Friday, June 13, 2014

You Need to Order This Today! A Review of the Lelo Ida Couples Massager

A few years ago, I stumbled upon the We-Vibe couples vibrator. The concept was pretty straight-forward. It was a U-shaped vibrator that was worn during sex. One arm of the U was inserted into the woman's vagina while the other arm remained outside. Both arms vibrated, which provided stimulation to the G-spot and clitoris. Since it was designed to be worn during sex, the internal half also stimulated the man's penis. 

It seemed like a brilliant idea!

But it was expensive (around $150 at the time for the We-Vibe 2) and the reviews were luke-warm. A few women loved it; a few hated it. A lot reported that it was interesting but not worth the expense. I was intrigued, but not intrigued enough to pony up one and a half Benjamins. 

Fast forward to March of this year. I received an email with a discount code from Lelo, another high-end vibrator manufacturer. We had been a fan of their Gigi model, which is now in the second generation of production. I had even reviewed this particular model back in 2012. The email was advertising the Ida, one of their remote control couples' vibrators. It served the same basic function as the We-Vibe I had read about years earlier. 

I did some preliminary research and found the We-Vibe was currently on the fourth generation which had corrected many of the earlier model's problems (the external arm slid around a lot.) While the new We-Vibe appeared to have partially fixed the problem, some women still complained. The Ida seemed to solve the problem by using a round disk instead of an arm. More surface area = more reliable clitoral contact. 

Given I've used their products before, I was a little more comfortable spending the money. I took advantage of the discount code and ordered the Ida. Unfortunately, I ordered it the day before Shelly got a triangle piercing which would take four to six weeks to heal. When the Ida arrived a few days later, I played around with the remote to figure out how it operates. The toy itself is interesting. Not only does the outer disk vibrate, but the inner arm vibrates and oscillates. You know that "come hither" motion that can be made with a finger on the G-spot? It roughly approximates that motion. 

The remote itself vibrates, which would theoretically allow the operator to know the vibration mode (there are six variations like constant, wave, pulse, etc.) and intensity. he vibrating remote mode can be turned off. The remote also has three "modes" that can be used to set the intensity. In the first mode, the intensity of the vibration increases as the remote is tilted vertically. I suspect this would be handy in a public setting if the woman was covertly wearing the toy and the operator didn't want to fumble with the buttons.  then disappointingly tossed it in the closet. The second mode is motion-sensitive. Vibrations increase as the remote is shaken. The more frantic the shaking, the more intense the vibrations. This might be fun on a dance floor. Or while running. The last mode simply uses the buttons to control the mode and intensity. 

About six weeks later, I had forgotten about the toy. I was digging around in the closet searching for my copy of Seth Godin's Linchpin (great book, by the way) and came across the toy. Excitedly, I reminded Shelly we needed to try it out.

So we did.

The first use was a bit awkward. I was going to use the remote, but it's not especially intuitive in the heat of the moment. After fumbling around with the remote for a minute or two, we got impatient so we used it without. The vibrator itself has an on/off button which allows you to cycle through the six different vibration patterns. Shelly turned it on. The vibrations were strong (slightly stronger than our Gigi.) She inserted it, and I followed. Missionary position seemed like the most logical, which pressed the vibrating disk between us. 

To me, the vibrations were interesting. It felt good, but wasn't "this is the greatest thing since sliced bread" good. It enhanced the experience, but I wouldn't buy the toy based on my experience. Shelly, on the other hand... well, this is how it went.

The first 30 seconds: It didn't seem to be doing much of anything. We were both moving around a bit to try to adjust the toy between us, which resulted in some awkward thrusting. My thoughts at the time we "Shit, I wasted $100 plus on a lame-ass toy."

The next 30 seconds: The adjusting paid off. REALLY paid off. It was abundantly clear Shelly was now thoroughly enjoying the experience.

The next 30 seconds: We didn't make it to the next 30 seconds. Yes, this toy induces female orgasms... quickly.

Needless to say, Shelly was a fan. Subsequent testing has produced the same results. We haven't had the toy long enough to really experiment with different positions (woman on top = better control for her, doggie-style = inserted head vibrating on the underside of the penis, both of which should be magical.) The toy is also waterproof to one meter, so it could be used in the shower. Or hot tub. Both are on the "gotta test it here" list.

