a wand massager. There is also a good chance the experience will be so intense she is a little afraid of it.

Stage 2 is most effectively reached through Stage 1. In this state it's much easier, though with repetition, to build lasting associations in the nervous system with other points on the body (especially sensitive ones). It's possible to build these associations to the point where she can orgasm through stroking her hair, kissing her, or light touches. The nipples/breasts are particularly easy since some level of association has usually been formed by contact with them during sex already. Anywhere that is ticklish is an especially good target. It's easy to build associations that are strong enough to trigger/escalate arousal through these things. These associations are both psychological and physical because optimized communication pathways will be formed by the two centers being activated at the same time. Eventually, it's best to work toward caresses all over the surface of the skin.

Stage 3 is when you can stimulate this without actually even touching. Strokes so close she can feel them but not actually making contact. Trust me, if you get to this point. That woman will be yours forever. The sight of you, your smell, the stink of your sweat, and the very idea of your touch will send tremors through her body. Especially the smell of your sweat which makes perfect sense if you've taken the time to pay attention to a woman. There is no limit to how much of a man or how strong the man who shows that much consideration and makes her feel that way is entitled to be.

You're welcome.

I think he means we should restructure our health system in such a way that there is no big pharma or at least so that the size of the company offers no advantage. We need some major reforms in healthcare here in the states. With most of it being run by non-profits or at least a viable and equally competitive path being run by non-profits. This is true for all tech development.

Either way, there SHOULD be federal support for this, but only in the sense of loans from the federal reserve at the same rates and terms given to banks. This kind of development is of clear targeted benefit to our society in a far more obvious way than lining the pockets of wealthy bankers.

Let's say I'm someone who is capable of producing a drug or thinks I am. I should be able to use the local biology lab (akin to a library, either private non-profit or city sponsored) to develop it and perform the research I need. I should of course have to pay for access and when I submit a request for new equipment, whether or not to acquire that equipment should be a question posed to the existing membership along with how much it will increase dues and how long it's expected to increase them. Of course, I should always have the option of donating equipment myself. All members must be human persons (including partnerships) or non-profits (with no management salaries in top 10% income brackets). The requirement is that if developed further you must use "in system" facilities for manufacture and distribution and the lab will own the ip and all profits after costs will go to the inventor or non-profit that developed the drug but other members would be able to utilize the IP royalty free. Everyone is assigned a development log for every project and everything they do, every piece of equipment they use goes in and results are logged there. Including anything they do on their own without using lab equipment.

Trials and testing and advertising for the same. The same kind of thing. Centralize the costs but require those using the system to pay the costs. Streamline the process to parallel FDA approval and go through FDA approval using template requests and submissions. Members pay dues while using the process. The previous log is required and access is only to individuals and non-profits. Members vote on whether to proceed on studies and any study that hasn't met the minimum requirements for their study (animal trials on X subjects for Y time for instance) can't have it put to a vote unless they submit for an exemption and provide justification.

Manufacture, Advertising, sales, and distribution. This would need to be a national non-profit. Drugs would be sold with a fixed markup over a fair estimate of costs (30% is typical markup in a retailer). When patents expire drugs would continue to be made available at cost only without the markup as long as they are viable. If a capacity increase is needed or better equipment of some type, it goes to a vote of members with patents in the system. Want to pull a drug? It goes to a vote among the members of the system.

In the end, it costs what it costs and those costs are spread out among everyone developing drugs and those people get all the profits. Since all costs come from federal loans it's very easy to determine them. Divide up the total loan payment among the total number of mg/ml of drug produced and let the more expensive vs less expensive to produce drugs live with the average. It's better than all the min/maxing and duplicate charging games that result from any other way.

Send a second probe, use it to unfurl the panels. Then they'll have two.

It's a neat concept and all but it doesn't really add enough value vs just carrying my phone to justify the outlay. Especially for something experimental that isn't going to have much support and that I can only imagine has an incredibly awkward interface.

"AFTER we correct for the still-existing artificial bias below the disparity"

You are making the assumption that there is one.

