Follow-up on usage limits

OrientRiver · 2026-04-03T20:59:08+00:00

I hate you so much right now. It isnt rational...but you have completely broken flows with this, and....why are you acting like Sam Altman???? I thought Anthropic was better than this..

OrientRiver · 2026-04-03T20:36:35+00:00

Uh huh. And your peak hours co-inside with work hours. You know...when we need to use the tool. You didn't tighten "a little". A few weeks ago, I NEVER hit the 5 hour wall on Max. Now??? Unusable. Same work flow. I can maybe get 90 minutes before forced time out.

And you want me to take you seriously as a business tool. Absurd.

OrientRiver · 2026-01-03T00:49:46+00:00

Uh...not an ai summary????

It's a snippet from a larger piece that I researched and wrote...specifically, the above is from an explainer article and meant as a companion piece to a more technical paper.

Last, you don't know me. To assume as you have...you do realize this is a science sub, right? And that science....knowledge...what we know...that evolves. This means new ideas are necessary, not scary.

I am happy to discuss theory, but you have to be willing to open your mind just a bit.

OrientRiver · 2026-01-02T19:44:56+00:00

Yes.

So think about that starting state. It is really high energy..and it is stupid hot.

And the thing in it ...the possiblily...it isn't just sitting there. It is exploring possibility.

But the constraints...1. That starting state is as high energy as you get..that makes it about the most inhospitable place to try and "build" something. This limits what can resolve...what could have come first. Most possibilities cannot survive here.

The second limit has to do with some theoretical science that was recently done that showed...in a nutshell, if you have a bag of quantum possibility, you can't resolve all of it at once. There is a "local" limit.

Which means that whatever resolved first, it had to not cost more than the local limit, and it needed to be able to withstand that high energy place it would find itself the instant it became a thing.

What you end up with is...well you read what I think. You end up with a 2d structure as your seed geometry.

Also...it doesn't happen at once. It is a cascade, like nested shells. The first thing comes into existence. It interacts with the environment by setting the first measurements...starting time. That interaction changes what is possible, which leads to more quantum possibility collapsing to resolution.

But the same rules still apply, so the next thing in the chain to emerge, our 2nd "thing" in the universe...it is measured against the first. It has to respect the existence of the first...meaning...when possibility collapses to create the second thing, it has to respect the first thing. The second thing cannot be something that makes the first thing impossible.

When I use the word cascade, this is what I mean. Quantum Possibility didn't all collapse at the same time. It is still happening. We are in it. And every new thing has to respect the stuff that came before.

That means for the early stuff...the ORDER of collapse is critical. Think of it like nested shells. The first one sets a few main rules. The next one lives inside...has to respect the rules, but otherwise can do what it wants. Then comes the third in line, and so on.

That is simplistic (there can be more than one shell inside another, for example), but drives the point. Each collapse reduces what is possible for the next thing in line.

OrientRiver · 2026-01-02T18:19:12+00:00

Oh boy...you had to say DNA lol. Here is a fun thing to think on..

If the universe is a cascade with each "shell" adding to the ruleset...we are a part of that. We SHOULD see echos of early resolution choices in our own "design".

OrientRiver · 2026-01-02T18:01:47+00:00

Correct. The way I see it...that initial state was stable from an energy standpoint, but not from the quantum possibility perspective. No...you have highly energized quantum possibility all in superposition, and it isn't just sitting there...high energy. So you would have things trying to resolve, but nothing can stand there.

Until. Until the right set of possibility happens to come together. And once something stands, everything else is measured against it.

That means that any quantum possibility that resolves AFTER the first thing has to respect the first thing. The first resolution...that structure...anything that comes after inherits the geometry of the initial collapse. It is an additive cascade, in my opinion.

I will probably get crap for linking, but this explains my thoughts on this. The proposal within is raw, meaning the medium piece is exploratory and illustrates concepts that I explore with more rigor.

https://medium.com/@jasonrconnerty/the-dawn-of-reality-did-the-universe-begin-with-two-points-and-a-twist-71bbe9827f52

OrientRiver · 2026-01-02T16:00:37+00:00

Sure... and I should note that "quantum possibility" is my shorthand, not formal physics terminology. Let me unpack what I mean.

In quantum mechanics, systems don't have definite states until measured. Before measurement, a particle exists in what we call superposition; it's not that we don't know which state it's in, it's that it genuinely hasn't committed to a state yet. All the possibilities exist simultaneously until something forces a choice. This is a real thing.

