Talk:Orgasm/Archive 2

Male Anal Orgasm

More attention needs to be paid to anal orgasm in males, particularly through stimulation of the man's anus via a penis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.105.92 (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thats disgusting. 71.188.176.59 (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea...that is.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.80.89 (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what's disgusting about it, but fyi: there is a section and an article covering the topic. - Face 17:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no valid source or citation for "Anal Orgasm" The author references note #8 which is puckerup dot com. a porn forum, where a person "ass man" is quoted!

Something needs to be removed or changed in this section until a source or citation is found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.152.162 (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Generalization from outliers

"A woman may come to orgasm without stimulating the anus, by stimulation of the buttocks and anal cleft with the tongue."

This, and similar sentences, would be better re-written, 'Some women may. . . '

Breast orgasm, non-ejaculatory orgasm, multiple orgasm in post-pubescent males, prostate orgasms. . .

These are unusual to exceedingly rare occurrences! One can't argue, based on the experience of exceptional subjects, that "a man/woman" -- implicitly any man/woman -- can achieve these things.

Well, women probably shouldn't be included in the part about prostate stimulation-induced orgasms, since biological females do not have prostates. Epiphanie (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Orgasm and transsexuals

, that would be great, since without it the work doesn’t look complete.

There should be two more subsections 1) Orgasm in transsexual men: 2) Orgasm in transsexual women: (Alex Leykin (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

About the "purpose" of female orgasm

Forgive me if I'm betraying my ignorance here, but every discussion of the "purpose" of female orgasm I've seen has not touched upon what appears to me a perfectly obvious explanation: If a female has no immediate *incentive* to have sex, isn't that a huge disadvantage, evolutionary speaking? In other words, doesn't an individual who likes to have sex have a reproductive advantage? Or is the idea that females don't generally have a say in the matter accepted?

Sexual motivation is present even without awareness of orgasmic climax. Evolutionarily, females only needed to copulate once a year to maintain maximum reproduction, so increased sexual motivation on the part of females doesn't necessarily increase reproductive success.--Nectarflowed ^T 04:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Er, no. The pregnancy rate for one-time sexual intercourse without any form of contraception is estimated at 5%. Therefore, if women had sex only once a year, they would on average give birth to one child every 20 years (it's a Poisson statistic). Even with zero infant mortality and all women remaining fertile until the age of 40, it would take forty years to reach an average of two children, which is the level needed to keep the population static. With historical infant and adult mortality rates, the human race would have died out rather quickly with annual sex.

"Maximum reproduction" consists of keeping women more or less continuously pregnant, a condition which was not uncommon in the ancient world, with many women producing a child every year or two during their entire fertile period (or until they died, which was also a common consequence of pregnancy in those times), Whilst most women no longer wish to put up with this, thanks to contraceptiom, some people -- let's call them "breeding enthusiasts" -- still have families of fifteen or more. Let's try some very rough calculations: assume that they take three months between pregnancies, and that for the first month after childbirth are unable to have sex. Then they have roughly 60 days to become pregnant for the next child. To have a 90% chance of getting pregnant at 5% a time, you need to have sex roughly 45 times (0.95^45 < 0.1). So, the rate of intercourse required for "maximum reproduction" is around 5 times a week. -- The Anome 07:46, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm very sorry; I guess that's what happens when one writes fast and assumes 100% fertility and constant ovulation ;) Thanks for the needed correction. --Nectarflowed ^T 08:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Since most women can only have orgasms through oral or manual stimulation of the clitoris (which they could do all day, every day without ever reproducing), how does the female orgasm give them incentive to copulate?

216.23.105.23 00:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Does it even need to have a purpose? It is not an evolutionary disadvantage, however the compact expression of the genome is an evolutionary advantage. The clitoris is the same organ as the penis, essentially: in males, it is virilized into a penis during the first trimester. It can be argued that orgasm has a biological purpose in males by serving as an a motive for frequent copulation. In females, there is no apparent biological purpose, and it would seem to be a simple case of there being no reason for this mechanism to be absent from females while there is a reason for it to be present in males. The advantages of females in this regard can probably be attributed to such things as prolactin insensitivity due to higher baseline prolactin levels and no evolutionary reason for the development of a homeostatic feedback system. Zuiram 18:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There's certainly no scientific consensus about the purpose of female orgasm but both common sense and evolutionary biology can come up with a variety of possible purposes, including (a) orgasm exercises muscles, including those used in childbirth; the mechanisms of orgasm also relate to mechanisms used in childbirth, and orgasm may play a role of pain suppression during childbirth (b) pleasure/release of stress has both bonding functions as well as reducing stress which has positive health effects; this is a serious enough purpose to have evolutionary benefit! (c) people have proposed that female orgasm may play a role in sperm competition and also in mate selection. Do a google scholar search and you'll find some articles discussing many of these issues. I think (a) and (b) are a bit more widely accepted than (c), which is disputed. The people claiming female orgasm is vestigial may publish a lot of articles, but in my opinion that is just leftover from our extremely sexist society. Personally, I think the idea that female orgasm is vestigial is outright ridiculous. Cazort (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Still tagged as {{unreferenced}}?

I'm surprised that the article is still tagged as {{unreferenced}}. Back in August, this may have had some basis, but looking now, there are no less that 25 citations in the references section, and at least one that hasn't been formatted that way. Most of the main points and assertions seem to be backed by a reference. How many more references do we want? I propose removing the tag. Any objections? --Nigelj 22:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been over a month and no-one has made any case for why it should be so tagged, so I just removed the tag. --Nigelj 18:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems is that although some sections are well-referenced, the material is still full of bold, unreferenced assertions, some of which are probably false. Cazort (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Orgasm and impregnation

What is the role of the orgasm in impregnation? Is it possible for women to become pregnant without reaching an orgasm? Do orgasm's help the onset of dropping an egg into the filopean tubes? Or does impregnation have nothing to do with pregnancy? I just have to know.Rfwoolf 12:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it further. My opinion is that female orgasm has no role in releasing the egg, or anything like that. (During successful fertilization, the egg has often already been released when intercourse occurs) Some think that it may have a role in helping the semen into the uterus. Many feel that Orgasm acts as a positive response to the coitus behavior, encouraging repetition, and so increases the chances of reproduction. Atom 13:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... interesting. If you'll pardon my ignorance up till now -- it just seems that the male has to orgasm to ejaculate and subsequently release the sperm, one could have assumed that the female may have needed to orgasm too for a variety of reasons (even though I'm well aware that couples rarely climax at the same time -- nonetheless many out there may assume this is necessary for pregnancy). It also brings into question the purpose of female ejaculation, of which there seems to be none. Rfwoolf 16:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

During Orgasm the muscles in the side of the vagina contract in a manner that helps to force the sperm out of the penis and up into the uterus.

(removed line which was breaking wiki markup The Wednesday Island (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC))

Like so.

Other theories have been proposed based on the idea that the female orgasm might increase fertility. The 30% reduction in size of the vagina could, for example, help clench onto the penis (much like, or perhaps caused by the pubococcygeus muscles), which would make it more stimulating for the male (thus ensuring faster or more voluminous ejaculation). The British biologists Baker and Bellis have also suggested that the female orgasm may have an "upsuck" action (similar to the esophagus' ability to swallow when upside down), resulting in the retaining of favorable sperm and making conception more likely.[15] They posited a role of female orgasm in sperm competition.

Madking 19:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

dishwasher? what?

in the final sentence of the clitoral vs vaginal orgasm section, there's a statement that women sometimes experience orgasm when "walking through the kitchen when the dishwasher is on the dry cycle." is this supposed to be a serious and factual statement, meant to indicate the apparent spontaneity of orgasm in some situations, or is it the result of subtle vandalism? because it just sounds kind of silly to me.

Looks supicious to me. I know some women can get off via sitting on the clothes washer but never heard of merely walking by the dishwasher to be enough. :) Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 03:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference to this. Not only does it not show up in any google searches (except in reference to this page) but it doesn't even make much sense -- a dishwasher on dry is pretty quiet and doesn't even shake around like one on wash or rinse does. A clothes washer on spin cycle is another matter entirely of course...Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / fafafafaffafaf!~contribs) 05:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Please... please tell me that you guys understand that it was a deliberate reference to the misleading and openly sexist missinformation commonly distributed as fact in days past in an effort to sexualy opress women into traditional femenine roles.

This is not the place for snarky references or proselytizing. --Ntg 05:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you sorted that out, but I just had to say it's very funny! 90.242.60.204 20:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, this is bullshit. Feminists have the ability to interpret peanut butter as oppression of women. They see sexism in everything, a case of Freudian projection perhaps. Also, it is well known that feminists don't have a sense of humor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.110.223 (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Porn page or encyclopedia

Who put the files with girls that are supposed to be experiencing an orgasm into this article? What's the point? Let 13yr old kids hear women moaning? I dont think this is the kind of content an encyclopedia needs.
There also are a lot of sections in this article that sound more like an advertisement than anything else. Like people wishing the stuff they saw in some porn movie is actually being put into practise by "real" couples.
So could somebody please take care of this article and let it sound more professional. --85.176.225.84 01:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I found this article extremely informative. Only a Christian would conflate information with pornography, so, you and your 13-year-old kid have my pity. Audio recordings of female orgasm are slightly questionable, but only because video would be much better. Even in modern society, many men still have no idea as to what a genuine female orgasm is, and how to tell if their partner is having one. Furthermore, orgasm is a topic that is still difficult to talk to other people about, so again the information in this article is very useful, especially as regards statistics and observed pratices. So please, STFU. No one is forcing you to read articles about sexuality in the first place, and if the prospect of your children reading such is worrisome, restricting their internet browsing is your responsibility and not ours. Thanks, and good luck kicking those antiquated delusions. 24.95.48.112 00:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me put my two cents in. I'm Christian and I stand very strongly against censorship and also against sexual repression. Please refrain from personal attacks and even more importantly please refrain from generalizations on the basis of religion or any other category. Let's keep the discussion limited to the material. Thank you. Personally, I have no objection to including a sound clip of someone orgasming on this page, although it perhaps could come across as a bit silly. Cazort (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Cazort. The comment above that was extremely rude. I am against censorship too, and I also don't see the point of placing a clip like that on this article. It serves no purpose; men who have no clue about what a female orgasm is like will certainly not be educated by listening to a woman moan. It might help, instead, to actually see his own efforts in having her orgasm, live. --Supriya (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not very civil, but anyway... Whether people are able to tell whether a female orgasm is genuine or not doesn't matter. If solid, verifiable sources give good information about this, representative of the widely variable female population, then we can use that. Otherwise, there is nothing WP can or should say about it. Either way, being able to tell benefits no-one; if you suspect you're doing a poor job, communicate better, otherwise treat it as real. Anything else just puts unneccessary pressure on the girl, preventing her from having real ones (most girls fake it occasionally, at the very least). Also, males can fake them too, and I know of a few who do this for various reasons. Zuiram 22:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for insulting me and displaying Christians as idiots. BTW, I'm not Christian and I dont have a son either. Only thing I agree on is the fact that many men have never seen a real orgasm and that sex is being talked about too little in society. I dont get what u mean by antiquated delusions, but u dont seem to be putting any emphasis on discussing the topic anyway, instead you're just making up a story of a conservative Christian daddy and go on crying about it. Good job, way to sound stupid. Still think the article needs major corrections. --85.179.51.207 23:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The three sound files are of such a poor quality, of questionable origin, they sound like they were covertly recorded, they do not have any release details of those recorded and serve no real purpose. There's no attribution that describes the "normal" female vocalisation and presenting these as an example of such is misrepresenting the range of such. --Monotonehell 12:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur there seems to be no objective purpose to having the sound files on this page. There is no actual information being provided by the sound bytes. --Neome21 11:20, 13 March 2007

I would like the user who responded to the first post to take a look at Racism

Umm... A religion has nothing to do with a race! The user who responded to the first post was almost certainly guilty of religious intolerance, but not racism! -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 16:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why no pictures?

Theres not a single picture in the whole articule! Other languages have pics, but english dos'nt. I'm sure theres plenty of pics out there.

Why the heck do you want pictures any ways?

Erik the Red 2 16:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Erik the Red 2

Any important encyclopedia article (and don't tell me this is'nt important) practically has to have pictures in order to be complete.

Descriptions are enough to make a mental picture of orgasms. I know you're all old enough to discuss this so you'll have an idea as you read it. Akira Tomosuke 12:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If descriptions are enough to give the reader a mental picture, then explain why the following articles contain images, videos, and/or audio clips: Ejaculation, Semen, List of sex positions, Erection, Penis, Vagina, Mammary intercourse, Thong, Pornography. I agree with the original poster of this discussion. Why is there not a single image in this suspiciously long article? 70.121.162.197 12:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You may switch own your camera during intercourse & add it as well as self-made stuff. --Harjk talk 10:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So do men have a G-Spot or not?

In the "Vaginal" section:

Many scientists believe that only certain women possess a G-spot.... The same is true for men, who are believed to have a male G-spot, through stimulation of the prostatic structure, which in men is the prostate.

