Magic Button Theory

A little while ago, I wrote a post about the enlargement of the g-spot using the injection of a collagen-based substance into the area, catchily known as the G-Shot. In the ongoing in-fighting over whether or not the g-spot even exists (in my own experience, there are particularly sensitive areas in my vulva and vagina, but no hey presto spot), someone has come up with a new surgical vaginal excavation: Vaginal Submucosal/Suburethreal, Labial, and Clitoral Injection of PRP, or its more catchy name, the O-Shot (R).¬†It was invented by Dr Charles Runels who decided that the g-spot doesn’t exist but, unable to resist the commercial potential of the magic-button theory of female sexual response (i.e. press a single spot in the vagina and the woman will become immediately aroused and multi-orgasmic), made up a whole new spot he named the O-Spot (R) and a whole new surgical procedure to go with it.

The genesis of the O-Shot (R) came when he decided he could apply the same procedure involved in his Vampire Facelift to women’s vaginas. (As an aside, the woman in the promotional video for the Vampire Facelift looks like she walked off a Twilight set which, though I can’t quite work out why, may be linked to the name.) The procedure involves putting a small quantity of the patient’s own blood in a centrifuge so the platelet rich plasma (PRP) becomes separated. The platelets are then activated using calcium chloride, causing them to release “growth factors”.¬† For the Vampire Facelift, the solution is injected into the face to plump it up and, for the vagina, it is injected into the clitoris and an area in the vaginal front wall – otherwise known as the O-Spot. ¬†Potential results range from no change at all to turning patients into raging nymphomaniacs.

As if the multi-orgasmic promise of the O-Shot (R) weren’t enough, it also “rejuvenates” the vagina, giving it the appearance of that of a pre-pubescent girl.

The procedure doesn’t have Food and Drug Administration or Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency approval. Rather evasively, the creators say it has not been evaluated by the FDA. Because of this, though physicians have to apply to the inventors if they want to carry out the procedure, women undergoing it do so without official medical approval – they are, effectively, participants in a clinical trial, despite the massive price tag.

I can see the appeal of a push-button approach, if pressing it really guarantees the woman will orgasm. We don’t always have time to play. But bypassing the build-up means missing out on all the other things that make sex pleasurable – fantasy, touch, anticipation, and laughter to name a very few. There is nuance to sex; it isn’t just a matter of joining the dots till they form a big O. Obviously, coming’s great, but if that’s the sole purpose of sex and the only way to get there is by mutilating our vaginas (the O-Shot (R) is, by definition, mutilation), our genitals and sexual response are no longer our own – they’re subject to the whim of the medical profession. No matter how much the profession may claim – and even believe – otherwise, this medicalization of our sex lives is based on commercial gain, not on primum non nocere.

8 thoughts on “Magic Button Theory

  1. Pingback: Pubescent clitoris | Bestsellerster

  2. Hello,

    Thank you for talking about the O-Shot (R)! As the inventor, I’m glad to clear up a few misconceptions.

    First, I never even talk about the way the vagina looks…much less promise it will make the vagina look like a “pre-pubescent girl” (who’d want that anyway)!?!

    The idea is to rejuvenate the tissue.

    That the Skene’s glands and the vaginal mucosa can atrophy with age is a know fact. That platelet-rich plasma (PRP) can rejuvenate many tissue types by stimulating unipotent stem cells—also a known fact.

    Why wouldn’t someone with pain or difficulty with orgasm not want the tissue of the vagina rejuvenated? Especially if it can be done using their own healing factors?

    Also, I never promise “multi-orgasm” –that’s not the goal either (even though seome do experience that)…there must be something somewhere else that you’re reading, because you won’t see me pushing that on (the official website for the procedure).

    The reason it’s not FDA approved is because it’s not even a drug! It’s the woman’s own blood.

    The FDA does not regulate your own blood products and how they are used. The FDA does regulate the machines used to produce the (isolate it from your blood) PRP–and we only use an FDA approved device invented to produce PRP.