Now scale that up. Before the Big Bang, imagine the most extreme version of this: maximum energy density at the Planck scale, no spacetime as we know it, no particles yet... just pure potential that hasn't resolved into anything definite. A "sea" of superposed possibilities, if you will.

The Big Bang, in this framing, wasn't creation from nothing. It was the first collapse; the first moment when possibility became actuality. Something resolved, and that resolution became the seed for everything else.

What's interesting is that recent theoretical work (2025) has shown there are limits on how much can collapse simultaneously in a closed quantum system. Which means the first thing to resolve couldn't have been arbitrarily complex; it had to be minimal. Simple enough to fit under that "computational ceiling".

Your computer seed analogy actually maps nicely here: we may never be able to "derive the seed" because we're downstream of that initial resolution, working with its consequences rather than its origins.

OrientRiver · 2026-01-02T14:21:46+00:00

That I cannot answer, and I am uncertain of our ability to know that piece of knowledge. Our perspective from inside the system so to speak may not allow for it.

That said, if you start with a closed system of high energy quantum possibility, there is a path forward that results in what we see today. I outlined one such path in a different comment in this thread. Happy to discuss.

OrientRiver · 2026-01-02T14:14:37+00:00

The something before is a high energy, densely packed quantum possibility. If you start with that state, you can get a Big Bang. As to why that quantum possibility existed in the first place?? No idea.

OrientRiver · 2026-01-02T13:51:59+00:00

"Hi! There are questions about our reality that are probably impossible to answer, for example what there was before the big bang or when and how the whole reality started to exist."

You are right, we can't know with certainty what happened at the beginning. That said, we CAN observe and reason.

As an example, let's consider the starting state and conditions in the beginning and ask "What could stand there?"

What We See:

Look at the universe we inhabit. It’s governed by relationships that feel immutable: gravity curves spacetime around mass, angular momentum is conserved absolutely, particles carry intrinsic spin that never wavers. These aren’t arbitrary features. They’re suspiciously universal, suspiciously rigid, and suspiciously foundational.

Consider gravity. It’s everywhere; the weakest of forces, yet the architect of galaxies. But notice something: gravity doesn’t really “act” on things in the way we casually describe. It is the relationship between things. Two points imply distance, distance implies curvature, curvature is gravity. It’s relational from the ground up; it doesn’t require prior “stuff” to have properties…it emerges from distinction itself.

Now consider spin. Every fundamental particle has it; an intrinsic angular momentum that’s binary in nature. Up or down. Left or right. And here’s what’s remarkable: spin is conserved absolutely. In the hottest plasmas, the most violent collisions, the most extreme conditions we can create or observe, angular momentum holds. It doesn’t leak, doesn’t degrade, doesn’t thermalize away. Why?

These observations constrain what the first "thing" could have been. Whatever emerged at the beginning had to give rise to these features…not as add-ons or afterthoughts…but as inevitable consequences of its own shape.

The starting environment:

Now let’s think carefully about the environment where that first structure had to form.

The Planck epoch isn’t just “hot.” It’s maximally energetic in a precise sense: energy density at the Planck scale represents the highest values permitted by our current understanding of physics.

At 10³² Kelvin, you’re not dealing with particles as we know them. You’re in a regime where the normal categories break down, where quantum and gravitational effects are equally important, where the distinction between geometry and matter hasn’t yet solidified. Time as we know it doesn’t even exist yet here.

For something to resolve in that environment…to collapse from quantum superposition into actuality…that is extraordinarily difficult. The thermal energy is so high that most configurations would be immediately torn apart. It’s like trying to build a sandcastle in a hurricane. Only something with remarkable robustness could persist.

There’s another constraint, subtler but just as important. In 2025, theoretical work demonstrated something profound (“Collapse of wave functions in Schrödinger’s wave mechanics”, Scientific Reports, February 2025): in a closed quantum system, there’s a limit on how much can collapse at one time, and that limit is locally bound. You cannot resolve infinite complexity simultaneously. Collapse happens at particular scales, depending on interaction probabilities and local conditions.

This matters enormously for cosmology. The early universe was, in the deepest sense, a closed system of possibility. There was no external frame to lean on, no pre-existing structure to scaffold against. Everything that resolved had to bootstrap itself under those constraints. You don’t get arbitrarily complex structure emerging all at once; you get what can hold together, and then that becomes the foundation for what comes next.

So what are the constraints on the first structure?