Neither have any citation or references. I can live with there being disagreement, but can anyone more knowledgeable than I provide reliable source citations for either side, or both? 74.134.100.173 (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant to source that sentence about the male G-spot as soon as I saw this question pop up on my watchlist. I didn't do it then, but I have now, with a reference taken from the Prostate article about it. As for that other sentence, it's now separated from the sentence about the male G-spot, but I still have not sourced that one yet. I might do that later, though. Flyer22 (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"Other known Categories of Orgasm" section

I think the very title of this section, and the way some of the material is introduced, is POV...there is hardly a consensus in the literature that categorization of orgasms is useful or appropriate, and the consensus actually seems to be the other way around. Cazort (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

needs pictures

this article needs a picture or two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.85.197.151 (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how that would work. Also, does anyone know how long it typically takes a man/woman to orgasm and if so, is it needed here? 68.196.242.88 (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Picture's? Are you joking? Thats the second time someone Ive seen has recamended a picture for a non-Picture artical! Child Porn was the orther! No! It does not!!! This artical needs a picture just as much as U.S.A. needs to say "there the greatest country in the world!"(It bull shit)! What is wrong with you? *Mocking* "Duh, this Artical Needs Pictures" if that anit the second dumbest statement of the year!--Wikiloli (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article, like all articles can benefit from a good image or video. The image or video needs to be on topic though. We don't need any pornography on Wikipedia, and so the image, or video, should allow, in a a moment, for most people seeing it to recognize the topic and understand more about the topic. Also, there should be as little off-topic matter in the image or video. A picture or video of a man or woman's face at the moment of orgasm would be perfect. If it were a picture of two people (man-woman, woman-woman, or woman-man) getting an image of them both experiencing orgasm at the same time would be difficult. Also, we would need to be careful to not introduce debate from many people regarding the potential for fornication, adultery or sexual immorality into the article (off topic). An image of one person would be easier for avoiding those things. Of course, we want to try and avoid people potentially complaining about masturbation in the article. Maybe the video n the ejaculation article? Is that on topic, or not? Isn't the moment depicted also the moment of orgasm? Atom (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether orgasm can happen during rape (title was previously "BDSM")

"Involuntary orgasms" A direct stimulation that triggers orgasms does not necessarily have to be consensual. Thus victims of non consensual acts such as rape or frotteurism can experience orgasms despite their will. This could lead to accusations against the victim or trigger self accusations. Involuntary orgasms can happen regardless of the gender of either party.

The BDSM play of forced orgasm is based on involuntary orgasms.

This is ABSOLUTELY FALSE! BDSM is not "non-consensual" sex or forced sex. BDSM is completely consensual, and works on the premise of role play, where both the dom and the sub have agreed to play their respective parts. The sub is completely in control of their orgasm even while he or she is submitting to their "other". The psychological experience of being a sub means that he or she is being aroused or pleasured through their "submission". As for actual non-consensual sex (which is called RAPE and NOT BDSM), there is no evidence of whether the victim experiences any kind of orgasm!

This needs to be corrected ASAP: it functions on a false myth and can be seriously, and dangerously misleading. If I don't see a response / suggestion to this soon, I will be changing it myself. --Supriya (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Supriya. I'm offended by this. Rape is painful and never pleasant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.180.73 (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Can this section be removed? I mean, what is an involuntary orgasm and the existence of that might in itself be questionable. As far as I understand, an orgasm is always voluntary. You can be wet, horny, etc in your sleep - but the orgasm has to be brought on! Even the parts about bodily flushes being "orgasmic" sounds rather dicy to me. --Supriya (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Remove the BDSM section if you like because it's unsourced, but the section about orgasms during rape has an actual source in an actual scholarly journal. If you disagree with that journal's findings, you must explain why here, and not just from your own opinions or original research. The Wednesday Island (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, Wednesday Island. I've removed the BDSM reference only. I'll have a look at the citation for the orgasms during rape and get back to the talk page. --Supriya 14:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it's not fair that the article that you cite is a paid, inaccessible one. How are people supposed to read it and verify it? Furthermore, if it is the opinion of this science journal that victims may experience orgasm during rape, it should be stated in the article that it is a claim by so and so. The sentence reads like it were an agreed-upon fact, and that the citation is an example of someone who said so. Either we remove the whole sentence, or we claim it as an opinion of the source in the article itself (and not just in the citation). Just because it is a 'scholarly' journal saying so, it can't be accepted as a fact. As far as my personal logic goes, I can not fathom how someone who is unwilling to have sex (is being violated) simultaneously experiences pleasure (gets an orgasm). What kind of an article is this and what kind of research? It sounds like some shady writing that is trying to justify the act of rape and say that, hey, if you rape someone it's fine, after all you might be giving them an orgasm against their will! This is absolute BULLSHIT. Can we have some more opinions on this, please? --Supriya 15:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Taking these from the top: 1)I dislike journals being pay-only as much as anyone, but it's within Wikipedia guidelines to use them. 2)I haven't cited anything. The claim in the article was already backed up by a citation. I merely warned you not to delete cited text without good reason because it is against policy to do so. 3) The cited article is a literature review paper in a respected peer-reviewed medical journal. It is not an opinion piece. Please review WP:RS under the "Scholarship" and "Opinion" headings. If you believe it's not an agreed-upon fact that this phenomenon exists, please demonstrate that the paper was somehow invalid or that its scholarship has been called into question by another serious paper. Your "personal logic" does not count as a counterexample; it is at best original research. 4) I find your claim that people who refuse to deny this phenomenon are rape apologists to be a personal attack, and unworthy of inclusion on a talk page. Indeed, it is those who deny this involuntary phenomenon exists who increase the guilt and shame of those who experience it by insinuating that they must really have wanted the sex or they wouldn't have experienced the orgasm. 5) In case you want some non-scholarly links about the phenomenon: [1] [2] [3] [4]. The Wednesday Island (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we all might have different ideas about the ethics of the "rape discourse", but I still disagree with the idea that the orgasm can be "involuntary". If the victim for whatever reason decides to submit or give in, or escape into experiencing their own pleasure, because he or she is unable to get away, then that means that the victim has participated in having the orgasm (and not in the crime of rape). What I am saying, is not a comment on the crime that has occurred (it still remains heinious and offensive, and there should be no shame in reporting it, whether the victim has decided to give in at some stage or not), but this is a comment I am making on the nature of the orgasm. And if a victim decides to willingly have an orgasm during rape, it doesn't at all mean that he or she should not be able to complain about the crime. To state that the orgasm was 'involuntary' sounds like an easy way out in proving the guilty wrong, and I can understand why people might do so. But the more long-term solution would be to condemn rape, whether the victim's orgasm was voluntary or not. One of the fundamental ways of identifying rape is in convincing the victim to say "no". If the victim has said no, it is rape, irregardless of whether or not they have had an orgasm, and whether or not they have had an orgasm is nobody's business.

--Supriya 18:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm sorry if that sounded like a personal attack. It was not. I just feel that it should be made clear that this is a claim made by someone, in the very article itself. --Supriya 18:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've read through the source, and it supports what is stated in the article. This is the conclusion:

The review has examined whether unsolicited or non-consensual sexual stimulation of either males or females can create unwanted sexual arousal even to the induction of an orgasm. Despite a limited published literature, case and anecdotal reports the conclusion from them is that such scenarios can occur and that the induction of arousal and even orgasm does not permit the conclusion that the subjects consented to the stimulation. A perpertrator’s defence against the alleged assault built solely on the evidence that genital arousal or orgasm in the victim proves consent has no intrinsic validity and should be disregarded.

-Wafulz (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I still think that it should be mentioned in the section "Involuntary Orgasm", that it is a claim made, rather than just have a citation marked. --Supriya 09:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Claim.-Wafulz (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well okay - a synonym for "claim" then? How about "according to"? Or something like that? --Supriya 17:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Added journal article with pubmed ID number, allowing access to the abstract. Print sources and unlinked/no content references are legitimate but do present difficulties if contested. However, though unsourced, the removed BDSM info does appear legit - the sub is trying to inhibit their orgasm, the dom is trying to induce it. It's an involutnary orgasm, it's what the forced orgasm is based on. There's two different topics in the section, both being about involuntary orgasm. During rape, orgasm happens through straight physical stimulation even though the sex is involuntary. During forced orgasm the same thing happens, but the sex is voluntary. I've added but separated the two; forced orgasm could use some citations (here and in the main) but I'll assume it's legit. WLU (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It has long been known and cited by scholars, including 'feminist' scholars, that some women experience orgasm during rape. While orgasm is a response to stimulation, it involves involuntary actions such as muscle contractions. It may seem "logical" to argue that, since orgasm is pleasurable and therefore desired it cannot occur absent desire, but human physiological response does not always follow logical patterns. One can still respond to the aromas of certain foods, for example (such as mouth watering) even if you do not desire to eat them at the time that you smell them. Desmond Ravenstone (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Desmond. I came here at this very moment to argue that people can have orgasms that they do not desire, considering I saw this discussion some days ago for the first time...but am just now getting around to responding to it. It's not just feminist scholars, of course, who say that involuntary orgasms happen. Doctors do as well. And, I mean, after all "boring sex" exists...where a person may just be going through the motions of sexual intercourse but is not truly "turned on", does not desire it, and before that person knows it, their body is having convulsions -- a sexual orgasm. One would think that an orgasm makes it great sex, right? Nope, not always the case. Just as an orgasm during rape does not mean that that rape was pleasurable. Flyer22 (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be to be a ridiculous question. Rape is about intercourse without consent. Other factors are not relevant. Whether is was pleasurable at any point by either party, whetehr it was forced or not, the motivation behind the rape are all completely unimportant in the context of whether it was rape or not. In the context of BDSM, BDSM always involves consent. Also, most types of BDSM do not involve inercourse in practice (but could.) Atom (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What question are you referring to? We know the difference between rape and BDSM, but this discussion moved into the debate over whether a person can have an involuntary orgasm during rape or not. The article addresses the fact that it does happen, which has a reliable source attributed to it, but an editor above was basically stating that he or she does not believe the findings to be true. Of course rape is rape, but this article addresses orgasms in rape, and this debate, which really is not a contribution to helping this article, was about that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You can have an orgasm being raped. First of all most of you seem to be only thinking it from the woman's perspective. If a man is raped anally, he can have an orgasm because of the constant contact with the prostate. If a man is raped as in a woman or man masturbates him or mounts him, whether he likes it or not he can have an orgasm. A woman too. The whole premise on the effects of child abuse isn't only when a child doesn't like it. But that most times, whether the child wants it or not they can have orgasms, and think that it's somehow their fault because of it. I know because I was sexually abused when I was a child, and most of my teens years I kept justifying the offender's action because I would have orgasms. Only now in my life do I realize that that's one of the ways that rapists try to control you. By placing part of the blame on you. It's also a way that a rapist justifies his actions to himself, telling a girl it wasn't rape because she climaxed. As to the BDSM topic. Yes you can have an involuntary orgasm, it's like a game, the sub trying to stop it or keep from climaxing, and the top trying to force it. But I think the word rape and BDSM should be paragraphs apart. Maybe a paragraph on how it is on rape, and then how it is in BDSM, with a paranthesis like "(though this is consensual)" or something. Having them so close can confuse people 24.91.140.27 (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

pressure on perineum considered harmful?

I couldn't find a source for this, and anecdotally it's caused me no problems (I'm 23 and I first discovered this means of preventing ejaculation on my own when I was 11 or 12, so in my case at least 11 or 12 years of daily use has not been harmful). The only source I've found that mentions any danger from this is http://lounge.moviecodec.com/topics/36734p2.html , but that page is dated after the info was added here and is likely a copy & paste from the wikipedia article. (There are plenty of medical pages that mention retrograde ejaculation as a side effect of medication or surgery in that area, but that's not really relevant here.)

Here is a discussion about this in which one person (possibly a med student or doctor) theorizes about possible harmful effects: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001282.htm . Most others on that page provide anecdotal reports that the practice is harmless. Also, here is a page that specifically refutes one of the concerns listed by the med student / doctor: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001282.htm ("The presence of semen in the bladder is harmless").

I find it unlikely that the amount of pressure required to stop ejaculation is enough to cause any nerve or blood vessel damage -- it's no more than, say, a firm handshake, and is less pressure than one sometimes gets from sitting on oddly shaped surfaces (like old bicycle seats).

Niteling (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What happened to orgasm in transexuals

It seems like that section was present long time ago, but now for some reason was removed. Could anybody tell why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilya-42 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

retrograde ejaculation

I was wondering if somone can help me. I have a issue with my sperm being redirected into my bladder. i guess from what i am told is that the valve that is supose to open when you ejaculate does not open. I was told that there was something mentioned on the news about a month ago about redirecting sperm. does anyone have any info for me. We are trying to have a baby and it is getting very troubling. Can anyone help me. Are there any procedures that can correct this

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Animal575 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Retrograde ejaculation? No one on Wikipedia is allowed to provide you with any medical advice, since there is no way to prove he is medically qualified, since he is unable to examine you or take a complete medical history or have tests done, and because of liability issues. If you have medical concerns, you should see a doctor. Edison (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Heart Orgasm

The human body is capable of orgasm in parts other than the pelvic area. A heart orgasm is characterised by involuntary or loss of control of breathing, and extremely pleasurable sensations in the heart area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidan oz (talk • contribs) 02:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this original research? The Wednesday Island (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A heart orgasm? Laughing out loud. I highly doubt that this can be called an orgasm in the sexual sense, even if this "heart orgasm" happens while sexually aroused, which is what I would think it means. I mean, yes, everyone who is sexually excited has or comes close to having a "heart orgasm"... I would not say that it is "extremely pleasurable sensations in the heart area"...LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I mean, yes, we can have a section about heart rates during orgasm, though information about this is probably better suited in the Orgasm and health section, but calling it a heart orgasm is very premature. After all, there is dispute about whether certain "orgasms" should be called orgasms (as this article also has a section about). I am certain the dispute about "heart orgasm" would be greater. We could definitely say that due to the heart rate level and emotions that cause the heart to do whatever thing it does during orgasm it is sometimes called a heart orgasm (with a valid reference attributed to that), but we should not have a section called Heart orgasm. And, as hinted at, I'm not even sure that we should have a section called Heart stimulation, which sounds like some matter of trying to massage the heart or typical exercise when "heart orgasm" is really a matter of emotions of deep sexual attraction or love that the brain feels...or sexual arousal/pleasure of the genitals, which causes the heart rate to speed up. Flyer22 (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What's with 'Brain Orgasm'?? Should not been underrated ... definitively existing. Or well known as 'Happy Mind Spastic'. I've got that since a few months daily by just reading and don't want be cured of it. Perfect Alternative to sex on classic beds. And the advantage: You can have it everywhere but not with everybody. To the my fore-poster ... why you resume 'orgasm' just to genitals? The completely body (and mind) is an erogenous zone.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.206.143 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I "resume" orgasm just to genitals because that is how it is medically defined, and how this article defines it. However, I am all for people saying, "I had a heart orgasm"...I had a breast orgasm"..."I had a brain orgasm"...etc...in expressing their emotions; it's simply not the same as what happens in orgasm of the genitals, however, and if we are going to include stuff like "heart orgasm" or "brain orgasm" in this article, then it needs to come from reliable sources as actually being considered orgasms in a valid way and presented in this article as such, explaining how certain feelings have an effect on other parts of our bodies in such a way that they could be called orgasms. Flyer22 (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, me again (the before poster); it was just a joke, but I feltyour suggestion about 'heart orgasm' simply as a nice idea/thought and agree to what you explained. Maybe is such a 'heart-o' much more worth in your memories as even these o's whose definitions just branded to somatic ones. I'm not able to can ask my memories, just these synapses who're are knowing exactly, that a heart-o is never possible without to have a brain-o. before ... well, just in "'porn'-filled displays" I think it could been a problem to visualize the brain-o and the heart-o ;) And maybe good so ... just to feel. So you are right, mate! --217.235.188.11 (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

biological mechanism

Someone should add what happens during an orgasm from a biological prespective. ie. release of dopamine and other neurotransmitters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.33.110 (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sexism Reference

I removed the unnecessary and irrelivant opinion of a particular academic that the scientific views of other proffesors was sexist. Keep politics out of a page on science —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cook119 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I restored it - the claim that sexist views can impact the way we explain our surroundings isn't bringing politics into science, it's pointing out that scientists might not always be the dispassionate observers they try to be. Hrdy is a qualified voice to speak on the subject and the assertion is properly put in context as her opinion and next to the the conclusion it criticizes. Subjective conclusions based on views of genders have happened in science and elsewhere for decades - this may or may not be one of them. But the fact a prominent scientist has said it may be is relevant to the article. -- SiobhanHansa 16:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No sensation when having an orgasm

My new husband was a virgin until our wedding night. We are newlyweds and have had sex a few times since we have gotten married. He says he doesn't feel that sensation when he orgasms...that sensation like an explosion and that it "just happens" without him really knowing he has an orgasm. Is this normal? I also might add that he has a huge curve in his penis..could this have something to do with it?