But we are not the character, we are the reader, and we need to "see" the scene, we need to be given hints and details that make sense from our multi-character perspective of the world.

It is also a cat and mouse game between the reader and the author as we try to puzzle out what will happen with a larger view than that of any character. Later a dagger may have a symbol on it or design that is reminiscent of this house or that and provide a hint as to how that item will play out later but the character who finds it may know nothing of it and less astute readers may not either. But for those paying attention, the author provided a hint of a foreshadowing.

It sounds like you want the literary equivalent of an action movie. Which is somewhat more deep than the deepest of films which you must watch and pay attention to every moment of to understand what is going on. Quality literature should be somewhat, and by somewhat I mean dramatically, more substantial than that. An epic should be so encompassing that on the 5th read you are discovering things you missed before.

If you don't like an extremely high paced and action packed epic like a song of fire and ice I can only imagine what you'd think about something with more depth like The Wheel of Time.

That's actually a good point. Someone indicated they require at least 10% read, they should keep that threshold and then use word count read for distribution.

Otherwise you are rewarding fast and light reads like the current crappy 99 centers more than actual substantive epic novels.

"Maybe, but word count doesn't equal quality. If rewarded for word count, people would quickly start adding lots of filler to game the system."

Yes but you reward for the words read, not the words written.

"I know I would have enjoyed the "A Song of Ice and Fire" series a lot more if the editor had trimmed the books to 60% or so."

That makes one of you. I for one do not want all my books reduced to cliffnotes. A Song of Fire and Ice is written by an expert scholar of medieval history and his take on foods, banners, clothing, weaponry, mannerisms, etc form a rich and fascinating world.

But given access to a large library of books at their fingertips for a low monthly fee more people might choose to spend their time reading.

Which is exactly why the summary is wrong about this meaning you shouldn't promote good books from other authors. The more quality works the more subscribers and books take time to write so if you want those subscribers to be around when your next book comes out you need other authors to fill the gap.

I spend far more time with nothing left to read than having to choose between books.

I think they should distribute on a combination of word count read (with page count used to estimate word count so illustrated works and non-fiction get weighted fairly) and subsequent star rating for pot distribution.

You shouldn't pay out more for getting your 5 100 page books read than you do for a read of a 500 page epic. If anything it should be the epic that gets the higher payout. It takes longer and is more difficult to write a quality epic novel than a few quick reads.

The cap on the pot is not imposed by the one controlling the pot, the cap on the pot is a function of the number of subscribers. It is still in your interest to promote the books of others because more quality and varied content means more subscribers and therefore a larger potential pot.

It does change the industry. It is no longer a function of publishers to pick the winners but a function of readers. Everyone can publish. I don't know if Amazon considers reader ratings in their pot distribution but they should.

Yes, with the understanding that what is true of whole is not always true of individual elements. I don't have a stat for the exceptions to the rule but it is rather large, I'd guess something 10-30% of individuals of either gender. So it IS critical that as a society we don't make assumptions or put up barriers that hinder the 10-30% of the population that will be wired to pursue the same things as 70-90% of the other gender.

We just shouldn't be giving them an advantage or trying to artificially correct beyond that disparity.

Maybe. But why is it we need to get young girls interested in programming? So long as we've removed the barriers for girls that choose to enter a field I say mission accomplished. What is the benefit? Increased opportunity for programmers to encounter mates? Study after study shows there is no lack of programmers in the United States only an increased desire to import workers on visas who can't freely move between job opportunities and thereby reduce the impact of competition on salaries.

Making sure girls can choose to pursue anything they like is important. But there is no reason we should try to influence what girls choose to pursue. And if, as a society, we were going to do that we should be trying to encourage them to choose what benefits society the most. It is, and presumably always will be, best for our society if girls choose to stay home and raise a psychologically functional next generation (at least if those girls choose to have children).

Sure, but does it matter? We shouldn't adopt the objective of eliminating cultural bias just for the sake of doing it. That's what Europeans tried to do to Native Americans and erase their culture.

If there is an actual barrier to someone choosing a career that is a problem. But there is no barrier here, some just feel that people should be making different choices. That top talent is pursuing something else instead and benefiting our society.