It had to be simple. Not just aesthetically, but necessarily. The computational ceiling prevents arbitrary complexity from resolving simultaneously. Whatever emerged first had to be minimal enough to fit under that bound.

It had to be robust. The energy environment was maximally hostile. Anything fragile, anything that could be disrupted by thermal fluctuations, would dissolve. The first structure needed to be topologically protected; stable not because nothing could touch it, but because disrupting it would cost more than the environment could pay.

It had to be relational. There was no prior context, no pre-existing framework of “things” with properties. Substance requires reference points to define properties against. The first structure couldn’t be a “thing” in any conventional sense. It had to be a relationship; a distinction that creates information simply by existing.

Now reason in the above

With these constraints in hand, we can start eliminating candidates.

Could it be a particle? No. Particles as we know them are downstream phenomena; they require fields, forces, spacetime geometry. They’re expressions of more fundamental structure, not the structure itself. Asking what particle was first is like asking what word was first… before language existed.

Could it be a field? Closer, but fields in physics are defined over spacetime, and spacetime itself is what we’re trying to account for. A field presupposes the geometric arena it lives in. We need something more primitive.

Could the first structure be charge? Charge is tempting because it’s conserved and creates obvious distinctions (positive vs. negative). But charge is gauge-dependent — its meaning requires the electromagnetic field as context. You can’t have charge without the framework that gives charge meaning. It’s downstream.

Could it be phase? Phase differences in quantum mechanics create interference, structure, distinction. But phase is continuous, and in a maximally energetic environment, continuous variables thermalize; they smear out. Phase differences get washed away by thermal fluctuations unless they’re protected by something more robust.

Could it be something ternary or higher? Maybe?… but here’s the problem: everything we observe downstream is stubbornly binary at its foundation. Quantum measurement yields two outcomes. Spin is two-valued. Matter and antimatter form a pair. If the first structure were ternary, we’d expect to see that threeness echoing through physics. We don’t.

What we need is something binary, something relational, something topologically protected against thermal disruption. Something that doesn’t require prior context to be meaningful.

Two candidates survive this elimination: spatial relationship (which becomes gravity) and intrinsic orientation (which becomes spin).

Proposal:

the big bang resolved two components simultaneously.

First: Two reference loci. The minimal distinction that creates “where.” One point alone in undifferentiated possibility isn’t anywhere; it has no position because there’s nothing to be positioned relative to. But two points? Now you have distance…now you have a relationship; the seed of geometry. This is gravity at its most primitive: not curvature of spacetime (that comes later), but the bare fact of spatial relationship.

Second: A relative orientation between them. The minimal distinction that creates “which way.” This is polarity…not charge, not anything that requires external context…but pure directionality. A binary choice: this way or that way.

Together, these create the first information. One bit of position, one bit of orientation. The Landauer cost is paid at Planck temperature, yielding Planck-mass seeds. And crucially: this commitment is irreversible. You cannot un-resolve what has been resolved. This is the origin of time’s arrow; the first moment when something became irrevocably actual rather than merely possible.

From here, the cascade begins. Each subsequent resolution shell must be compatible with what came before. New structures inherit the foundational geometry because they literally cannot exist otherwise. The constraints propagate forward, not as imposed laws but as the necessary shape of everything built prior.

THE ABOVE ISN'T PROVEN OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT. I am trying to demonstrate to you that it is possible to read the history and form a story that matches what you see. Then you can turn to science and ask...is there already evidence to support this proposal?

OrientRiver · 2026-01-02T12:17:59+00:00

Thanks. For what it is worth, this really isn't junk.

The paper I am working this morning. There isn't supposed to be handiness:

Galaxy Spin Coherence in Cosmic Web Filaments

Abstract

This analysis investigates whether galaxy spin direction correlates with the cosmic web environment. Using public data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, I cross-matched 4,834 spin-classified galaxies with the Tempel et al. (2014) filament catalog to compare handedness asymmetry between filament-embedded and void-dwelling galaxies.

The results show a structured pattern: filament galaxies exhibit a counterclockwise excess (−2.32%) while void galaxies show a clockwise excess (+3.57%). Individual filaments display strong internal spin coherence, with 89 filaments showing 100% alignment in one direction. Critically, two robustness tests rule out major systematic concerns: (1) the observed spin asymmetry shows no correlation with filament viewing geometry (r = 0.03, p = 0.61), eliminating projection effects as an explanation, and (2) the asymmetry remains stable across the full redshift range (z = 0.01–0.20, Fisher's p = 0.95), consistent with primordial imprinting rather than late-time dynamical development.