    There are 14 different manufacturers who have FDA approved devices to make PRP in the US (mostly used to rejuvenate knee tissue)…

    As for the price tag…not surprisingly, none of the manufacturers of these devices to make the PRP will sponsor our research because (as one CEO put it), “The board fears that sponsoring research in the sex medicine arena will hurt our reputation with the orthopedists.”

    If you want something to preach about–here’s a nice topic—“Why won’t more companies sponsor research to help with women’s sexual problems?” Perhaps, I’m beginning to understand why…here’s something NO serious side effects (only bruising) and when I offer it as a solution…seems I’m being attacked as part of the problem.

    Be most research at least 40% of women suffer with either pain with intercourse, difficulty with arousal, or difficulty with orgasm, or decreased desire. Those women were suffering before there was an O-Shot (R). My hope there will be fewer of them suffering because there’s an O-Shot (R).

    As of now, there are few treatment options for women with sexual problems. I’ve spent many thousands of dollars of my own money and many months of my time trying to find solutions…and the O-Shot (R) works.

    It’s not a magic shot that makes obsolete education or affection or anything else that a good marriage or sex educator teaches–on the contrary–it makes all of those things work better if the woman’s body is in peak health.

    If you watch the videos and read the website (, I stress there IS NO MAGIC button.

    That’s why there’s a listing for sex educators on, so that they can provided a need piece to the healing process.

    But even though no shot would “cure” all women, there are many women who’ve been educated and liberated and but still suffer with sexual difficulties because they actually suffer with less than optimally healthy vaginal tissue.

    I treated several thousand woman with sex problems over the past 20 years–I didn’t MAKE the problems…I tried to make them well. But, I also wrote educational books to help the medicine part work better.

    Already, many women have been helped by the O-Shot (R) and it will continue to help others. It does no good to teach a woman to swim if she has a broken arm

    To think that every other part of the body can become less than optimal in function but not the vagina…seems to me to be an over simplification of the female anatomy…something you’d expect from a man..not an open-minded woman.

    I did not make any woman sick, but I’ve helped thousands become well.

    Thank you for talking about the procedure.

    Very best,

    Charles Runels, MD
    inventor of the O-Shot (R)

    • Thanks for sharing your opinion. It’s always interesting to hear from professionals. I’m keen to find out about the safety and efficacy of the procedure. Do you have links to peer reviewed journals and clinical evaluations of the procedure or other evidence of its safety and effectiveness? As you’ve helped “thousands” of women throughout your career, I assume you do. Is the procedure still undergoing clinical trial? If so, do the women receiving the treatment know they are participants in a trial? As to the matter of FDA approval, PRP may not require it, but marketing PRP for vaginal use does need to have FDA approval and clearance.

  3. Yes we are doing clinical trials and the women know, when we gather data, that that’s why.

    The FDA part confuses most people (as most government institutions do).
    The FDA does NOT have to approve PROCEDURES with an FDA approved device.

    The FDA would have to see proof
    if the manufacturers advertised and
    sold the device for that purpose.

    Many FDA approved drugs are used off-label–that is
    used for something other than what the durg was proven to help.

    When physicians, using scientific research and clinical reasoning,
    find it helpful–the use it for another purpose, that’s considered “off label.”

    About 40% of prescriptions written by oncologists are off label in this way.

    In all specialties, physicians often use drugs off-label when
    research or clinical judgement warrants it.

    Because it costs so many MILLIONS, the drug companies know this and do not spend the money to prove everything to the FDA. They often prove some indications and leave it to physicians to use clinical
    judgement with others. If this practice were impossible, many people would suffer and need to stop medications.

    Surprises me, with those with wider views, consider ‘PROTECTION” by the FDA
    to be the defining factor.