Pros and Cons


We're obviously a huge fan of this toy. As such, it is difficult to assess the negatives. It IS expensive, but we're the kind of couple that allocates a decent chunk of our budget to all things sexual. The quality and durability of the product are top-notch, so we'd expect it to last for years. If we had a complaint, it would be the complexity of the remote. The various modes are confusing and require practice. However, we also appreciate the variability the toy can produce. Simplicity would sacrifice variability, and I think I would rather have a bit of a learning curve than a product that didn't have as many different modes.

Another major con, which we did not experience, has to do with fit. I suspect this is why some women really don't care for the product. Simply put, if a woman's clitoris is too far away from the vagina, the vibrating outer disk won't directly stimulate the clitoris. It will still directly stimulate the labia, paraurethral glands, etc., but may not provide enough direct stimulation to induce orgasm. Worse, the toy will act as a bit of a ledge which would prevent the partner's pubic bone from contacting the clitoris. This is my own theory based on assumptions made from other reviews of the toy.



As far as pros- I'll quote Shelly:

"It feels really fucking good!"

Aside from that obvious statement, the toy has some cool features. The remote can be used from a fairly shocking distance as long as the AAA remote batteries are fresh. I tested it at twenty feet and it worked like a charm. I would expect anything between the toy and the remote would reduce that range. This opens up a world of possibilities to using the toy discreetly (or not so much depending on the crowd) in public.

The toy uses Lelo's standard wall charger, so there are no batteries needed for the toy itself. A full charge will last anywhere from one to three hours.

The actual toy is covered in Lelo's soft satin-like silicone material, which can benefit from a water-based lube in place of natural lubrication. Note: Silicone lube should not be used with the toy as it can supposedly damage the silicone skin. We've used silicone lube with out Gigi frequently without problem, but it's probably a good idea to follow the manufacturer's advice.

Where to Purchase


I bought the toy directly from Lelo (thanks to their discount code.) They run frequent sales and offer discounts regularly. It's worthwhile to register on their website. In the absence of a discount code, I usually order their product through Amazon. If you want to take that route, use the link below and I'll get a small affiliate fee that helps me keep this site operational. 


If you have any questions about the product, leave a comment. We will answer as soon as possible!


###


Have a product or service you'd like Shelly and Jason to test and review? Contact us at robillardj "at" gmail "dot" com and put "product review" in the heading. Note- we write our own reviews and do not accept pre-written paid reviews. Integrity is important to us. If your product or service sucks, we will relay that to our audience. ;-)

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

I Hate Feminists

fem·i·nist

noun
1.
a person who supports feminism.

adjective
1.
of, relating to, or supporting feminism.


Okay, I don't really hate feminism. I DO, however, hate two elements of gender discussions that come up repeatedly. 

First, I hate the false dichotomy presented by most when discussing sex and gender issues. Gender issues are rarely framed as actual gender issues (masculinity and femininity behaviors.) Instead, they're framed as biological sex issues (penis or vagina.) 

The fundamental problem with this is biological sex is not a discrete dichotomy. There are a lot of shades of intersexed gray ranging from babies born with ambiguous genitalia, hermaphrodites (someone with both gonads and ovaries), transgender and transsexual folks, and a whole host of genetic variations other than XX or XY. All of these groups, along with others not mentioned, are rarely if ever part of the discussion. The mainstream feminist and masculinist "movements" largely ignore these groups even though they make up 1-2% or more of the population. If we're having a discussion about rights, it has to be all-inclusive. 

Second, I hate the systematic destruction of feminine and masculine behaviors. As it is interpreted by many, the gender equality movement seeks to erase gender-defining characteristics to make us more "equal." While the intentions are noble, this move toward undifferentated gender is destroying our personal freedom to engage in masculine of feminine behaviors.

I have a working theory that many of the problems we face as a society today, from our crazy drive toward materialism to our expanding waistlines, is mostly due to chronic unhappiness in our interpersonal relationships. By forcing women to be more like men and men more like women, we're killing off the edginess of our relationships. We're losing the dynamic that fuels electrochemical passion. 