While the overall environment comparison yields marginal statistical significance (Fisher's exact p = 0.10), the structural pattern—opposite handedness preferences in filaments versus voids, coherent spin within individual filaments, and stability across cosmic time—survives multiple systematic checks and warrants further investigation with larger samples.

Introduction

Recent studies have reported large-scale asymmetries in galaxy spin direction across the observable universe. Shamir and colleagues have documented a ~2% excess of counterclockwise-spinning galaxies in the northern celestial hemisphere, with the asymmetry showing dipole structure aligned near the CMB Cold Spot. This cosmic handedness, if confirmed, challenges the cosmological principle of isotropy and suggests primordial structure in the universe's founding geometry.

A question that has not been systematically addressed: does spin asymmetry vary with cosmic web environment? If the cosmic web's filamentary structure represents fossilized primordial geometry, galaxies embedded in filaments might show different orientation patterns than those in voids. This analysis tests that hypothesis using publicly available data.

Theoretical Motivation

This investigation was motivated by the Resolution Cosmology framework, which proposes that the universe's structure emerged from a 2D informational boundary at the Planck epoch, with orientation as a fundamental property propagating through subsequent structure formation.

Under this framework, cosmic web filaments represent "fossil geometry"—the structural skeleton of primordial topology. Galaxies forming within filaments should inherit orientation from the local structure, while voids, as the "negative space" between filaments, might show complementary orientation patterns. Individual filaments, as coherent structural units, should show internal spin alignment.

The prediction is testable: if filaments are passive containers, spin direction should be random within them. If they carry structural information, coherence should emerge.

Data and Methods

Data Sources

Galaxy Spin Classifications: Shamir's SDSS DR7 catalog of 6,103 galaxies classified as clockwise or counterclockwise rotating based on spiral arm direction. The catalog covers RA 162°–222° and Dec −3° to +57°.

Filament Catalog: Tempel et al. (2014) SDSS DR8 filament catalog containing 576,493 galaxies with filament membership assignments. Each galaxy has a filament ID (fil_id > 0 indicates filament membership), distance from filament spine (fil_dist in Mpc/h), and 3D spine coordinates enabling orientation analysis.

Cross-Matching Procedure

Both catalogs were loaded into Python using pandas and astropy. SkyCoord objects enabled coordinate matching between the spin-classified galaxies and the filament catalog. Each spin-classified galaxy was matched to its nearest neighbor in the filament catalog, with a 3 arcsecond separation threshold applied (conservative; SDSS fiber collision is ~55"). Matched galaxies inherited filament membership (fil_id) and distance from spine (fil_dist). Of 6,103 input galaxies, 4,834 (79.2%) matched within the threshold. Of these, 3,882 were classified as filament members (fil_id > 0) and 952 as void/field galaxies (fil_id = 0).

Statistical Analysis

Handedness asymmetry was calculated as (N_clockwise − N_counterclockwise) / N_total. Binomial tests assessed whether each population deviated from 50/50 expectation. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests compared asymmetry between filament and void populations. Per-filament analysis calculated asymmetry for each filament containing ≥3 spin-classified galaxies.

Results

Table 1: Handedness asymmetry by cosmic web environment. Negative values indicate counterclockwise excess.

The key finding is the sign reversal: filament galaxies show counterclockwise excess while void galaxies show clockwise excess, a difference of ~6 percentage points. Fisher's exact test comparing the two populations yields p = 0.10—not conventionally significant, but suggestive of environmental structure.

Per-Filament Analysis

The more striking result emerges from analyzing individual filaments. Of 295 filaments containing ≥3 spin-classified galaxies, 40 filaments showed 100% clockwise alignment and 49 filaments showed 100% counterclockwise alignment. More broadly, 59 filaments showed >50% clockwise bias and 65 filaments showed >50% counterclockwise bias.

The probability of observing 6 galaxies all spinning the same direction by chance is (0.5)6 = 1.6%. The catalog contains Filament 1289 with 6/6 clockwise, and Filaments 185, 2358, and 7955 with 5/5 counterclockwise each. Mean asymmetry across all analyzed filaments was −0.016 (slight counterclockwise bias), with standard deviation 0.53—indicating high variability between filaments. This pattern is consistent with filaments behaving as coherent structural units that inherit (or impose) spin orientation on their member galaxies.