This is not a forum to discuss orgasms. If you want to ask a general medical question, visit Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science, but bear in mind that Wikipedia cannot give medical advice. The best answer is probably to ask your own doctor. The Wednesday Island (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Anal orgasm

This section speaks only of the female anal orgasm. What of the male? The addition of a prostate to the anal stimulation mix makes it more likely to occur. -- AvatarMN (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have a citation from a reliable source, then go ahead and add it! Apertus (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead image

This article doesn't have a lead image, and a good article should have a lead image. Most other languages don't have a lead image either, but of those that do

• 
  This is used on many of them
• This is used in a few places
  This is used in a few places
• 
  This is used in one or two places

Commons also has

• 
  several of this sort of thing, and
• this film, which is not dissimilar to that used on Masturbation

Does anyone think any of these would be appropriate? I'd like to include a graph of brain activity or something instead, really... The Wednesday Island (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see wikipedia registered users wanting to use any of those images; sorry! Either too symbolic or not clever enough.

I don't think this article should use the green image: Image:Podkowiński-Szał_uniesień-MNK.jpg because it is confusing. This would be much better. Image:Orgasmic muscle contractions.ogv| —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.246.74 (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Involuntary Orgasm

There is a reference to involuntary orgasm caused by rape or frotteurism in the article, but the citation listed talks only about involuntary or non-consensual stimulation (such as BDSM or submission games). This is a veeeeeery long way from suggesting that anyone gets off on being raped, and unless someone can provide a better citation for it, I'm going to remove it entirely - it seems dubious in the extreme. JulesVerne (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2008 (GMT)

We had this discussion about a month or so ago-- I thought it was sourced back then. I'll try and find something today. ("Gets off on" is a misleading term. Nobody's suggesting anyone enjoys it.) The Wednesday Island (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

New external link to be added

Could the Male and Female Multiple Orgasm Forum (malemultiple.org and femalemultiple.org) be added to the list? These boards are the only ones on the web to specifically discuss orgasm and multiple orgasm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmoboard (talk • contribs) 13:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

having looked at them, no. For one thing, most of the content seems to amount to advertising. DGG (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Advertisement?? The forums are totally non-profit and are simply here to let people discuss the different aspects and techniques involved in orgasms and multiple orgasms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmoboard (talk • contribs) 11:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Dubious claim

Other than the penis penetrating the vagina, I doubt that any other form of internal stimulation is widely practiced to justify these two sentences as if these were common practices: "Important in sexual stimulation are internal glands, called the Skene's glands in women and the prostate in men, two homologous structures. In common use, the term G-spot refers to these areas. The stimulation can come from receptive intercourse, fingering, fisting, or penetration with a dildo." Some reference to these practices as acts in themselves or as part of sex would be fine, but without implying that they play any key role. --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

lead image

I worry that the lead image is not sufficiently relevant. It's also telling that it has no caption. The "Ecstasy" painting mentioned above would probably do a better job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.7.74 (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the lead image is no help at all for depicting human orgasms. Unless it's meant to be ridiculous.68.34.65.110 (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Claire

Breast orgasm and definition of orgasm

Don't really see the rational for such division as breast orgasm, vaginal orgasm etc, etc. An orgasm is defined as a perception of an autonomic reflex, having a sensory arm and a motor component. It doesn't make much sense to describe the method and location of the stimulation and call that a different type of reflex. wherever one may be stimulated (sensory) orgasm finds it's expression (motor) in regular and iregular contractions of the smooth musculature of the uterus, cervix, vagina, the pubococcygeus and the external and internal anal sphincters. popular books are interested in sales and will entice would be readers with such exotics as breast orgasms, fire-breath orgasms, zone orgasms and the like but an orgasm is an orgasm is an orgasm. various stimulation methods and locations will, through different nerve inervation (pudendal, pelvic, hypogastric and vagus) affect the perception of orgasm but an orgasm is an orgasm is a.... i stress the point as much damage as been done with mis-information concerning the female orgasm, after the "sexual revolution" women were "allowed" to experience orgasm but this has often times changed from permission to a nessecity and not just AN orgasm but multiple orgasms, sequential orgasms, extended orgasms, expanded orgasms, simultaneous orgasm, female ejaculation... and if she doesn't experience these things then clearly "there must be something wrong with her", call it a dysfunction and resort to books, therapy, counselling and even surgery. pieter 23-01-09 Anal stimulation WHO is Jack Morin? New edited:

An "anal orgasm" is an orgasm brought on by anal stimulation, such as from anal sex, an inserted finger, or a sex toy. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some men and women experience anal orgasm as qualitatively different from other types of orgasms, though for many others the distinction is less clear.[6]

[This information currently presented gives an "equal stimulation" which is highly inaccurate when examining physiology.] Both sexes can enjoy pleasure from anal stimulation as the anus is connected to many sensitive nerve endings. However since the clitoris, the center of the female orgasm is not involved, any orgasm by a female through anal stimulation alone would be entirely psychological. In men however, the stimulation can be both psychological and physiological, as the prostate gland In both sexes pleasure can be derived from the nerve endings around the anus and the anus itself. {REMOVE: Hence, anal-oral contact can still be pleasurable without stimulation of anything else. Doctors claim that the anal orgasm can be induced by prostate stimulation. ][7] 78.105.175.156 (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC) and Kmclaugh28 (talk) 07:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I see the reason for the separation of the sections. For one, we are talking about different topics on the topic of orgasm (the Female orgasm section exists due to the fact that the paragraphs there are mainly about the female orgasm). And for another, a lot of people (researchers included) do not be believe that the pleasure individuals get from breast and anal stimulation should be called orgasms, no matter how intense. This is why we have a section about the definition of the term orgasm, which talks about the debate of some these types of stimulation being called orgasms.

You say, "An orgasm is defined as a perception of an autonomic reflex, having a sensory arm and a motor component." I say most people (researchers included) apparently define it (an orgasm) as the conclusion of the plateau phase of sexual response cycle, which is characterized by intense physical pleasure, controlled by the involuntary, or autonomic, nervous system, which is accompanied by quick cycles of muscle contraction in the lower pelvic muscles, which surround the primary sexual organs and the anus. Which is what the lead (intro) of this article says. If we define an orgasm by other involuntary actions, including muscular spasms in other areas of the body, then I suppose just about anything can be called an orgasm. You say, "It doesn't make much sense to describe the method and location of the stimulation and call that a different type of reflex." I say, clearly, there is disagreement there. Flyer22 (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

the physical markers for orgasm are contraction of the musculature of the pelvis floor (coccygeous, pubococcygeous and the iliococcygeous) anal sphincters and smooth muscle of the uterus, cervix and vagina. as it is stated above it makes little sense to speak of the site of stimulation as a seperate reflex. one may sneeze because of inhaling pepper or by looking at a bright light or when one as a cold but the sneeze is the same reflex despite different causes. an orgasm is a (largely) autonomic response to increasing vasocongestion. the vasocongestion may come about by stimulation of the clitoris, anus, vagina, breasts etc etc or it may come about without physical stimulation as in fantasy. but its the same reflex. as it states above to call orgasms different based upon the site of stimulation doesn't make sense. the different inervation of the genitals may well effect the quality of the sensation, stimulation of the anus would largely be firing off the hypogastric nerve, the vagina the pelvic nerve and the clitoris the pudendal nerve but there is some cross over. also the vagus has been shown to inervate the area as well. we studied one woman who was able to orgasm with stimulation between the shoulder blades, to call it a shoulder blade orgasm makes little sense likewise calling something an anal orgasm. to define it as a perception of an autonomic reflex (which it is) in no way implies that any reflex is an orgasm. masters and johnson came up with the idea of the plateau stage of the sexual response cycle but much of there work is often out of date, considered much too subjective by modern clinical standards. 78.105.175.156 (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

IP, You say, "...as it states above to call orgasms different based upon the site of stimulation doesn't make sense." I say, "Uh...yes, it does." To compare a sneeze to an orgasm, as you did/do, is what does not make sense. As I stated above, an orgasm is the conclusion of the plateau phase of sexual response cycle, which is characterized by intense physical pleasure, controlled by the involuntary, or autonomic, nervous system, which is accompanied by quick cycles of muscle contraction in the lower pelvic muscles, which surround the primary sexual organs and the anus. "If we define an orgasm by other involuntary actions, including muscular spasms in other areas of the body, then I suppose just about anything can be called an orgasm." The main definition of an orgasm in this article is not outdated; the definition is what it is. An orgasm is not every involuntary spasm known to mankind. If that were the case, then a sneeze would be considered an orgasm. We might as well have a section titled Sneeze orgasm. I agree that calling something an "anal orgasm" does not make sense, which is why its main title was changed some time back to state Anal stimulation...and which is why the beginning of that section states...An "anal orgasm" (as in quotation marks around the "term"). The same goes for a "breast orgasm."

You say, "...to define it as a perception of an autonomic reflex (which it is) in no way implies that any reflex is an orgasm." I ask you how is that not the case if we word the main lead (intro) of this article as you suggest? An orgasm is considered an orgasm based on the body's sexual response, not simply based on any automatic reflex. Your saying that "masters and johnson came up with the idea of the plateau stage of the sexual response cycle but much of there work is often out of date, considered much too subjective by modern clinical standards" is not going to get this article changed to what you like. I see nothing out of date about the definition of orgasm, which, yes, plenty of modern clinical standards go by.

What are you proposing for this article, that your definition of an orgasm be first in the lead over the actual definition? That the actual definition not be mentioned at all? That the subsection titles discussing "these different types of orgasms" be removed? There are valid sources discussing these "different types of orgasms." If you take issue with that, which it seems you do, then I suggest you take it up with those experts. If we were to remove the subsection titles, however, the article would be one long pile of mixed topics without easy navigation. This is why we have subsections such as Vaginal orgasm, Anal stimulation, Breast stimulation, etc. Flyer22 (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

all i was stating is the fact that orgasm is a spinal reflex. theres no argument that it isnt, the response may or may not be pleasurable, one can experince orgasm during sleep, or someone with a full spinal cord seperation, theres no pleasure felt but there is an orgasm. "based on the body's sexual response" has very little meaning. AN ORGASM IS A SPINAL REFLEX thats what it is and yes that what the article should say in the lead. Give me one respected source of anal, breast orgasm etc... and what modern clinical standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.175.156 (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have stated what I stated above. No, the lead (intro) of this article should not state what you state an orgasm is, unless it is after the sourced/common definition. "Based on the body's sexual response" does not have very little meaning in regards to how an orgasm is defined. Why? Because that is what people, including medical professionals, think of when they think of an orgasm, not a sneeze or simply a spinal reflex.

I have already agreed with you about anal and breast "orgasms." Look above at what I said about that. Hell, the headings of those subsections are not even titling them as orgasms. The respected sources, which may refer to those types of stimulation as orgasms, however, even though they are technically not, are within this article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Drugs

Although there are no legitimate sources, Marijuana is known to increase the intensity of an orgasm. But because of the vandal lock, i am unable to add THC to the list. Seeing as its one of the most used illegal drugs, it would be wise to add this. Personal experience and having spoken to many friends, adding something in the form of "THC can also be attributed to increased sexual drive and orgasmic intensity" might give our readers a better understanding of how drugs interact with our body. --Moondy (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is true, on the same evidence as psilocybin. It should be added. 98.28.115.135 (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia needs reliable sources; personal experiences just don't work. I realize this is a topic for which there is probably little research being done (imagine that research application to the DEA) but it is a requirement for all of Wikipedia. --TeaDrinker (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Female orgasm

I have read somewhere (I cannot cite sources but may come back to edit if I find) that the purpose of the female orgasm is to suction semen 'up'. I am paraphrasing here, but I recall something along the lines that the muscle contractions bring the seminal fluid up the vaginal walls. Is this the case or have I made up something fictional? Piepants (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Piepants

why is pharmacology of orgasm missing entirely?