This move toward undifferentiated gender is understandable because it's easy to associate the paternalistic and misogynistic history of humanity with the expression of masculine and feminine characteristics. After all, the aggressive domination of masculinity surely causes the passive femininity to cower in fear. 

What if this isn't the case, though? What if it is possible to openly play with masculine and feminine behaviors while still remaining sociopolitical equals? We're creating barriers (restricting gender expression) to supposedly allow more freedoms (more sociopolitical equality.) Creating barriers never creates more freedoms, though. Instead of insisting on androgyny, maybe we need to identify the very specific behaviors that cause inequality. Masculinity isn't the problem. Femininity isn't the problem. Specific people engaging in douchey superiority complex-fueled behaviors is the problem. Or specific people that are not willing to demand sociopolitical equality. 

Let's start a new trend. Begin thinking of everyone as equal regardless of gender, sex, or any variation and combination of both. Let's also give them the freedom to express themselves however they see fit as long as they are not infringing on the rights of others. If there are injustices, identify the source of the injustice without overgeneralizations, then act to eliminate the injustice. Fight inequality without destroying freedom.

What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments section. 

###

Sunday, June 1, 2014

Why Do Women Hate Nice Guys?

I recently finished reading Dr. Robert Glover's No More Mr. Nice Guy. The book perfectly matched my recent exploration (and Facebook discussions) of the hidden nature of female desire, efficacy of monogamy, alpha versus beta males, and how all of these factors influence our romantic relationships. Specifically, the book detailed the "Nice Guy" phenomenon that has sparked a great deal of debate among my acquaintances. 

In most of my debate/discussions, I've framed this issue as either an alpha/beta male conflict or as a feminization of males. Neither frame is entirely accurate. First, the alpha/beta concept creates a false dichotomy of complex inter- and intrapersonal behaviors, and the concepts are difficult to operationally define. Everybody has their own impression of what constitutes alphas and betas. Second, the "feminization" assumes the males I've discussed are taking on stereotypical female characteristics... which also isn't accurate. Glover's book frames the topic perfectly. For the purposes of this post, I'll refer to "normal guys" and "nice guys." 

So who are these "nice guys?"

Glover defines them as dudes that need female validation and will do anything to get it. The will place their significant other on a pedestal and treat them like a princess (or prince; this concept is not exclusive to the breeders.) Nice guys are givers and derive joy from doing things for others. Nice guys are also fixers and will attempt to solve everyone's problems. They will ignore their own needs and put all their time and energy into making their partner happy. Their own emotional well-being is directly tied to their partner's emotional well-being. If the partner in unhappy, they're unhappy. They attempt to get their physical, emotional, and sexual needs met indirectly by hoping their partner will recognize their unmet needs and reciprocate. Nice guys are also passive and will avoid conflict (the the resulting disapproval.) As a result, nice guys will try to find the "right" way to do anything and everything. Nice guys generally prefer the company of females as they have trouble (or negatively judge... like "that guy is a jerk") other males. Nice guys routinely repress their own feelings, instead becoming chameleons and creating a facade of calmness. 

In relationships, nice guys initially seem like the perfect catch. They're polite, responsive, great listeners, and seem to be genuinely caring, open, honest men. As time passes, three things tend to go very, very wrong.

First, the nice guy will repress their needs to the point where their partner will never be able to fulfill all that is expected. Since the nice guy can't voice his needs, his only recourse is to put more effort into being "nicer." Eventually resentment begins to form, and the nice guy either snaps in fitful acts of rage or engages in secretive behaviors that, on some level, meet their needs. 

Second, nice guys smother their partner with affection, attention, gifts... whatever. The novelty of this wears off to the point where the gestures are no longer meaningful. It's not uncommon for nice guys to spend a tremendous amount of time planning and executing grand gestures. The more gestures the nice guy executes, the less response their partner has. The lack of enthusiasm and failure to reciprocate by the partner creates resentment within the nice guy, which creates a vicious cycle of trying harder then failing more.

Finally, nice guys constantly try to build intimacy to the exclusion of passion. As I talked about here, these concepts are mutually-exclusive. Intimacy kills passion. Unfortunately, the nice guy usually craves passion (one of the hopeful outcomes of the attention he showers on his partner), but acts in a way that guarantees passion will die. 