    I have often NOT used drugs declared “safe” by the FDA because I considered the drugs to be garbage. Some drugs, that FDA approved, that I refused to use, were later pulled by the FDA after more serious effects came to light.

    But, with PRP, there’s NEVER EVER, in any part of the body, been a serious side effect. It’s not even a drug!

    So the FDA does not control it. It’s simply the woman’s blood, activated with calcium chloride (like NaCl) which normally is released by damaged tissue,,,releasing growth factors…and then put back into her body.

    If you ever fell and scraped your knee…that yellow goo around the scab is what made the skin grow back (that’s PRP)…that’s what we’re making.

    So I can’t show you what doesn’t exist–that is any evidence of any serious side effects…but you’ll find in every research paper the documentation of no serious side effects.

    If you do find even one paper with PRP showing a serious side effect…please let me know. The reason it’s unlikely is that we are actually making what the body makes to heal from injury, and we are not even making it!! We are simply isolating what the woman’s own body made.

    On the other hand, Radiesse-like materials are being used in the vagina–even though research shows about a 1 in 40 incidence of granuloma formation (look at the references on

    I find that very disturbing (as does another physician who wrote a letter to the editor of one of the journals last year.

    So we are doing a variation of a procedure thought to be “safe” but using a much safer material.

    I also agree with your views of the G-shot (R). I would never allow an HA filler (they call in “collagen” but it’s really an orthopedic hyaluronic acid filler..similar to Juvederm) to be put in the vagina of anyone that I love.

    The gynecologists of the US consider the G-Shot to be unsafe but it still gets marketed heavily in other countries—DON’T!!

    As for the O-Spot (R). The idea (if you read my materials) is that there’s not a magic spot (like the so-called G-Spot), but an AREA (okay…so a spot can be larger than a dot :)) that includes many structures like the Skenes glands about which we now know much more than we did not long ago.

    This idea of the vagina as a simple tube that’s just there to receive a penis–sounds ludicrous when stated –but it’s how most conceive of the vagina.

    In fact, the vagina and surrounding structures are very complicated (nervous tissue and glands all influenced by hormones and psychology that we couldn’t even measure 20 years ago).

    The idea of the O-Spot is that the anterior vaginal wall, proximal and midline includes many structures that are important to the female orgasm. When understood as part of the whole woman, there are ways to help the woman to a different level of health and pleasure.

    And of course, the O-Shot (R) seems to rejuvenate all the structures found within the O-Spot.

    Thank you very much allowing me on your forum and for working so hear do educate women about how to find the most in life and health,

    Peace & health,


    Charles Runels, MD
    Inventor of the O-Shot (R)

  4. Dr. Runels,
    Are you aware that even though orgasms feel great, having more of them isn’t necessarily promoting female wellbeing? The assumption that female happiness and wellbeing are somehow served by more climaxes, as opposed to more affectionate touch and other forms of intimacy, underlies a lot of reckless ideas today. (You heard about the doctor who tested implanting electrical devices in women’s spines so they could produce orgasms with remote controls, right?)

    If orgasm were the chief benefit to women from sex, then masturbation would offer the same benefits as intercourse. It doesn’t, and it’s likely the added benefits from penile-vaginal intercourse are due to the greater intimacy and close, trusted relationship, not the climax. See “Masturbation is Related to Psychopathology and Prostate Dysfunction: Comment on Quinsey (2012)” It discusses research on women’s masturbation, too.

    Eight percent of women also report chronic tears and irritability after climax during intercourse (which *don’t* correlate with childhood or marital issues), and it’s not clear if they’re just outliers on a bell curve, or anomalies. It *is* clear that we shouldn’t blithely assume the latter. In fact, it’s likely to be the former, given that German scientists are already starting to measure neuroendocrine “ripples” in women the day after intercourse with climax. (Neuroendocrine markers continue in other animals for two weeks after “vigorous intromission.” Males also experience a two-week cycle.) See In other words, many other women may be experiencing subtle not-so-wonderful, lingering effects and just not connecting them with climax (or too frequent climax).