Unfortunately there is NO information on the page that refers to the endorphins and neurotransmitters that are released during orgasm, the actual chemical response that is the backbone of the what is felt during and after. These biochemicals are the basis for the entire process and yet there is no mention of them at all? Cleverwisdom (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

i agree completely with this comment i do not see a single thing that says something like "scientists believe dopamine is released as well as endorphins.." anywhere on this page. could someone start a small section with some established facts or is there really no data out there to explain this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.123.177 (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

hormones and nurotransmiters that implicated in orgasm include epinephrine, noradrenaline, dopamine, oxytocin and seratonin. epinephrine and noradrenaline are hormones and neurotransmitters that increase activity of the sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system.as orgasm is largely mediated by the sympathetic division, epinephrine would prime the body for "fight or flight" but arouasl (erection) is a parasympathetic response (rest/digest). here dopamine (the happy hormone) and oxytocin (the love drug)would play a part, particularly oxytocin's role in allowing the contraction of non striated muscle. it is believed that orgasm may induce changes in the hypothalamus through prolactin inhibition, which would account for the rise in prolactin (the once is enough hormone) post ogasm. interestingling i once read somewhere (dunno where) that the rise in prolactin was many many times higher after sex than after orgasm from masturbation. it seems odd that there should be elevated levels of oxytocin (the cuddle drug) that is often thought of as promoting pair bonding followed by a surge in prolactin, reminds me of the line in the song by macy gray "stay away from me, don't ever leave me alone" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.175.156 (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

looked on the web for an answer to what i thought was odd in the above post, theres evidence that suggests that dopamine acting on the reward centre of the limbic system allows for the production of oxytocin however over-stimulation of the limbic system triggers sexual satiation neurochemicals (prolactin), which radically changes our perception towards each other. the incread levels of prolatin seems to limit dopamine response, it seems that nature may have never intended to pair bond for too long... the bad news it seems is that orgasm speeds this process up. so you might be having great sex and giving her/him multiple orgasms every night but this just goes to further push a couple apart and move on to other partners. the study showed that the better couples rated their sex lives the more likely to break up than those who rated their sex lives lower. those who scored lower where more likely to have affairs, use pornography and pay for sex but stayed together longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.175.156 (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

orgasm control clarification

Orgasm control is a technique or set of techniques that can be used to heighten orgasmic response and to prolong ejaculation and extend and expand orgasm, however it is not the same as an expanded orgasm. I clarified this point and added new references to this section (delicasso) --Delicasso (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Spontaneously orgasmic art

Was there any attempt at creating a sight - a painting (not necessarily non-abstract) which upon seeing induces spontaneous orgasm to occur (maybe a peculiar combination of colors and/or patterns which cause specific combination of neural zones inside brain to become active and as byproduct cause the sexual center in brain to react unusually and in great intensity - so great the orgasm occurs)? (I mean - I doubt that it could be made that photo-realistic art induces orgasm, so I guess that, at least partially, such sight must contain abstraction (such as optical illusions which exhibit potential to confuse brain (i.e. to work the way it normally wouldn't))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.176.170 (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Orgasm Types, Stimulation, Endorphin

Hello all. I intend to add a type of orgasm not described in this article called "Body Orgasm" or "Full Body Orgasm" and its effects. Also, I will add a paragraph about orgasms achieved with stimulation other than genital stimulation (e.g. neck, axillary, and feet stimulation). I would like to write a section on males achieving an orgasm via the use of a sound (i.e. male urethra stimulation). Finally, I would like to connect Endorphin release prior to orgasms its effects on orgasm as well as the release of endorphins as a result of orgasm.

Your comments on the proposed additions would be greatly appreciated. I will wait until 07/22/09 12PM EST to see y'alls comments, if any, before proceeding. Thanks. Sidna (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Sidna

I'm not familiar with the topics you're proposing but they sound potentially interesting and relevant to the subject of the article. The main criteria of course will be finding good sources and references Voila-pourquoi (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Article organization and consistency

Having made a number of small edits I've noticed that the organization of this article is skewed in places. It would seem to make more sense to present the general rule FIRST and THEN the particulars or exceptions, rather than vice versa. For example, I'd like to reorder it so that the discussion of what orgasm is and the scientific studies that have been done to measure it come BEFORE before the sections on achieving orgasm. Similarly, the section on achieving orgasm begins with a long and unsourced subsection on orgasm control. This would make more sense at the end. Similarly, the section on female orgasm is largely taken up by a discussion of clitoral vs. vaginal orgasms which is more of a historical footnote, not central to current understanding of the question.

On a separate note, the definition of orgasm, by equating it with climax, seems to contradict later sections which describe multiple or continuous orgasms in females and orgasms without ejaculation (and ejaculation without orgasm) in the male. It would seem more helpful to distinguish orgasm from climax earlier on.

Any feedback prior to making these changes would be most welcome.

Voila-pourquoi (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say go for rearranging the article in the way you propose, except for two things: The section on female orgasm largely being taken up by a discussion of clitoral vs. vaginal orgasms should stay like that for now...until we work that out. To me, it seems as though it is beneficial as it currently is, but we can work on cutting down any unnecessary stuff later. As for separating orgasm from climax, I do not really get that. Multiple or continuous orgasms in females does not take away from the fact that they are sexually climaxing in either of those moments. If we are talking about having an orgasm, then having one a little later, she still reached her climax; it is just that she climaxed again. Sort of like how a man has an orgasm, then waits a few minutes and has sex again...and orgasms again. With women, for a few of them, the difference is that it seems they do not need to have sex again to get the next orgasm. And on the orgasms without ejaculation (and ejaculation without orgasm) subject, how is it not the sexual climax simply because they did not ejaculate with the orgasm? The big sexual rush is over. Ejaculation without orgasm? Again, how is ejaculating a sexual climax? Could you clarify what you mean on this part?

Either way, I am for your other changes. I would advise you against changing the "Anal stimulation" and "Breast and nipple stimulation" headings to say "orgasm" in place of "stimulation," though, if you come across thinking that. Both of those are disputed as to whether they should be called orgasms, which is why we have the "Definitions of 'orgasm'" section. Flyer22 (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Male oral contraceptives

Certain sexologists have claimed that the commercialization of male oral contraceptives could change the way men experience orgasms, given that these would chemically prevent men from ejaculating and would allow them to experience a greater number of dry orgasms. This could maybe be mentioned in the article, since it has been the subject of a good deal of scientific research in recent years. [5] ADM (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Female Orgasm

If it has internal components, does that not mean that if a woman fails to "achieve" it, it only means she is not aroused enough? Hey just pointing something out.

67.148.120.113 (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)stardingo747

Paragraph 2 of lead needs rewriting. It moves from "typically" clitoris-generated to a POV that implies clitoris stimulation is required. The comparison of stimulation by self vs other only notes mutual masturbation for "other", relegating intercourse to a passing mention later in the paragraph.

This sounds like denial of vaginal orgasm, ironically the reverse of Freud's position. Martindo (talk) 10:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I am not sure that it is so much POV, Martindo, but rather what is more common having maybe somewhat unbalanced that section; it is more common for women to orgasm through clitoral stimulation than vaginal stimulation. I am female myself; and having talked with many females about this and having studied it, I can state that it is true that most women orgasm easier through clitoral stimulation than vaginal stimulation. In fact, a lot of women have never reached orgasm through vaginal stimulation...while it is unlikely that they have not through clitoral stimulation.

I see that you have tweaked that section with the removal of "in fact." If you can reword the parts of that section you have an issue with it, to make the article seem not as POV to you and others, then I say to go for it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And this article virtually only focuses on HUMAN orgasms because ...?

Hello? Are humans the only creatures on this planet that have orgasms? Didn't think so. --72.68.207.194 (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

We have the In other animals section. Would you rather that section be expanded, or this article be half about humans and half about non-humans? This article mostly focusing on humans is no different than other sexuality articles here and in general mainly or completely focusing on humans. Even articles such as Penis and Vagina mainly focus on humans. You would rather these articles give equal balance, you are saying? If so, not having as much equal balance is likely due to all this research mainly having been conducted on the topic of human beings. Flyer22 (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And these articles are mostly read by humans, too. --Nigelj (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL!! Flyer22 (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The breasts swell because...

There seems to be an edit war developing over the behaviour of the breasts during female orgasms. The current wording makes no sense at all. What is most noticeable is the utter and complete lack of a citation for any of it. Rather than comment-out the whole bit until someone who knows what they're talking about comes up with some clear English and a reference (as I was going to do), I have decided to appeal for common sense here. --Nigelj (talk) 09:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it an edit war, because I didn't revert the recent addition -- I only restored something that had been deleted, resulting in inconsistency.

I agree that clearer info is needed, so I added another "citation needed" flag here. Martindo (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

informative picture or animated gif needed

for educational purposes a picture is needed in the front page. see semen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.128.166 (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing, punctuation, readability

In the third para of the introduction, the one starting "In the moments...", I recommend adding either the word "the" or the word "two" before the word "neurohormones" for readability. If the word "two" is chosen, there should then be a comma after "neurohormones".

In the same para, is this fragment "..scans showing a temporary reduction decrease in the metabolic...", I recommend choosing either "reduction" or "decrease" and deleting the other, to remove the redundancy.

ElectraShore (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done and done. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

The second paragraph of the main description has serious problems.'Limbic system importance' with no citation and superficial explanation. Then it goes on giving specific information that is all given in the "Achieving Orgasm" topic, like sexual positions and the organs' given names for both genders. Finally it hints that simultaneous orgasm can be reached by well learned partners - thus giving importance to the practice that is then demystified in the last paragraph of Orgasmic dysfunction section as an old scientific assumption that had a role in the cause of premature ejaculation. I strongly suggest it be removed or re-purposed due to redundancy and folklore self-help talk. Won't do it myself because I see people are taking care of this article :) so I give it to your judgment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.1.128.86 (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Orgasmic Birth

Hello, I am a newbie to the Wiki experience here... I am not quite sure how to proceed.

I would like to add a short section either under the "In women" section or "Achieving orgasm" section about Orgasmic Birth, this would tag to the "Orgasmic Birth: The Best-Kept Secret" Wiki page and I would then site several medical references along with that article. I am also asking the Author of the Orgasmic Birth page to edit and expand that as well.

Please let me know how to move forward,

Thank you very much Lavender Lavender 22:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavender25 (talk • contribs)

Hello Lavender. You seem to have the right idea - base what you write on reliable sources and cite them as you go. If there is any controversy in the subject, try to be balanced, like "X says A,<ref>{{cite web | url=... etc}}</ref> but Y and Z have stated B".<ref>{{cite web | url=... etc}}</ref>. If you need any more help, just ask. Several of us will keep an eye on what you do, and help out if we can (or if we need to!). Follow the links I've given to the main policy docs, be bold and have fun! (Sign your posts on Talk pages by clicking the 'Signature with timestamp button to add the squiggles that'll be converted automagically) (Oh, and use 'Show preview' to make sure it looks OK before 'Save page' --Nigelj (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Logical fallacies

This is just the most noticable one:

"The anthropologist and primatologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy has also criticized the argument that female orgasm is vestigial, writing that the idea smacked of sexism."

I can't see why the article displays such obvious logical fallacies alongside good science as if they are equal. Whether the argument is actually correct or not, biology cannot be sexist. This would be similar to saying that men possessing thicker bones than women is sexist. If the female orgasm is vestigial, then it's vestigial. Cultural notions of sexism are completely irrelevant to the conclusion reached based on evidence.

If a biological function does not portray one sex or the other in a positive light, it is not sexist, it simply is.

Several times the article cites arguments from discrimination as a justification to dismiss them. This is fallacious reasoning and should not be used.

If the argument of the vestigial orgasm is wrong, then it should be refuted with evidence, not accusations of discriminiation.

You can no more do that than dismiss claims that rape is committed mostly by men as a sexist attack against males. The only way you can disprove that men commit the majority of rape is with evidence. A claim of descrimination is not evidence.

My point was not to argue the veracity of such theories but rather to illuminate fallacies in the information presented. If a counter to the argument of vistigial female orgasms is to be displayed, then it should be done so using a logical theory and not a defence of discrimintion.

Doug 13-12-09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.41.233 (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

In the article, we have "Stephen Jay Gould and other researchers hav[in]g claimed that the clitoris is vestigial in females, and that female orgasm serves no particular evolutionary function." In addition to the sexism argument about this hypothesis, we have Catherine Blackledge, in her The Story of V, "citing studies that indicate a possible connection between orgasm and successful conception" and "criticiz[ing] the [female orgasm is vestigial] hypothesis as ignoring the ongoing evolutionary advantages that result from successful conception." Thus, it seems that we do have this vestigial argument being refuted by evidence. It also comes before the Sarah Blaffer Hrdy bit; the Sarah Blaffer Hrdy bit was likely thrown in there because she is an anthropologist and primatologist and, due to her research, feels this vestigial argument simply amounts to sexism. After her, we have evolutionary biologist Robin Baker with Sperm Wars. Flyer22 (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor corrections

"Some men are multiorgasmic since they remember, while others have learned to achieve multiple orgasms"

This sentence should be rewritten. I have no idea what "since they remember" means.

"La pettite mort" This is a typo: "pettite" should be "petite"

 Done I hope Pettite [sic] doesn't die! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

male to male sex

my question is,,is it safe to swallow a mens sperm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcjoey2010 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Generally, yes. But this is not a forum. Flyer22 (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

New research concerning the G spot Jan-6-2010

The information about the G-spot is dated as of now, according to recent news articles (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8443465.stm) stating that the G-spot may not actually exist in women.

The above article goes on to mention emotional and societal pressures brought about by the search for the G-spot but since this area is just talking about the phenomenon of the female orgasm itself it probably should be omitted.

the BBC, as usual, does not include references. Does anybody have them? Is it based on a press conference report of the study, or a peer-reviewed publication? The BBC is however responsible enough to say that many of the experts they interviewed disagreed about both validity and significance. . DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

IP, whether or not the G-Spot exists has been debated for years. People can read about that in its article. A bit about its existence being debated can be mentioned in this article, though. Flyer22 (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem being, in this article the G spot is taken for granted as existing "...is a small area...",rather than it's may exist status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.83.3 (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirect needs changing?

I was redirected to this page for "dry orgasm" and found that it was not mentioned once... (if it was, i did not see it). This needs to be rectified. Wuku (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

purpose of female orgasm

In the section on the purpose of the female orgasm it states that the clitoris is homologous to the penis.... No, no, no. i must have read this time and time again in many different places. the penis is made up of three structures, the corpus spongiosum, the corpora cavenosa and the urethra. The clitoris is homologous to the corpora cavernosa not the whole penis. pieter 23-01-09

I think you're wrong about that. Unfree (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

euphoria

higher brain functions (also character of potentials in cortex) fall silent during orgasm, as it can be observed in EEG, so the word: "euphoria" seems to be incorrect. The term euphoria is an old, fuzzy concept, and it is not homogenous as it have different meanings. Article needs to strikethrough the word "euphoria", and use more detailed description instead.

