True, anything can be an erogenous zone. However, my experience and reading suggests that a very high proportion of women needs more or less extensive clitoral stimulation to achieve orgasm -- especially mind-blowing, clear-the-circuits orgasm.
Biting the earlobe softly (or hard) or nipple or toe sucking are nice, but there's a reason women tend to masturbate by massaging the clit rather than than clamping or pulling the earlobe. In my experience not much, if anything, beats an extended session with your tongue on her clit.
The literature says that it takes woman an average of about 20 minutes of such stimulation to come. My experience is that this is variable; sometime it's a lot longer, sometimes less, depending on the people and the circumstances.
I think it is the duty (and should be the pleasure) of any male who wishes to please a woman partner, or or wishes a woman partner to please him, to take as long as it takes. Just speaking for myself and without any knowledge of the habits or desires of anyone else here, I think good manners requires gentlemen to let/make ladies come first.
Btw, it's also my experience, and some of the literature supports this, that concurrent digital stimulation of the G-spot (that rough area inside the vagina about the size of a quarter and opposite the clitoris), considerably enhances the orgasmic experience for women, without necessary affecting the timing, just the intensity. Some literature says the G-spot is a myth. I think this literature is written by idiots.
Any XX chromosome types want to pitch in here?
--- Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> wrote:
> Andie:
>
>
> My theory, advanced very tentatively, makes it make
> evolutionary sense for the clit to be located where
> it
> because women would tend to prefer mates who gave
> them
> orgasms through taking the extra effort and time
> (since men on average come quicker) to provide
> clitoral stimulation, and that would be adaptive if
> the willingness to do that was associated with
> greater
> loyalty and more attentiveness. We don't know
> whether
> this is true, of course, but suggestion of an
> adaptive
> mechanism is explanatory progress, as long as one
> doesn't insist that all traits are adaptive. Some -
>
> [WS:] An alternative hypothesis is that the clit
> lost its function as the
> only erogenous organ as a result of the process
> described by dd, and other
> organs - anything from feet to hair - assumed that
> function. That seems to
> be consistent with the observation that for humans
> virtually any part of the
> body can be defined as "erogenous" - I recall
> reading an article on that in
> my cultural anthro class long time ago - and thus
> provide sexual
> stimulation, whereas a similar tendency is not
> observed in animals, which
> depend mainly on direct stimulation of reproductive
> organs.
>
> I think this hypothesis is different from your
> reasoning claiming that clit
> positioning is a "useful defect" in that it claims
> that clit's positioning
> lost relevance altogether, so it is neither bad or
> good. What matters in
> reproductive success is not direct stimulation of
> the reproductive organ
> itself (especially the female organ), but the
> ability to produce sexual
> arousal by alternative means - stimulation other
> erogenous body parts, as
> well as culturally defined behavioral cues.
>
> Wojtek
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com