    Rushing into making women more orgasmic before we know more about the full cycle of orgasm and its effects on women’s moods and sense of wellbeing is reckless. Incidentally, some women are reporting that their sexual response is decreasing due to overconsumption of sextoy and Internet porn use – just as it has for some men who overconsume highspeed Internet porn (see This condition takes months to reverse. If your treatment helps your patients further desensitize their sexual response, you will not have done them a favor.

    Many women find that slow, sensual lovemaking without the goal of climax makes their vaginas much more sensitive and orgasmic. Treatments like yours strengthen the unhealthy meme that anything but speedy climax is “pathological.” This is helping to numb vaginas/brains, so they become less responsive and need increasingly extreme stimulation for their owners to register pleasure.

    I don’t blame you for trying to make a buck – even though it means women will feel even more pressure to conform to the standard porn/push-button narrative, but I hope the women reading this will question whether the male sexual model is right for their relationships and sexual pleasure. Men who slow down and increase their own sexual responsiveness seem to love it, so you needn’t assume your mate will be unhappy if you don’t climax like a porn star (pretends to climax). Here’s a movie trailer about this practice of slow sex:

    • Thanks Chris! I remember seeing that orgasmatron, as the inventor had called it, in Orgasm Inc and being horrified. The creators of inventions and interventions like that – along with the other devices and medications in the film and, I would say, the o-shot – appear to work on the assumption that the sole purpose of sex is instant orgasm. Obviously orgasms are fabulous but, as you say, there’s so much more to sex than pushing a (plumped up with PRP) button.

      By the way, I’ve felt those ripples, sometimes a couple of days after having sex, and never known what they were.

  5. I’m very aware that orgasm is not the end all, be all of existence. I’m particularly fond of the writings of J. William Lloyd and the “Karezza Method.”

    I also have written about the benefits of slow love making without the need for orgasm and actually went for 9 months without orgasm as a 20 year old man (I tell of the effects of this in my first book, “Anytime…for as Long as You Want.”

    I am certainly NOT trying to see how many orgasms women can have and am grateful for you bringing up this issue.

    Remember women came to me…because they have PAIN, difficulty with arousal (even with a partner that they love), and difficulty having any orgasm at all –often leaving them frustrated. They came to me with these problems.

    That I make money finding a solution does not mean that I created a problem. Remember, conservatively 40% of women are distressed by one of the problems listed at…even with education.

    That the moderator of this blog offers books to sale does not make her a bad person…it simply means she’s offering solutions and hopes to support herself to some extent with the offering. I am not different.

    This procedure simply offers a way to rejuvenate the tissue: making either slow love making without orgasm or proceeding to orgasm–either scenario (and infinite variations of other scenarios) become possible by the women’s own choice when she has a healthy vagina.

    None of these choices are easy if the woman’s vaginal tissue is not in optimum health.

    I’m not trying to define anyone’s sexuality or how they chose to relate to the the world, their spirit, or their lover–I’m simply offering a simple way for the woman to use her own natural healing factors to rejuvenate the vaginal tissue (when and if she thinks it’s needed) so that she may then chose orgasm or self pleasure without orgasm or Krezza or any of the ideas mentioned by you.

    Thank you for writing.

    Very best,

    Charles Runels, MD
    inventor of the O-Shot (R), Vampire Facelift (R), and the Vampire Breast Lift (R)

  6. Sometimes the quest for sexual gratification misses the the experience of sensual involvement. Orgasms are addictive and we can become slaves to the arousal mechanism (dopamine surge). But the post-orgasmic prolactin low can leave us with the blues. By promoting open-hearted communication and increasing the love neurotransmitter oxytocin, sex becomes more nurturing and cosmic! I’m with you Kate! See my blog Sex, Neurochemicals and the Loving Tao by Alan Warr

Leave a Reply