Can you provide some quotations from medical dictionaries under the term "euphoria" showing it to be inadequate? Unfree (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

this article and its research is sexist

this article focuses disproportionately on the male orgasm. not surprising, but still annoying.69.201.140.240 (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentence

"Orgasm (from Greek orgasmos...) is the peak of the plateau phase of the sexual response cycle, characterized by an intense sensation of pleasure." Initially, I wondered how a plateau could have a peak, considering how contradictory that would be in the obvious metaphorical context of geological landforms. But when I followed the link to "sexual response cycle", I discovered that the entire statement is conceptually mistaken. Orgasm is not "of the plateau phase" at all. There are two phases, the "plateau phase" and the "orgasmic phase". But it is the final phrase which I find most striking, identifying "orgasm" with "sensation", especially considering how many ways "orgasm" has been said to be "listed" in various proposed definitions later on in the article. (How "listed"?) May I suggest that "transient physiological phenomenon" be used in defining what orgasm is, and that the "characterization" of pleasure be subordinated to it as a common concomitant (or intrinsic) feature, but not the thing itself? Incidentally, I wonder whether the pleasure of the sensation is purely objective or subjective -- whether the sensation might be something neutral, distinct from pleasure, at one level of perception and identified as pleasurable at another -- and whether the latter connection may fail for whatever reason in certain circumstances or even be experienced as unpleasant. In other words, how is pleasure related to orgasm? Unfree (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The Number of females?

I read somewhere that 9 of the 10 women will never experience an orgasm. I wonder if this is true? --82.134.154.25 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Editorial Requests

{{editsemiprotected}} Please start a section (or combine it with the "Orgasm and Health" subsection) about the negative health effects of orgasm/orgasm stress/excessive orgasm/orgasm addiction, etc. E.g. http://www.reuniting.info/science and http://www.actionlove.com/extra/over.htm

It may also be appropriate to add a section about other non-orgasmal approaches to sex such as Karezza in the "In Tantric Sex" section, or merge them in a "Non-orgasmal Sex" section. --124uJkat9 14:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Not done:First of all, welcome to Wikipedia! Edit requests should be used to propose simple changes. You should perhaps edit the article yourself to do what you're asking. You will be able to do that 4 days after your registration, assuming you will have made 10 edits by then. You need 4 more edits:Special:Contributions/Banjer12. But, please make sure that the sources comply with Wikipedia policies on that matter. --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there are some very roundabout formulations in this article which could benefit from clarification. Often, just cutting up an overlong sentence (of which there are many) into two or three will do the job. One formulation I find unlcear, for instance, is this (in referencing Morris' theory): "If males were motivated by, and taken to the point of, orgasm in the same way as females, those advantageous qualities would not be needed, since self-interest would be enough." I don't see how the self-interest is any different in either case (for men), nor therefore why it should have any effect on the advantageous qualities.Tue Sorensen (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs of this article have conflicting logic "Experienced by males and females, orgasm is controlled by the involuntary, or autonomic, limbic system, and is accompanied by quick cycles of muscle contraction in the lower pelvic muscles," This statement conflicts with the following statement "Partners can learn to control their own and each others orgasms." Additionally, I do not even think the statement beginning with "Partners" should be included in this article, it is clearly a run on sentence and has nothing to do with the previous statements in paragraph. iPatch a.k.a capin_crunch (talk) 08:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

IPatch, that sentence corresponds with the section on Orgasm control, though that section is completely unreferenced (while its article is saying it is backed up by at least two references). But I will go ahead and remove it from the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and removed that sentence, but the two sentences before that which also use the word "partners" are very relevant to the previous statement:

Stimulation can be by self (masturbation) or by a partner (sexual intercourse, oral sex, mutual masturbation, etc.). Partners simultaneously stimulating each other's sex organs by mutual masturbation, penetrative intercourse, or other rhythmic inter-genital contact may experience simultaneous orgasms.

It is summarizing ways to achieve an orgasm. Per WP:LEAD, significant aspects of a topic should be summarized in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Involuntary stimulation

"Involuntary orgasms can happen regardless of gender." Shouldn't gender be replaced with sex? Physiological response to a situation seems to be governed more by physical sex than gender identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.122.65 (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

Please add tag/template after "Masters and Johnson were the first to study the sexual response cycle", the first line of "Medical aspects of orgasm/Physiological responses/Orgasm phases and cycles". Wilhelm Reich described the cycle in Die Funktion des Orgasmus: Zur Psychopathologie und zur Soziologie des Geschlechtslebens, published 1927. English version: The Function of the Orgasm, translated by Theodore P. Wolfe, 1942. --124uJkat9 13:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Done --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I took out dubious tag and reworded the sentence. I think, indeed, Master and Johnsons were pioneers in their field. Whomever wrote the entry did not quote, they gave their opinion that M&J were the first, when in fact they were one of the first to research in depth. Merely removing the inaccurate claim that they were the first is sufficient. Atom (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

extremely offensive and opressive

Could you please remove the filthy painting of the woman on the back of a the crazy horse. It is a common delusion men have that has become topics for radio talks shows that woman and little girls love horses so much because they are sexually arrousing. This is extremely offensive and degrading towards women. It is actually possible for women to enjoy doing things that don't center around men. Men however, those who believe this delusion, don't want this to be so. They need to control women and have fabricated this delusion to further put women in their place and make them understnad they cannot exist without a man between their legs. I do not think women today should be showing young girls that this is acceptable by displaying willingly a painting encompasing this entire form of subjegation. Because riding and training horses is so difficult and women can do it just as good as men with no handicapping this threatens men and this painting you are showing represents the threat these type of men feel from women and how they need to overpower and control them. Orgasms and horses have nothing to do with each other and if a woman put this picture on here she should be ashamed of herself for simply allowing men to demean and control her. And please keep in mind if you are one of those men who needs to believe everything women sit on arrouses us little girls are the ones who ride horses the most. Go to any barn and you will find most of the leasons being given are to girls between five and fifteen years old. How disgusting are you to be thinking such things! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miafina (talk • contribs) 22:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Please get off your moral high horse (no pun intended). It's just a painting, nothing to cry over. Fabray23 (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Cry? This one word alone tells me all I need to know about you. You are a male who believes women cannot have opinions that actually matter because we are too sensitive to see reason. This is what male chauvinism is and you are definitely one. With the idiot joke I can tell how immature you are. While you could be any physical age your psychological age is around seventeen. And you know nothing at all about art. Paintings are never just paintings. They are "Windows into the artists souls." Michelangelo was gay. This is clear in all his work where the women's bodies look just like the men's with large well defined muscles and almost no breasts but at the same time he painted men and women equally showing he had respect for both sexes. This painting shows the artist's complete lack of respect for women. It is not gracious. It is offensive. What is also important to remember in art is presentation. This painting is in an article about orgasms which apparently only women can have? That is what this painting says. If this painting had a partner painting of a man going up the hind end of a sheep then it would not be so offensive since it is no longer centering all focus of this article on objectifying women. And why aren't there any paintings of men having sex with anything at all? Are you telling me no artist ever has painted a picture of a man having sex? I am sure you can find something male? Why this painting? It was picked for a reason and that reason is what offends women and since it doesn't represent anything in this article there is no reason to keep it other than arrogance and pride. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miafina (talk • contribs) 10:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Miafina, I am female and do not fully understand your hostility towards the painting (even after reading your above comments). Or your removal of horse riding from the Hymen article (which I reverted). But if no one objects to your removal of the painting, I do not see why it should not stay removed; it is not exactly adding much to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I sort of do. For perhaps obvious reasons, there are no pictures here. The painting is called "The Frenzy of Ecstasy" or something of that nature, and at least to me appears to be an attempt at a visual representation of an orgasm. The issue briefly came up at Talk:Orgasm/Archive 14 but there aren't a lot of good ways to depict an orgasm. At he very least this is far more appropriate and just plain classier than all the various bondage and ejaculation images commons has. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Good points. Flyer22 (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

horseback riding has nothing to do with a woman's hymen. THat is why I removed it. Believe it or not women and little girls do not ride horses with their vaginas. And typing that your a woman doesn't make me believe it. I can't believe any woman would be ok with this painting and since there is no reason why we must see the depiction of an orgasm there is no reason to keep it except to incite hostility. Get your butt on a real horse and then see what kind of opinion you have even being a man you will feel no pleasure in your groin and you won't be humping the saddle unless your really crappy at riding. Also there is no reason why horsebackriding needs to be written under hymen even if there were penis' attached to our saddles. Girls play soccer and soft ball more than any other sports and horsebackriding is expensive and dangerous and and instructors can be difficult to get to so very few people take part in this sport. In other words I am under the opinion that this was put in just to be offensive and demeaning. After seeing what you rewrote it is clear you are just trying to be hostile. I will not pick a fight with you since I have a life I don't intend to check out the article again but keep in mind I have a ligitimate complaint. I am not just trying to see how bitchy I can be. HOwever what you rewrote shows nothing but your defensiveness and anger. Is this what wiki is about offending people once then doing it again and again in their articles. I am curious what you were thinking when you had to write "especially" obviously your concern was not how well the article is written and that my changes made it worse but that you were out of control and needed to get that control back. THis is why I am offended about the horsebackriding analogy to sexual intercourse for a woman. As I have already stated the fact is that very few girls ever go horsebackriding. If they did we would have coined the term equestrian mom instead of soccer mom. Being a professional equestrian I can gaurentee it is physically impossible to break a hymen while sitting in a saddle just as it is physically impossible to break it while sitting in a chair. These two activities feel exactly the same unles you have no idea how to ride then your ass will be in pain but not at any time does the saddle go up iniside little girls and rupture their hymens. Since it is not factual why is it in their? The wording I used said "sports" which is factual and general so it does not require any citation. Can you show me the studies that have been done on little equestrians proving that riding horses ruptures the hymen?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.231.162 (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC) 08:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)08:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)~~

Why would I lie about being female? Are you kidding me? Just because I cannot understand the very extreme, feminist point of view you seem to have? You say horseback riding has nothing to do with a woman's hymen. Uh...the point is that a girl's/woman's hymen can be torn through horse-riding; it has happened, you know. I really do not have much more to say to you, but I suggest you learn how to be civil in your interactions on Wikipedia. See WP:CIVIL. Flyer22 (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Flyer22 on this one. This painting is better then any bondage and ejaculation images that are in commons. If we replaced that painting with a cum shot, I bet you would still complain (and I bet many other people would complain too). Just my two cents. Zonafan39 (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would you assume that? Because I am a women? In reality I am a woman so I can't have an opinion about what offends a man and what doesn't. I have a valid complaint based on the fact that I along with other women demand to be treated like a human beings recieving the same respect from men as men give one another. I understand that my concerns will not be given that respect in this forum as the first immature comment clearly showed. And it is interesting you should bring up a male ejaculation picture. This is exactly my point. Women are always used to show sex while men never are. Since women are not scouting for sex constantly and only men will come to this sight(I only came here for research for a book and I regret it terribly). They will not like it because it is not arousing for them. They will complain that their is not enough female sex in this article. If all you men want to claim this painting is a fair dipiction of female sexuality (which it is not) then you need to place the same type of picture next to it showing a male orgasm. Or don't you guys have them? For the male version to be equal to the female version you need a painting of a naked, deranged looking man on a motorcycle foaming at the exhaust. Or a man penatrating a sheep or dog, etc. If you add this painting then I will be content with the horse sex pictures since it will be balanced showing the equality between male and female sexuality although it will still be horribly inaccurate. But in the end there is no reason at all to "depict" an orgasm. I don't even understand why all of you are trying so hard to do this. (If you like this painting so much I am sure you can buy it and put on the cieling over your bed.) Do you really think this pictures clears up any questions virgins have about what an orgasm is?

Let me say first that I will look around for a better picture. I am happy to have something relatively civilized for a graphic here (as opposed to the soft-core pornography that works it's way in to other pages) but it might be possible to do better. Keep in mind, however, that anything non-literal/archetypal is going to run the risk of offending someone. I mean, the standard artistic metaphors for sexuality include horses, bulls, goats, unicorns (and certian other mythological creatures), trains, motorcycles, angelic and demonic figures, certain kinds of fruit and vegetables, orchids, lilies and oaks... Pretty much anything can represent sex if you cast it in the right light, and pretty much any reference to sex is going to get on someone's nerves.