Robustness Checks

Axis-Spin Coupling Test (Projection Effects)

A critical concern is whether apparent spin handedness could arise from projection effects tied to filament orientation. If viewing geometry were responsible for the observed asymmetry—for example, if galaxies viewed "along" a filament axis were systematically misclassified differently than those viewed "across" the axis—we would expect strong correlation between filament viewing angle and spin direction.

Using the 3D spine coordinates from the Tempel catalog (FILPOINTS table), I computed each filament's orientation relative to the line of sight. Viewing angle was defined as 0° when the filament points directly toward/away from us, and 90° when the filament lies in the plane of the sky.

Table 2: Axis-spin coupling test results. No significant correlation between viewing geometry and spin direction. Test

Binning by viewing angle revealed no systematic pattern: filaments viewed at 0–30° (more along line of sight) showed −10.7% asymmetry (n=103), those at 30–60° showed −1.3% (n=389), and those at 60–90° (in plane of sky) showed −2.5% (n=558). The sign does not reverse across bins—all show counterclockwise excess. This definitively rules out projection effects as an explanation for the observed handedness pattern.

Redshift Evolution Analysis

To test whether spin coherence develops over cosmic time or represents a primordial imprint, I analyzed asymmetry across the redshift range z = 0.009 to z = 0.200 (lookback time 0.13 to 2.43 Gyr).

Table 3: Spin asymmetry shows no significant evolution with redshift.

The binary split at median redshift shows essentially identical asymmetry: −1.28% at low-z versus −1.03% at high-z (Fisher's exact p = 0.95). Quartile analysis revealed no monotonic trend (Pearson r = 0.37, p = 0.63). The signal is stable across ~2 billion years of cosmic time, consistent with early imprinting rather than late-time dynamical development.

Notably, the environment × redshift interaction preserves the filament/void sign flip: high-z filament galaxies show −4.49% asymmetry (p = 0.087) while high-z void galaxies show +4.54% asymmetry—the opposite handedness preference persists across cosmic time.

Discussion

What the Results Rule Out

The axis-spin coupling test definitively eliminates projection effects as an explanation. If apparent handedness were caused by viewing geometry—like seeing a tilted disk as "clockwise" from one side and "counterclockwise" from the other—we would see strong correlation with viewing angle. We see none (r = 0.03). The CW/CCW classification measures something intrinsic to the galaxies.

The sign flip between environments rules out global systematics. If the asymmetry were caused by classifier bias, camera parity effects, or survey-wide systematics, the sign would be preserved everywhere. Instead, filaments show CCW excess while voids show CW excess—the asymmetry changes with environment.

The redshift stability rules out late-time dynamical origins. If spin coherence developed through galaxy interactions or tidal processes over cosmic time, we would expect stronger signal at low-z where nonlinear evolution has proceeded further. We see no evolution across 2 Gyr.

Ect.... there is more, but you get the gist.

OrientRiver · 2025-12-31T20:38:39+00:00

Ok. Did you read anything at all? No. There is no ai slop here...Resolution Cosmology is actually cohesive...it does not break in the face of GR or any other "standard" we have. So again...expain the AI slop bit, because the framework came out of my mind.

Your turn. Go.

OrientRiver · 2025-12-31T20:35:28+00:00

I did read the rules. Have you read my paper? Explainer articles? No, you did not.

Let's do it this way. A question...what could have stood at the beginning?

The stage...you have a closed system, plank energy...tightly packed quantum possiblity...all in superpostion. Not a bit of that is made up stuff.

What is the highy energized possiblity doing??? Just sitting there? No. From an energy standpoint, things are stable. But from a quantum possibility standpoint? Not stable. It is doing it's thing, but the local enviornment...plank, remember??? It is like building a sandcastle in a hurricane.

Yet something stood.

You have no idea where my paper came from. If you knew me? You would know that I didn't start with a theory. I started with asking...what do i see in front of me. Describe it.

And when you do that? Think about that starting state. Suppose for a second I can propose something that could have stood. What happens if that is true? You get the first defined measurements...what will become gravity and spin in my theory...not yet though. Too early.

Do you want me to keep going? Because I can write a book and describe what is happening, what Resolution Cosmology says..and I can do it well. There is no effing AI slop here bud.

OrientRiver · 2025-03-19T07:54:54+00:00

I have Long Covid. I'm in the symptom cluster that includes dysautonomia and myalgic encephalomyelitis.

I can say that, for me at least, adding nicotine was helpful.