An example of this would be sex. Nice guys are usually pretty talented lovers because they spend a lot of time and energy learning how to please their partner. Let's say they devise a method to assure their partner has an orgasm every time they have sex. The nice guy will use that same script every time. Their routine becomes predictable, thus mechanical. While it feels good, their partner eventually tries to avoid sex because it's completely devoid of passion and no longer fulfilling.

Nice guys also tend to develop an unhealthy view of sex. Since they don't get their desired sexual needs fulfilled by their partner, nice guys tend to engage in addictive sexual behaviors. Glover hypothesized there's a correlation between "niceness" and the darkness of a guy's sexual interests. The more nice guy behaviors they exhibit, the more they hide. Porn addiction, compulsive masturbation, frequenting prostitutes, having affairs, engaging in paraphilias, or even rape are not uncommon. If a significant other discovers the nice guy's sexual secrets, they're almost always completely shocked. 

On the surface, the nice guy is perfect. Kind, considerate, attentive, loyal. They're like a dog... always there to love you. The problem, of course, is that persona is a facade hiding deep insecurity. Below the gilded surface, nice guys are dishonest, secretive, indecisive, manipulative, controlling, and passive-aggressive. They usually have deeply-embedded rage fueled by the resentment of unmet needs, usually have difficulty developing close friendships, and have trouble setting boundaries. In relationships they're doormats; they will allow their significant other to do anything including making all the decisions related to the relationship. The nice guy is incapable of standing up for themselves.

For the partner, this situation creates a terrible trap. Nice guys seem great on the surface, so it's common for women to easily fall in love and make a long-term commitment. When the sparks fade and the reality of being placed on a pedestal develops, it's hard to justify ending the relationship. Friends and family members will only see the grand romantic gestures, which seems like it would be amazing. It would be... if there were any other dynamic to the relationship. Also, the nice guy's unmet needs begin to create a great deal of unspoken tension, which the partner may or may not understand. 

Based on my discussions about the nature of female desire, women that are involved with nice guys would quickly get bored. Nice guys don't understand that distance is what creates passion, and the nice guy cannot handle emotional or physical distance. Pushing their partner away, even if it would result in the hot sex they crave, is an impossibility because they need their partner's validation.

In short, "nice guys" are anything but.

My Story


This topic is so fascinating because I'm a recovering nice guy. In the book, Glover discusses where and how this persona develops. For me, it was the typical story rooted in childhood family dynamics. I didn't recognize my view of the world and method of operation was abnormal until my mid-thirties. It has taken me five years to work through the issues related to being a nice guy. In the beginning of my "recovery", I was able to break out of nice guy patterns with random people, then acquaintances, then friends and family. My relationship with women, my real Achilles heel, has taken much longer. After five years, I'm finally at a point where I can accurately identify almost all of my maladaptive "nice guy" strategies when interacting with Shelly. 



Before discovering my nice guy persona, I missed out on a few potential relationships, sabotaged my first marriage, and have almost sabotaged my current marriage. Even though intellectually understood what I was doing and why I was doing it, the behaviors are so deeply ingrained in my psyche I couldn't let them go. It has taken A LOT of hard work to break the cycles and extinguish them for good. Glover's book outlines quite a few strategies to break out of the nice guy persona. I've actually used a few of his ideas, but have quite a few of my own. Here are a few things I've done with good success:

  • I had to learn to discriminate "jerks" from normal dudes. I saw a lot of completely normal assertive behaviors by other men as "dickish", which is part of the mindset that rationalizes the nice guy persona. It's a very arrogant "I'm better than them" attitude that reinforced my own dishonest manipulations.
  • I had to do the opposite of my instincts. Glover references the Seinfeld episode where George does the exact opposite of his instincts and begins succeeding at life. This actually works for the nice guy most of the time.
  • I had to understand that I don't need validation from others, especially women. It took a long time to realize the best gift I could give Shelly was the freedom of me not needing her constant validation. 
  • I had to take responsibility and begin demanding stuff I need. "I need ___________." was one of the most difficult statements I had to make. The anxiety of actually asking for what I needed was terrifying, but it got a lot easier as soon as I realized it was effective and preferred by others. As it turns out, that's how healthy people operate.
  • I had to become a relationship leader and make decisions. I'm a fairly natural leader outside relationships and am very comfortable accepting responsibility and assuming a leadership role. My challenge was bringing that mindset to my relationship. The key was to stop trying to guess what she wanted. I also had to stop worrying about what Shelly thought of the decision.
  • I had to destroy the pedestal. She's not perfect, but I dd everything in my power to convince myself she was. She has flaws as all of us do. I had to learn there is a huge difference between acknowledging and accepting those flaws and simply dismissing them.
  • I had to learn to create distance. Distance has always scared me because it eliminates those validations I desperately needed. It also sparked a fear of abandonment. I overcame this with the realization that closeness and intimacy kills passion. I started experimenting with intentionally creating distance using the games in the linked post. They work. Really, really well. That feedback was all I needed to get comfortable creating distance.
  • I had to learn to self-affirm. I had to learn to be okay with myself flaws and all, which involves affirming my own self-worth. It is a burden I couldn't place on anyone else, especially Shelly. Specifically, this involves not talking about every single accomplishment or event in my life, mostly via social media.
  • I had to learn sex wasn't a validation of love. This was a tough thing for me to grasp because I had internalized the "if she loves me, she'll have sex with me" belief. Yes, sex can bring us closer, but thinking of it as a recreational activity and accepting the selfishness of doing it to satisfy my physical needs has dramatically changed my behaviors for the better. I'll probably elaborate on this point in a future post.
  • I had to learn to be okay with my sense of competitiveness and aggression. I always made an association with typical "alpha" male behaviors and misogynist jackasses that used and exploited women. Again, this fueled my own inflated sense of righteousness, which I used to rationalize my behaviors. Fully embracing my masculine characteristics and understanding they're complimentary (as opposed to antagonistic or repressive) to Shelly's feminist characteristics has been another incredibly freeing realization.
  • I had to learn to be caring and nurturing without expecting reciprocity. This lesson is rather insidious because it's so deeply ingrained from family patters stretching back to my youth. Previously, all helping behavior was done for a reason- to somehow meet my own needs. Once I became comfortable asking to have my needs met, it became easy to give freely with no expectation of reciprocity.
  • I had to learn others give without expectation of reciprocity. This is related to the last. Since everything I did was for a hidden reason, I assumed everyone else did the same. They don't. Recognizing that has made me a lot less guarded with others, which has resulted in deeper, more meaningful relationships.
  • I had to learn how to set and maintain healthy boundaries by saying "no", then communicate said boundaries. Before, I had boundaries but lacked the assertiveness to prevent people from crossing them. Solving this riddle was as simple as identifying them and uncompromisingly protecting them. When everything else started falling into place, this became easy. It also helped that I learned people like knowing boundaries. Ambiguity is not a desirable characteristic.
  • I had to learn to be okay with people being angry or disappointed with me. Before this transformation, I could be talked into pretty much anything because I didn't want to disappoint people. Now? I don't give a fuck. Since my self-worth isn't tied to others' perceptions of me, I have the freedom to make people angry or to disappoint them. 

How has it been going? So far, so good. Breaking free of the nice guy mindset has been incredibly liberating. I feel a freedom I never knew possible. Every waking moment isn't always muffins wrapped in rainbows, but my day-to-day existence is far more fulfilling. My relationship with Shelly has changed dramatically for the better, which is another post for another day. 

There's a high probability a lot of men reading this are "nice guys." If you're one of these dudes, I would highly recommend you begin taking steps to break free. It will change your life for the better. There's also a high probability a lot of the women reading this are involved in a relationship with a "nice guy." If that's the case, you're probably already at the stage where you've gotten a glimpse behind the curtain. Or maybe you're at the stage where the constant attention and agreeableness has become insufferable. Again, I would encourage them to take the steps to change. 


If you know of anyone that fits this profile, share the post. Too many people suffer through the trials and tribulations of the nice guy syndrome. Knowledge is power. And knowing is half the battle.

Go Joe!



###

Postscript: Since writing this post, I've started the San Diego Man Camp project. Check out the blog here and the Facebook group here (sorry ladies, it's a men-only group.)