I'll note (just because I find it interesting) that if you search for 'passion' over at commons, all that comes up is the Passion of Christ and Passionfruit-related images. well, and a couple of shots of the Ford Passion. wikipedia is a coooold-hearted place... --Ludwigs2 07:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Miafina, please read Symbolism (arts). The painting you are objecting to is a symbolic representation of what an orgasm feels like. It's obvious that the horse depicted is not a real horse (it's mane and hind quarters merge into the dark background) and this merely an attempt at the visual depiction of the "little death". Exxolon (talk) 10:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Two things:

• Since women are not scouting for sex constantly and only men will come to this sight -- I am dumbfounded at the stereotyping you display in this comment. Who are you to dictate the ways in which a person is interested in sex, based only on their gender? What grounds do you have for these absolute statements? Why, above all, do you believe we added the painting to represent "female sexuality" rather than sexuality in general? You complain over and over about the depiction of female sexuality, yet the dichotomy you posit betrays a fundamentally binary model which begs the question.
• (If you like this painting so much I am sure you can buy it and put on the cieling over your bed.) FYI, your sureness is misplaced; the most recent time this painting was sold it went for a quarter of a million US dollars. The Wednesday Island (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Miafina, I replied to you above about my being female and horseback riding. I do not wish to speak with you further, but, like I said above, see WP:CIVIL. Flyer22 (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be consensus for retaining the image. Unless someone has a compelling alternative image (and a reason not to include both) I think we can pretty much shut down the discussion. This is not a place to soapbox. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Refractory period

Can someone add a dubios thing besiede this sentence;

"Young male children are capable of having multiple orgasms due to the lack of refractory period until they reach their first ejaculation"

I (along with a lot of guys) masturbated quite regularly before my first ejaculation. I always had a refractory period. This comment is therefore bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.26.182 (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Will you point out where that line is located? And is it sourced? If it is not sourced, I would say to just remove it anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's in the 5th para of 'Multiple orgasms'. The paragraph is sourced to [6], which says, "Boys who discover masturbation before puberty can't ejaculate, but they can have orgasms. They can also have multiple orgasms like women can, but then lose this ability when puberty adds ejaculation to their orgasms. Some adult men learn how to separate orgasm and ejaculation. Because these men can have orgasms without ejaculation, they can keep going, and can easily have more orgasms." This pretty well supports what's written here, but Better Sex for Him on the site 'The Marriage Bed - Sex and Intimacy for Married Christians' is not the same as peer-reviewed advice from a medical journal. I guess the question is, do we take the word of a populist webpage over that of an anon contributor, or do we source anything dubious to such a webpage in the first place? Is this dubious? Are there better sources? I just don't know off hand. --Nigelj (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Nigelj. I'd look in that section, but missed it. I would say we should remove that piece; it is not exactly coming from the best source. I'll go ahead and remove it, until...or if I find a better reference to back it up. Flyer22 (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Not that an anecdote is a reliable source, but one is all that is needed to prove Nigelj wrong, as - truthful to the statement - I began masturbating long before puberty and have been multi-orgasmic for quite a while. It may be rare and needing of source, but it's not "bullshit" just because you don't experience it. Anthiety (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If the statement says that ALL boys can do it, then it probably is incorrect, as there is always an exception. And plus, if women experience a refractory period after a clitoral orgasm, why wouldn't a male that cannot ejaculate? Greenhplover (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Intensity

I think there should be a section on the differences in orgasm intensity through different activities and methods of stimulation, such as masturbation vs. sex, or an orgasm resulting from clitoral stmulation vs. one from vaginal stimulation. Not all orgasms are the same, as most of us probably know, but this page doesn't do a good job of expressing that.Greenhplover (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Clitoral stmulation vs. one from vaginal stimulation" is already well-covered in the Female orgasm section, but I get what you mean. Flyer22 (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Function of the Female Orgasm

The last sentence of the second paragraph lists fallacious reasoning as support for opposition to a theory posited. Namely that female orgasm being vestigle is not a valid theory because it 'smacks of sexism'. Whether the hypothesis is true or not, sexism is not a valid defence against it. Biology is not sexist, sexism is a social construct. That theory is no more sexist than the fact that males on average have larger femurs than females is sexist. I suggest something else be put in its place because it misleads the reader into believing that claims of sexism are legitimate reasons to question biological theories. Only evidence within the field can do that; sexism is, in the case of evolutionary biology, completely irrelevant. If the discussion concerned the sexist social treatment of female orgasm where the concept that female orgasm is a vestigal evolution of the male orgasm is used as a justification, then it would most certainly fit. But as a rebuttal of a biological theory, it has no place. Dougalmeatshanks (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This was brought up before at Talk:Orgasm/Archive 14#Logical fallacies.

Are you the same person from then as well? Flyer22 (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

many sources fail WP:RS

Need to clean up the references and remove anything that can't be supported by reliable sources per WP:RS 76.85.196.138 (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Glancing at Orgasm#References, I don't see many sources failing WP:RS. But I will look closer later. Flyer22 (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Felixkasza, 17 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The writing style "literature" section of the article could perhaps improved, and a suggestion for doing so is below. I also checked the Ovid's original words and removed their equivalency to "sexual pleasure;" the quote simply does not say that ("yours is truly the greater / than that which affects the husband" would be a literal translation). Here is the original paragraph in the article for your reference:

The orgasm has been widely represented in the literature over the centuries. In antiquity, Latin literature addressed the subject as much as the Greek literature: Ovid's Metamorphoses tells in Book III a discussion between Jove and Juno, in which the first of two states: "The sense of pleasure in the male is far\More dull and dead, than what you females share." Juno refuses this idea; both, therefore, agree investigate the opinion of Tiresias ("who had known Venus/Love in both ways"). By giving reason to the words of Jove, Tiresias is punished by Juno that hurt, blinded the eyes of the prophet of Aonia. Preterite, in the didact Ars Amatoria, Ovid advises male to advance on its object of seduction and adds that there is nothing better than a man and a woman lying finish and dull next to each other, having reached the same sexual pleasure.

Here is a modified version:

The orgasm has been widely represented in the literature over the centuries. In antiquity, Latin literature addressed the subject as much as Greek literature: Book III of Ovid's Metamorphoses retells a discussion between Jove and Juno, in which the former states: "The sense of pleasure in the male is far / More dull and dead, than what you females share." Juno rejects this thought; they agree to ask the opinion of Tiresias ("who had known Venus/Love in both ways," having lived seven years as a female). Tiresias offends Juno by agreeing with Jove, and she strikes him blind on the spot (Jove lessens the blow by giving Tiresias the gift of foresight, and a long life). Earlier, in the Ars Amatoria, Ovid states that he abhors sexual intercourse that fails to complete both [partners].

Felixkasza (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for you contribution! --Stickee (talk) 05:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Multiple orgasms

Women can have multiple orgasms, men can't, yet almost the whole "Multiple orgasms" section is about men and why they can't have them. It's not exactly balanced or relevant is it? Richard75 (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Men not having multiple orgasms is of course relevant in a section about multiple orgasms, but there definitely needs to be more information about women having them included there. And maybe a trim regarding men not being able to have them. Flyer22 (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Female ejaculation

The last sentence of the first paragraph reads 'in males, orgasm may lead to ejaculation,' completely ignoring the possibility of female ejaculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.54.183 (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Article terrible, suggest unprotecting

Do we really need to cite Freud's penis obsessions in the first paragraph about female orgasms, and then state that they are utterly wrong? Are there really no better citations for this entire section than those dating from 1985? Has Reich's 1927 book *really* not been overturned as yet? Must we really cite the Times in footnote 48 talking to Dr. Holstege rather than the (presumably? Hopefully! Possibly not) peer reviewed paper that was subsequently published?

I am not a biologist, nor a doctor, nor a psychiatrist, psychologist or sexologist, so I have no ability to improve this article. But as it stands I'd can half of it as clap-trap that has almost certainly been superseded, update the remaining citations, and split away into another article "orgasms in literature" as being far too broad a topic and being very secondary to the thing itself. I'm also going to delete the comment above requesting that the page be adorned with pornography. 7daysahead (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the Freud stuff should be at the beginning of the Female orgasm section, since it's basically what people originally thought about female orgasms. It goes into what was originally thought, the debates, and what we know now.

Your other points are more valid to me. But as for unprotecting this article, I don't believe that would help improvement. When it's just IPs, most of their edits are vandalism, unsourced or horribly sourced. This article has been semi-protected because of that. A person could always sign up if they wanted to edit this article badly enough. You are wrong when you say you have no ability to improve this article. You don't have to be an expert on any of this to edit/improve it. Just follow Wikipedia's policies, such as WP:Reliable sources, and you are more than welcomed to help out. Flyer22 (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, I've seen way worse articles than this on Wikipedia. At least most of it is reliably sourced. It needs more fixing up, but I wouldn't call it terrible. Flyer22 (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Most women only achieve orgasm through clitoral stimulation

I'm not understanding this edit by Dictabeard. Are you saying that future women would need to be asked about this before it can be asserted that most women can only achieve orgasm through clitoral stimulation? This is not about polling. Well, partly it is. But it has to do with research on the female anatomy/female orgasm. The research on female orgasm is pretty unanimous that most women can only achieve orgasm through clitoral stimulation. It doesn't matter if a woman is a virgin and has not yet tested what way she will be able to orgasm best. It is stated as fact that women achieve orgasm a lot easier through clitoral stimulation, and that most can only achieve orgasm this way. As a female myself, I have not seen this disputed at all in this day and age...not by women at least. Further, this is backed up by reliable sources here in the article, right beside the statement, and various others found elsewhere. It is no different than saying that most men can only achieve orgasm through stimulation of the penis. In fact, the clitoris is homologous to the penis. I reworded the part to "are only able to achieve." Flyer22 (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Proving a negative is a very difficult thing. There's a world difference between "have" and "can". For example, let's say 51% of women have never orgasmed, should I then say "most women can't orgasm"? Certainly not, because not having done something does not prove an inability to do so. I am aware of research but I think it's being misinterpreted or incorrectly described in terms of vocabulary. I'm all for writing that it's easier via clitoris, that makes sense, but "can only" is a strong declaration declaring the impossibility of orgasm via other means simply because it has not been observed. "Do not" would also be a present-tense alternative to the past-tense "have-not" I guess, but I don't think it's encyclopedic to use can which is in a future tense, as if we have ruled out other forms of orgasm for women simply due to their lower occurrence and difficulty. If we're to make this claim I think we should have a specific resource for this. A multitude of references are linked, would it be possible to elaborate which specific parts make this statement and if these claims have been properly sourced? "Are only able to" still seems wrong to me, but I'd like to pursue consensus here and possibly think of better ways to phrase it rather than just revert the edit back. To elaborate, the first reference Discovery Sexpedia redirects to Orgasm Dictionary which has multiple pages. This is not a specific reference and the clitoris isn't even mentioned on this first page, so it's not an appropriate reference and we should find whatever page in this sexpedia supposedly supports the "only clit can" claim. DB (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The point is (and I'll get to the sources in a moment)...research on the female anatomy has shown this to be true -- that women are able to achieve orgasm a lot easier through clitoral stimulation, and that most of them can only orgasm this way. Study after study shows this, and it has not changed. I would say that is pretty much proof. Not to mention, that it is stated as fact by just about every sex researcher. How is it any different than stating that most men can only achieve orgasm through stimulation of the penis, especially since the penis is homologous to the clitoris? No one disputes that most men can only achieve orgasm through stimulation of the penis. So why make it a matter to question clitoral orgasm in regards to women? Is it because women have two ways of achieving orgasm when it comes to physical touch? New research suggests that vaginal and clitoral orgasms are related; that it all has to do with the clitoris. Even before this new research, this was concluded by Masters and Johnson. And as for many women never having an orgasm, surveys and studies have shown that most of these women, if not all, have never had clitoral stimulation. The focus during their lovemaking was on vaginal penetration. I'm not seeing how, in this case, the "has never orgamsed" factor is the same as "most achieve orgasm this way." Stating that "most achieve orgasm this way" is based on weighing it against other ways a woman can orgasm. "Breast orgasm," for example, is rare, and we state that. It's not considered an accurate orgasm any way. But my point there is that there is no problem in stating that most women cannot achieve orgasm by breast/nipple stimulation. So then why is it a problem stating which way most women can orgasm? The research is not being misinterpreted or incorrectly described in terms of vocabulary.

The first source says, Women have described the sensations of orgasm as beginning with a sense of suspension, quickly followed by an intensely pleasurable feeling that usually begins at the clitoris and spreads throughout the pelvis.

The second source goes on to state the importance of clitoral stimulation in regards to female orgasm[7][8] and says that, "The vaginal wall is, in fact, the clitoris. If you lift the skin off the vagina on the side walls, you get the bulbs of the clitoris—triangular, crescental masses of erectile tissue." And both sources have a lot more to say on the clitoral anatomy.

The third source says, Orgasm can occur with or without direct clitoral stimulation, but for many women direct stimulation with hands or a vibrator is necessary. And that, "The urethral sponge, discussed previously, does run along the "roof" of the vagina, and it can be stimulated through the vagina, but the vagina itself has no mechanism to stimulate pleasure or orgasm for women." It's not just an About.com source either, since it comes from this book, where I believe she states most women orgasm this way. She certainly describes it as the "the key" to female sexual pleasure.

The fourth source says, The majority of women can orgasm with their partners, but only when the men are rubbing or licking their clitorises, or the women are "buzzing off" with a vibrator.... Without clitoral involvement, the experience for most women will range from an "is that all there is" reaction to a "feels good but it ain't going anywhere!" What's a girl to do? ....Remember, clitoral stimulation is the trigger for most women It also says, "Only about thirty-five percent of women will orgasm during intercourse. That means that about sixty-five percent of women have never, and might never, get off with penile-vaginal stimulation alone, unless there is something they can learn from the minority of women who are making it."

Masters and Johnson also concluded that clitoral stimulation is the primary source of orgasm in women.

So I am not seeing your problem with the wording at all. It is not saying that women cannot orgasm in any other way; only what, according to research, is the most common/usual way for women to orgasm.