Science has shown the female brain is wired to have increased aptitude for social dynamics and unsurprisingly it is fields along those lines that women often choose to pursue. Pursuing these fields would be a downhill path of natural aptitude for most women even if they are perfectly capable of excelling in other fields. People certainly have greater satisfaction pursuing things they are naturally good at. Have you considered that the cultural bias of women in the UK and US might be steering women toward pursuits in a way that aligns with the greatest overall interests of women?

I definitely have mixed feelings about increasing diversification. I don't want to see any individual facing a societal uphill battle in pursuing their dreams. But that increased aptitude for social dynamics also happens to be exactly what is most beneficial in managing a family and raising psychologically functional children. Women with this aptitude are the rule not the exception, men are the exception and not the rule. If every couple with children has the parent with the most social aptitude stay home and properly raise functional children the net result should statistically be far more males than females in the workplace with an increasing disparity peaking somewhere in roles of higher seniority occupied by individuals 35+ yrs old. And sure enough as we've seen increased gender diversity in the workplace we've seen increased psychological dysfunction in children. Worse we are getting more and more entrenched in an economy that depends on dual income households. Most women I talk to who have a child or want to have a child say they want to stay home with that child, most families can't the loss of income.

"But in this case, the predominance of one gender in all STEM fields does indeed demonstrate that something is actually broken and needs fixing.

Nature, science, and common sense show that while consensus provides great short-term efficiency, diversity is universally superior to monoculture in the long term."

Nature, science, and common sense all agree that STEM are very much all heavily built on a particular flavor of mental processing and also that male and female brains are literally wired differently.

Female brains are wired to trade off an unknown capacity in exchange for superior group dynamics processing. The vast majority of those with an apptitude for STEM show impaired social skills, aka group dynamics processing. Has it ever occurred to you the two are related?

"There does indeed exist a systemic cultural bias pushing women out of technical fields."

Do you have any actual evidence of this? Either these fields are legitimately gender agnostic, in which case gender is an irrelevant characteristic and diversifying adds no value or they are not gender agnostic in which case the most likely explanation for male dominance of the field is that it lends itself to the wiring of the male brain. Either way, no pro-active action is required.

Also, is your hypothetical bias one which leads to women choosing other fields or one in which others push them out? So long as a woman who chooses to pursue a STEM career and make the same social and family relation sacrifices as a male does not meet any more active opposition than a male there is nothing to fix as no individual is unfairly discriminated against.

"To see this demonstrated mathematically"

Cute but not actually valid. The problem is the assumption of benefit to shape diversification. Diversification for it's own sake is not beneficial. As above with technology, if race and gender have no impact on performance in a career as we assume then diversification of race and gender carry no benefits. We can safely ignore gender altogether in all such areas and group all participants as "people."

It is false to assume we should have an even distribution of squares and triangles for it's own sake. We should only do so if there is a benefit and as long as every shape is free to go wherever it likes without resistance any energy spent trying to pro-actively diversify them is wasted effort that could have been utilized for something which does provide an actual benefit.

Trying to force diversification that individuals don't actually want is no different than what anglo europeans tried to do with native americans. It destroys culture, if females have a culture which encourages socially focused endeavors over STEM who are you to assume you know better and try to destroy their culture? If males have a culture that values STEM over socially focused endeavors and males and females exist in roughly equal parts that IS diversification, diversification between pursuit of objective fields vs socially focused interests.

There is no question that our society historically undervalued women and unfairly biased against them. But on the large scale, there is no evidence we are as a society or species actually better off with the consequences of fixing that problem. Actually, if anything the result is that our economy is built on the concept of dual income families now, which means no parent staying home to guide and raise children.

Do you really think that gender income disparity or diversification of a non-functional criteria like gender in STEM is more important than the functional development of future generations of our species? I don't. Women should be able to choose to pursue whatever they wish without barrier (or advantage) but our species and our children are best served if they generally choose to be stay at home moms. It is impossible to have an even distribution of genders in the workplace and the majority of women choosing to pursue the career that benefits our society the most.