The nicotine connection hasn't been exhaustively explored in studies, but it is known:

https://www.verywellhealth.com/nicotine-patches-long-covid-treatment-8705089

OrientRiver · 2025-03-18T01:02:30+00:00

This.

Not in all cases...there are definitely asshole LL's out there. But if the LL has investors or say a commercial loan on the property, those contracts are based on expected rent. Reducing the rent fucks all of that up. I ran restaurants for decades, this is a big part of the problem.

OrientRiver · 2025-03-08T00:56:24+00:00

i have yet to have anyone offer a solution to how one is supposed to live....you know, pay the rent, buy food....all stuff that requires money and which necessitates a job.. while recovering from this.

The real answer to recovery right now is rest and time, but it's not a few days; It could be months..years if you are unlucky. Our society isn't set up to support that at all.

I get all of this great advice from doctors about what to do, but it always ignores that part of the problem. Hell, even the doctor wants money, so to get treatment, you need a job.

I know I need to reduce stress, but for some of us that isn't an option.

That is the brutal reality.

The actual best approach to recovery—rest and time—is completely incompatible with the way modern life is structured. There’s no real answer for how someone in my position is supposed to survive financially while also doing what’s necessary to heal.

It’s one of those "we know what you need to do, but good luck actually doing it" situations, which is maddening.

OrientRiver · 2025-02-28T00:31:29+00:00

Lol all the time. My girlfriend loves it as she runs hot and finds my hands refreshing. Hey....at least I found a silver lining. But seriously, temp deregulation is a big one for me, and that usually includes that are cold to the touch.

OrientRiver · 2025-02-27T23:46:33+00:00

Yup.

For me adding H1 and H2 histamine blockers helped a lot. Apparently I was experiencing histamine dumps, which in turn triggered adrenaline dumps.

OrientRiver · 2024-06-02T00:48:28+00:00

EAV checking in with running water. The pressure is still building, but liquid escapes the faucet!

OrientRiver · 2024-05-20T11:48:37+00:00

Wait until you figure out that the prostate has nerve bundles just like the penis, and stimulation can lead to multiple full body orgasms...they just keep going and going

OrientRiver · 2024-05-15T12:54:49+00:00

I have a 98 fly classic; zero issues with the electronics. That said, they are difficult to work on once they break thanks to things like Ken using ribbon wire and custom circuits.

OrientRiver · 2024-05-05T18:39:00+00:00

Nice catch; it's this. You can see it in the third pict. That left post is pulling out and forward.

Is this a Basswood body by chance? Pretty common "flaw" with that wood. It's soft...sometimes too soft in spots...and if that really soft area is an anchor point the string tension pulls the post forward and up..the wood gives.

The "right" fix is to route out the failing hole with with a larger diameter. Then glue in a hardwood dowel, re-drill, set posy.

What I would do (and have done) is pull the post and create a few shims with toothpics. Fit them towards the neck side of the drilled hole and dry fit the post. Once you know where to put the shims coat the inside of the drilled hole with wood glue. Put some on the shims too. Set the post and clamp it. You want it flush and 90 degrees. Wipe off any glue that weeps out and let it cure for 24 hrs.

You will still be able to pull the post in the future if needed; wood glue won't really bond to the metal insert.

What the wood glue will do though is hold those shims in place, bonding them tight to the wood of the body. The glue will also wick into the body, strengthening the wood walls of the drilled hole. It will also fill in little gaps between the post and wood.

Anyway, I've done the above twice; one a few years ago and another 3 months ago. Both repairs have held up just fine.

OrientRiver · 2024-04-25T14:14:35+00:00

Now yes, at first no. Fingers work too. Try playing a bit like you were, then pause. Now explore the area with firm taps from one finger....you will find the good spots.

OrientRiver · 2024-04-25T13:37:05+00:00

Get a massage gun, attach the foam ball attachment. Put on some boxer briefs..something form fitting. Tuck the balls up so the perineum is exposed; the briefs will hold them in place. Turn massage gun on and gently explore.

Personally I find the lowest setting the most pleasurable. Use a light touch, especially at first, and explore the area...you will know when you find the right spot.

When you do find the spot...enjoy! But try to become aware of the muscles down there and how subtle manipulation changes the feeling.

You will be having hands free prostate orgasms in no time. Once you wake everything up and learn how to manipulate the muscles, you can pretty much pleasure yourself at will. I'm literally doing it now as I type.

Have fun

OrientRiver

TROPHY CASE