We could attribute the line to research, rewording it to, "In contrast to Freud's thoughts, researchers state most women are only able to achieve orgasm through clitoral stimulation." Or "research suggests." But to me, "research suggests" implies that this is not validated...and as though what way women usually orgasm is still up for debate. There is no debate about this. Research says "this is it" for women. To word it as though there is any doubt is what would be misrepresenting the research/sources. A better reword would be, "In contrast to Freud's thoughts, most women report only being able to achieve orgasm through clitoral stimulation." Would "report" work for you? Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are going to review the sources as to what defines "clitorial stimulation". Per the second source quoted above, and my understanding of current medical thought, the clitoris constitutes the entire stimulation receptive surfaces of the female sexual organs - including the both the vagina and the small organ laying within the labia; yet the third source indicates that virginal stimulation of itself does not (or very rarely) induce orgasm - which apparently contradicts the second source. Any agreed wording between most, all, or almost all, is going to have to incorporate those interpretations of what constitutes "the clitoris". LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, LessHeard vanU. Despite the second source, clitoral stimulation is not divided into "external clitoral stimulation" and "internal clitoral stimulation." Stimulation that takes place inside the vagina is referred to as "vaginal" regardless. The second source is saying that an orgasm achieved through vaginal intercourse alone is related to the clitoris, because the clitoris extends much farther than previously thought. It's not necessarily contradicted by the third source. The second source also calls the vagina wall the clitoris. That doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to say "vaginal orgasm" and "clitoral orgasm." If we go by "external clitoral stimulation" and "internal clitoral stimulation," then "vaginal stimulation" ceases to exist. It's all clitoral at that point. The argument is clearly about "clitoris" vs. "G-Spot," which the second source touches on. And this is why the third source supports the second source. Both are saying that the inside of the vagina by itself is not sufficient to achieve orgasm in women, unless sparked by the G-Spot. Which the second source believes is due to the clitoris anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

My point, which I may not be articulating clearly, is that while there is an established debate between "clitorial" and "vaginal" orgasm (or lack of, in the latter) and whether the G-spot exists and what its role is, within anatomy/medical discipline thinking (per the excellent cite here) is that the tissues defining the vagina (and urethra) are part of the "expanded" clitoris now recognised by professionals. My suggestion is that sources should be reviewed to determine whether their findings are routed in the older perception of there being two separate centres of stimuli or whether it is acknowledged that they form part of a larger mass - which the third source kind of acknowledges by regarding that stimulation of the vagina is "transferred" to the clitoris (which would make sense if both parts were considered as aspects of the whole). I recognise that we must go with what the best sources say, but we must also be aware that some of the RS are not in keeping with current thinking about the issue. As we editors are aware of these differing perceptions, we should not be seen to endorse some assumptions which may reflect a previous understanding without some degree of qualification. It may simply be a case of stating that observations published in X year concluded that there was a difference between clitorial and vaginal stimulation and response, but that later studies have concluded that anatomically both are part of the same stimuli sensitive body part. Am I making better sense? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I am understanding what you are saying, just not as clearly as I would like. But what you are saying has more to do with the "clitoris vs. G-Spot" debate as a whole, I believe, and not the matter of whether or not most women achieve orgasm through clitoral stimulation. The sources say "through clitoral stimulation" and we have no choice but to assume they mean the "external part of the clitoris," since they are clear that vaginal intercourse (penetration/friction) by itself is not sufficient in bringing about orgasm in women, unless sparked by the G-Spot. I highly doubt that in saying "most women can only achieve orgasm through clitoral stimulation," any of the sources are saying "by being inside of the vagina." I get your drift, I think, but like you stated, we must go by what the sources say. I don't feel that there is any way to determine what type of clitoral stimulation they mean (outside or inside), except for what is stated. What is stated indicates that they are speaking of exterior stimulation. Furthermore, despite the research by the doctor in the second source, the vaginal wall being the clitoris is still not largely accepted; nor is it widely stated that there are two types of clitoral orgasms. If an orgasm happens due to stimulation from inside of the vagina, even if suspected to be due to the "clitoral legs," it still isn't referred to as "clitoral." It is usually attributed to the G-Spot. Or even the so-called A-spot. Flyer22 (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe you have the gist of what I am saying, certainly as far as the technical/bioligical issues go. However, as editors, our duty to using the best reliable sources for the specific subject must be tempered with our knowledge regarding the developing perception of what constitutes "the clitoris". The WP article I have just linked to defines its physical properties in accordance with current/recent medical thinking, so this needs to be incorporated in our reporting or sources where the clitoris and the vagina are represented as separate, unconnected, areas (albeit within the general erogenous zone). It would be like writing an article on heat resistant materials and including asbestos without mentioning health concerns in its use, even if the best specific RS sources used in the article do not mention it. I suggest that the content derived from RS regarding clitorial against vaginal orgasm response should likewise note the current thinking that both areas, although they apparently repond differently, are part of the same stimuli receptive organ. It is not OR to take good references from a related subject and note them in the context of another. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I have worked on the Clitoris article. And in describing what the clitoris is, the lead of the Clitoris article states, "In humans, the visible button-like portion is located near the anterior junction of the labia minora, above the opening of the urethra and vagina." It does not state the recent research about the vagina basically being the clitoris too, because this is still not largely accepted and O'Connell's work is in reference to clitoral tissue. Yes, "It is now clear that clitoral tissue is far more widespread than the small visible part most people associate with the word," but "the clitoris" is still referred to as the "visible button-like portion." There is a difference in saying "the clitoris" and "clitoral tissue." And while O'Connell insists that the vaginal wall is the clitoris, what people mean when they state "clitoris" is still "the little hill." They do not mean the flesh inside of the vagina. O'Connell is clear that that's what people mean when they say "clitoris" too. She is saying that there is more to the clitoris than that "little hill." Still, it is not largely accepted that the wall of the vagina is the clitoris. This is because of the question, "What then is the vagina?" We cannot determine whether these sources are considering O'Connell's work, except for what they state or by their date. If they are before O'Connell's work on this (before 2005), they most certainly are not considering her work. And if they are distinguishing between clitoral orgasm and vaginal orgasm, which they are, then it is clear they are not speaking of clitoral stimulation from inside of the vagina.

But as for it simply being "a case of stating that observations published in X year concluded that there was a difference between clitoral and vaginal stimulation and response, but that later studies have concluded that anatomically both are part of the same stimuli sensitive body part," the Orgasm article already does that...kind of. Establishing Freud as the first to postulate "vaginal" and "clitoral" orgasms as two different things, and then presenting more recent research which disputes it. More should probably be added on what other researchers considered them two different things. And Masters and Johnson were actually an early research team saying they are of the same origin (which is also already there). Not much more needs to be added, though, since the Clitoris and G-Spot articles cover the rest. Flyer22 (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I was not aware that O'Connell's findings are not generally accepted - must be my literal male mind; I assume the most recent published work is the standard. Looking back at my commentary, I think I was missing the point that for descriptions of the locus of the differing perception of sensations "clitorial" and "vaginal" are clearly recognisable and understood references. Thanks for bearing with me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. By "generally accepted," I was more so talking about the general public...even though I meant the medical/scientific community too. In regards to the medical/scientific community, I have not seen her findings widely acknowledged/referred to. But then again, her findings are fairly new (2005). Her research likely needs more time to proliferate, to gain traction, to have other studies support it. My main point is that sex researchers still allude to "clitoral" and "G-Spot (vaginal)" orgasms, and that these are the terms that are clearly recognizable/understood (like you stated). And you were fine; you provided stimulus for us to think about this in a different light. Flyer22 (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• "women are able to achieve orgasm a lot easier through clitoral stimulation" "most of them can only orgasm this way." I accept the first assertion in good faith, it corresponds with my interpretation of reality. The second inspires skepticism though. How do you prove "can only"? There's a big difference between "xx% of women were not observed to orgasm via other means" versus "xx% can not". Keep in mind the former would not prove the latter, so that would not be acceptable proof. To use a weightlifting analogy, if we took a sample of women and tested their lifting ability, one might be tempted to say "most women can't lift 100 pounds overhead" but that wouldn't be true. If a sample of women weren't able to do it, that only indicates they couldn't do so at the given moment under given conditions. Obviously if they adapted to training techniques performance can improve. The same things apply to flexibility.
• If sexual enjoyment is seen as something that people can open up to and improve one's ability with practice (I imagine relaxation does have something to do with this, due to the emotional components of arousal) then failing to stimulate a more difficult and rare orgasm in a sample group of women doesn't mean they 'can not', rather it means they 'did not'. A past failure doesn't rule out future potential without very extensive argument. "Study after study shows this, and it has not changed. I would say that is pretty much proof" nowhere near it, no. I'd like to see the wording in these studies, most scientists are more conservative in how they right, we should be conservative in how we interpret them and convey the information to others lest we err. "that it is stated as fact by just about every sex researcher" I'm doubtful we've polled such a large variety with such a specifically phrased claim.
• "How is it any different than stating that most men can only achieve orgasm through stimulation of the penis, especially since the penis is homologous to the clitoris?" It isn't, that would be wrong too. The penis being the most sensitive part and prostate stimulation being sensitive and scary and difficult wouldn't mean it's impossible for men to orgasm this way. "No one disputes that most men can only achieve orgasm through stimulation of the penis." I'm doing that right now, that's a silly claim which I'm doubtful could be backed up. Do/Can, very big difference in word. "there is no problem in stating that most women cannot achieve orgasm by breast/nipple stimulation." There is a problem with that, it can't be proven. Failing to have been observed orgasming a certain way wouldn't mean that you can't do it any more than my failing to climb a ladder proves I couldn't do that. Could is fortune telling. If we're speaking of observed studies we should speak of them in that past tense context, not throw out random predictions of absolute possibility on the basis of failures.
• Your first and second source do not support the clit-only hypothesesi. I'm in agreement with you about the root of clitoris in the labia contributing to most vaginal orgasms (although there is a cervical kind being ignored). Obviously the nipples don't contain the clitoris though, nor the lips. Things like these can happen psychologically and there's no reason to assume people can't do it just because they haven't, unless we isolate some kind of anatomical difference between the haves and havenots which would make it impossible. As for the third, that's not a good source. Tracee Cornforth doesn't look like an expert in her field, she's a freelance writer. As for Rebecca Chalker, the author of the book which you point out: being called a sexologist doesn't free someone who makes claims from the burden of supporting them.
• I agree that most women orgasm this way. It clearly seems to be the easiest way, so I would expect most people to do things the easiest and simplest way. Most people eat with their hands too, but some people without arms use their feet. Obviously if someone unpractised tried this they would fumble and drop the fork, but that doesn't mean we should assert they "can't", because clearly it's possible to master with practice. Much like orgasming itself, even with the clitoris/penis there's no guarantee a person masturbating would orgasm on their first try either. Your fourth source is similarly lacking, I'm already in agreement clit is easiest/majority means, the problem is the exclusive wording which is not supported here. It is not saying that women cannot orgasm in any other way This is not true, if you say "only are able to achieve O via C" then you are saying "cannot achieve O in any other way but C". You're probably correctly paraphrasing these studies in a conservative manner on this talk page but the way it's written in the article lacks that and is very liberal and does declare women can't possible do it any way but C.
• Report would be wonderful, if that is the case, and "having been able" to clarify it's past tense. If women are making predictions about themselves we could also add "most women forecast disbelief orgasms could happen through other means" if that were true. I have no problem reiterating people's cognitively distorted self-assumptions, so long as we present them as such and don't engage in the same mistake. DB (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Dictabeard, I am going by what reliable sources state. They state this because women state it time and time again. As a female myself, I happen to know they state this time and time again, and why they do. But personal experience is not what matters in this case. My personal opinion does not matter. Your personal opinion does not matter. What matters are the reliable sources. And three of them state that most women can only achieve orgasm through clitoral stimulation. The O'Connell source, with all her research, and the fourth source (sexualhealth.com) are quite clear on this. I am not seeing why you have skepticism about the fact that most women can only achieve orgasm through clitoral stimulation. To me, it like having skepticism about most men only being able to achieve orgasm through stimulation of the penis. How is the clitoral statement proved? It is proved through the anatomy of the clitoris vs. the anatomy of the vagina. The clitoris has over 6,000 nerve fibers. It is designed for pure pleasure. While the vagina has other functions in addition to the pleasure it can provide. It is proved by the accounts of woman after woman. That is how it is proved. It's as though you are saying that because we cannot poll every women in the world, it should not be stated as fact. The point is...researchers seem to disagree with that line of thinking. When study after study, survey after survey, shows that women usually achieve orgasm through clitoral stimulation. Then it is time to accept this as fact. Further, the G-Spot's existence is debated. How else do you think a woman is reaching orgasm from within the vagina if not by the G-Spot? The vagina by itself has nothing that can bring about orgasm, as Source 3 states. Plenty of women report to not having a G-Spot, and plenty of researchers say there is no such thing as a G-Spot. Old, as well as new research, says vaginal orgasm is due to the clitoris. So, again, I am not seeing how you are debating/disputing that most women only achieve orgasm through clitoral stimulation. Nor am I seeing how your analogies are similar in this case. Again, it is like questioning the fact that most men achieve orgasm through stimulation of the penis.

I don't view it as failing to stimulate a more difficult and rare orgasm. I view it as simply fact. Study after study showing something is proof to me -- this is how medical consensus is formed all the time. The same in regards to sexual information, such as women's orgasm lasting longer than men's or a women being able to have multiple orgasms while men...well...you get the point. If you'd like to see the wording in these studies, then you can research it. I guarantee every reliable source you come across discussing the female orgasm extensively will state that most women achieve orgasm through clitoral stimulation. Not sure where you got the idea that most scientists are more conservative in how they write, especially about this. But, no, Wikipedia does not say we should be conservative in how we interpret them and convey the information. Wikipedia says we should report what the sources report, and that's what I'm doing. You may be doubtful that we've polled such a large variety with such a specifically phrased "claim," but you can look online right and see what is stated about the human female orgasm. If I must add several more sources backing the fact that most women achieve orgasm this way, then I will.

If you are saying the penis is not homologous to the clitoris, then you might want to "correct" the Clitoris article, and a variety of researchers. If you aren't saying that, then forget that part of my statement. You also dispute that most men can only achieve orgasm through stimulation of the penis? You call it a silly "claim" and yet it, too, is backed up by various reliable sources. No, I am not going to go look for them. I will say that no source says that all men can achieve orgasm through prostate stimulation. But plenty of sources state that men usually orgasm through stimulation of the penis, such as the first source and fourth source. You don't seem to translate that to mean that most men can only achieve orgasm through stimulation of the penis, but I do. You say it can't be proven that most women cannot achieve orgasm by breast/nipple stimulation? I think it is pretty much proven. You keep bringing up "failing to have been observed," but I point out that if it was so easy or natural to do so, there would be many reports and observations of women achieving orgasm through breast/nipple stimulation. It's like you are arguing that it is possible to orgasm in any way, and, that with enough practice, anything can become the most common way for a person to orgasm. Well, let's just say that I don't buy that.

The first source says where the orgasm usually beings in women -- it says the clitoris. You're in agreement with me about the root of clitoris in the labia contributing to most vaginal orgasms? But your dispute doesn't sound like you are. And psychological orgasms are debated, as to whether they are possible/are truly orgasms, as the Definitions section shows. There's no reason to assume people can't do it just because they haven't, but there is reason to assume most people don't when most people don't report to achieving an orgasm that way and when research continues to state a certain way that most people orgasm. And as for the third source, it's an okay source to me. Tracee Cornforth is not the one answering questions. Rebecca Chalker is. And being called a sexologist is good enough to weigh in on sexual topics. Those are the views/opinions we aim for on matters such as these.

You agree that most women orgasm this way? Then I am even more at a loss for your originally disputing it. Easiest way or not, this is the way most women orgasm. I don't agree that they simply need more practice to orgasm vaginally. I feel research/evidence shows that the clitoris is "the key"...while vaginal penetration is either a hit or miss (usually a miss) and why (its makeup). The fourth source is not lacking at all. It clearly says, Remember, clitoral stimulation is the trigger for most women, among other things about the subject.

Again, the line is not saying that women cannot orgasm in any other way. You said, "This is not true, if you say 'only are able to achieve O via C' then you are saying 'cannot achieve O in any other way but C'." But I say, no, the wording is not saying that at all. The wording is qualified by "most women." It does not simply state "women." Thus, I don't see the wording as declaring women can't possibly do it any other way.

"Report" it will be then, but I don't see why "having been able to" is needed, per everything I stated above. It is not "cognitively distorted self-assumptions." As someone who knows how women think and what they generally discuss sexually (even if I can't talk to every woman in the world), I can tell you that women generally state vaginal stimulation alone does not "get them off." They need clitoral stimulation. This is not about them lacking in vaginal practice or any such thing along those lines. It is about the makeup of the vagina vs. the makeup of the clitoris. These women know their bodies. You can continue to debate this, but I would rather us agree to disagree, as this is not a forum (per WP:NOTAFORUM), and I am not up for a super long debate that I know is not going to change my mind. I will go by what research and women state, and I will, however, go ahead and add "having been able to" as a compromise with you. But the same information about most women only achieving orgasm through clitoral stimulation is in the Clitoris article, the Sexual intercourse article, and the Anal sex article as well, and I am not compelled to change the wording in those articles too. Flyer22 (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I reworded it to this, even though I don't feel that the "report" wording is being entirely true to the sources, since the sources are not saying "most women report." With the exception of the first source, they are saying "most women orgasm this way." But oh well. A compromise is a compromise. Flyer22 (talk) 05:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I again changed the wording, to "In contrast to Freud's thoughts, it is reported that most women are only able to achieve orgasm through clitoral stimulation, or some form of clitoral assistance, and research supports clitoral stimulation as the easiest means of achieving orgasm in women." Because that is more accurate to the sources. I also removed source 1 from that sentence, added more sources on clitoral stimulation being needed and why, as well as information on orgasm dysfunction in women (though some of that should probably be placed in the Dysfunction section much lower).[9][10] Three of the sources I added are news sources, and it is better to use scholarly or medical sources, but these are researchers commenting on these issues...and so the references are good enough. What they state is exactly what I mean about just about every sex researcher stating the importance of clitoral stimulation and that it is needed for most women to achieve orgasm.

Dr. Gail Saltz: "Women take on average 20 minutes of stimulation and arousal to have an orgasm. Men take quite a bit less. Women also have more variation in what they find to be stimulating as well as having more difficulty defining exactly where and how stimulation works best. Only 20 percent of women are able to orgasm with intercourse alone, most women need some sort of direct clitoral stimulation."[11]

Dr. Drew Pinsky: "Yes, men and women are wired differently, moreover women are wired differently from each other. Many times women will feel as though they are flawed because they are not living up to a certain standard of climaxing. Men make it worse because they generalize what’s needed to make a woman climax. Often men believe women are the same, and once they figure what works for one woman they apply that same method to all the other women they are intimate with, and that’s one of the major problems.

• 50-60% of women will never have an orgasm via intercourse and will require clitoral stimulation to climax.
• 30% of women will have a reliable orgasm with intercourse.
• 10% of women will orgasm with intercourse and could possibly have sequential orgasms.
• 5% of women have true multiple orgasms only through intercourse and these women typically find oral sex uncomfortable."[12]

Shere Hite: "I was making the point that clitoral stimulation wasn't happening during coitus. That's why women 'have difficulty having orgasms' - they don't have difficulty when they stimulate themselves. Shouldn't we just rethink the idea of what sex is and what equality is? That's what I went around the country saying." [13]

Dr. Elisabeth Lloyd on the evolutionary purpose of female orgasm: Central to her thesis is the fact that women do not routinely have orgasms during sexual intercourse. She analyzed 32 studies, conducted over 74 years, of the frequency of female orgasm during intercourse. When intercourse was "unassisted," that is not accompanied by stimulation of the clitoris, just a quarter of the women studied experienced orgasms often or very often during intercourse, she found. Five to 10 percent never had orgasms. Yet many of the women became pregnant.[14]

So, yes, I am following the research/researchers on this, as well as what women state. Plenty of men have a difficult time believing the importance of the clitoris or that most women can only achieve orgasm this way, insisting that women just need "vaginal sex practice," as this board discussion shows, but I have to largely agree with Batwoman in that forum. Flyer22 (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Section break

I would caution that the varieties of sexual experience, including orgasm, are many, and would advise that it would be a mistake for an encyclopedia article to reflect the necessarily limited experiences of individual editors. This is one reason that literature references are important. If even some women can experience other types of orgasms, such as G-spot orgasms, vaginal orgasms, ejaculatory orgasms, or breast orgasms, then these types deserve description, even while acknowledging that clitoral orgasm is the most common type. David Spector (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

David spector, the article is not reflecting "the necessarily limited experiences of individual editors." It is reflecting what reliable sources say. This article clearly documents the G-Spot orgasm, which is "the vaginal orgasm" ("vaginal" and "G-Spot" are not distinct in this case). But it also documents the debate about it, as does the G-Spot article. I'm not sure what you mean about "ejaculatory orgasms" in women. But as for "breast orgasms," the research I have seen thus far about this states that such orgasms are still genital orgasms. They are genital orgasms caused by the stimulation of the breasts. This is why it is not considered accurate to term them "breast orgasms" and why your changing the sourced wording to "may be similar" was inappropriate in my opinion. Yes, your alteration included "with the sensations and muscle contractions focused in the pelvic region.", which helped clarify, but "may be similar" is still different than "is similar." If the source says "is similar" or "is a genital orgasm," we shouldn't make the source seem as though it isn't sure. I agree that the line needed better wording, and with presenting neutrality, but both sides can be presented without changing the meaning of a source. And, really, there is no "may be similar" if the sensations and muscle contractions focus in the pelvic region. That is a genital orgasm brought on by a different stimuli, just like people who say they can reach orgasm through mental stimulation alone. Even with the sources you added, only one source calls this sensation "a breast/nipple orgasm," and that is your Dr. Herbert Otto source. However, he still doesn't address whether such an orgasm is distinct from a genital one, even while saying that the sensation "radiates from the breast." What I find interesting is that he also claims this to be "the second most common form of orgasm among women," when I have not seen that claim replicated by reputable sources. If Otto's findings, that 29% of women in his study experienced a breast orgasm at one time or another, is what he is using to make that claim, it conflicts with sources that state that 30% of women will have a reliable orgasm with intercourse,[15] and proceed to divide the female orgasm into two concepts: vaginal and clitoral. All highly reliable sources that I have seen thus far about the female orgasm divide the matter up that way, with no talk of "breast orgasm." And when there is talk of "breast orgasm" in reliable sources, it's usually never called that and is attributed to the genital region or cited as some other type of muscular contraction. Even this cbsnews.com source you added does not distinguish this type of simulation from genital response, clearly stating "Four major nerves bring signals from women's genitals to their brains. The pudendal nerve connects the clitoris, the pelvic nerve carries signals from the vagina, the hypogastric nerve connects with the cervix and uterus, and the vagus nerve travels from the cervix and uterus without passing through the spinal cord (making it possible for some women to achieve orgasm even though they have had complete spinal cord injuries). Nipple stimulation triggers uterine contractions, which then produce a sensation in the genital area of the brain." The entire source attributes nipple stimulation to "activating genital brain regions."

I tweaked your additions and made them more accurate to the sources, also adding a bit from them.[16][17][18] Typically, better sources should be provided for this article, though. While Menshealth.com is a semi-okay source to use, AskMen.com is certainly not a good source for this topic. I have seen editors flat-out state that AskMen.com is not a reliable source, except for when it comes to interviews from celebrities. But at least in this case it is citing researchers.

All in all, I understand what you are saying. But I want to assure you that I am not editing from my personal opinion on this topic. I am all for including the different studies, ideas and theories about female orgasms, as long as they are reported by reliable sources. Preferably well-known research journals, reputable research journals, and scholarly sources. But I feel that we are also currently neglecting how men achieve orgasm. There is more to say about how women achieve orgasms than how men do it, sure, and men's orgasms are considered to be more simplistic, but there is more that can be said about men reaching such release. Flyer22 (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Flyer, Thank you for your thoughtful comments. They help to highlight the fact that little is yet known for sure about women's orgasms in general, and that there is no in-depth research on men's orgasms.

My caution about avoiding the influence of personal experience was a general one, not aimed either at you or at the article as I found it. I tried to make this clear by my use of general wording.

The existing research on breast orgasms is sufficient to establish their existence, but the details beyond that, such as whether the location of their contractions or sensations can be different from that of genital orgasms, are uncertain as yet because insufficient research appears to have been done.

Finally, the type "ejaculatory orgasm" means the emission of non-urine liquid during orgasm. This type is well documented. But note that the documentation of many topics or concepts is not suitable for use in WP due to the WP guidelines favoring reliable, second-party reporting. This is why some true and useful information cannot be included in WP until it has been reported in publications that are acceptable as references. David Spector (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem, David. And, yes, for female orgasms, it seems that all researchers can agree on are clitoral orgasms. But they debate the existence of the G-Spot like crazy. And there has been in-depth research on men's orgasms, just not as extensively as women's. But debate about what defines orgasm does not only extend to the female anatomy. If you haven't already seen my brief statement on this above this section or haven't checked out the Definitions section, then do check that section out.

I'm still confused as to what you mean by "ejaculatory orgasm." It sounds like you are speaking of female ejaculation. I wouldn't call that an orgasm; it's rather a result of an orgasm, even by your description. Though it can also happen before orgasm. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Orgasm Control section is completely unsourced

The section on Orgasm Control (2.2) does not contain any citations. Is any of this information verifiable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moisture (talk • contribs) 03:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I've worried about the section as well. Its article, Orgasm control, has suffered from sourcing problems too. The section needs to be sourced, toned down significantly with one or two sources from its article, tagged as unsourced, or removed completely. Flyer22 (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I cut the Orgasm control section away from two paragraphs to one. The current paragraph is still unsourced, however. Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Shelley stuff dubious, based on a single (unreliable) source

The problem with the Shelley references is that when you check the sources, it is really only one source, a journal article whose sources themselves seem less than secure. Instead of using any sort of complete works of Shelley, its author relies on dubious "private printings" from the first half of the twentieth century, and adds his own layer of speculation. The stuff on fellatio for example, isn't ever sourced at all in the original article, so the reference to that article is effectively useless. Essentially, the source article claims that Shelley was predominantly homosexual, but which gets to that point mostly on the basis of guesswork and unreliable sources. What this section shows is the problem of relying on, essentially, single sources for anything. The section should be re-written and sourced from multiple sources, not just the one article.Theonemacduff (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

2.1 Achieving Orgasm - General

"Orgasm may also be achieved by stimulation of the nipples, uterus, or other erogenous zones, though this is rarer."

"nipples", "uterus" and "erogenous zones" are linked to "Nipples", "Uterine orgasm" and "Erogenous zone". Since there is no page for Uterine orgasm, "uterus" should be linked to Uterus, like "nipples" linked to Nipples. -- ThoAppelsin (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There used to be a page for uterine orgasm, but that was recently deleted as a copyright violation. MER-C 09:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it.[19][20] Saw this section on the talk page long before now, but was lazy responding and kept getting sidetracked. Flyer22 (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

limbic system

I'm curious why the limbic system is referenced both in the introduction and later in the article, while the Wikipedia entry for the limbic system implies that it is now considered by many in neuroscience to be an obsolete concept. Any comments from those more knowledgeable on the subject?--OldCommentator (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The lead of the Limbic system article says, "Some scientists have suggested that the concept of the limbic system should be abandoned as obsolete, as it is grounded more in transient tradition than in facts." And the end of the History section says, "More recently, attempts have been made to salvage the concept through more precise definition, but there are still no generally accepted criteria for defining its parts. As a concept grounded more in tradition than in facts, many scientists have suggested that the concept should be considered obsolete and abandoned."

From what I gather, that simply means that there is some dispute in the scientific community about the traditional concept of the limbic system. But I also point out that there is some dispute in the scientific community about the existence of the G-Spot and whether or not there is a such thing as the G-Spot, but we still have an article on it here and it is still cited as causing orgasms. So I believe that is why we still mention the limbic system in this article -- because it is still cited as part of the orgasmic experience and is still not fully (or even mostly) discredited as being a part of it. If you look at the Wikipedia definition of the limbic system, it describes the limbic system as a set of brain structures which seemingly support a variety of functions, including emotion, behavior, long term memory, and olfaction. I believe by saying "limbic response" with regard to "orgasm," people mean "mental/emotional response." Orgasm is definitely cited by researchers as being a mental/emotional response, in addition to being an involuntary/autonomic response accompanied by quick cycles of muscle contraction in the lower pelvic muscles; I don't believe there is any dispute about that. I don't mind using "mental/emotional response" instead, but we'd need an article that best covers that. The Limbic response article is supposed to be the main designation for that topic. Flyer22 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Validity of "uterine orgasm"

I do not believe this to be a medically recognized phenomenon, and it is not mentioned in the cited reference. I suggest removing the reference to uterine orgasm. Audiosqueegee (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

In the Orgasm#General section, it's not called a "uterine orgasm." It says "Orgasm may also be achieved by stimulation of the nipples, uterus, or other erogenous zones, though this is rarer." And it's backed to the Herbert A. Otto (1988) source New Orgasm Options: Expanding Sexual Pleasure. I don't believe most researchers have identified a "uterine orgasm," but some seem to believe that a woman can have a genital orgasm (the way an orgasm is typically defined) by stimulation of the uterus. This source, for example, says, "Four major nerves bring signals from women's genitals to their brains. The pudendal nerve connects the clitoris, the pelvic nerve carries signals from the vagina, the hypogastric nerve connects with the cervix and uterus, and the vagus nerve travels from the cervix and uterus without passing through the spinal cord (making it possible for some women to achieve orgasm even though they have had complete spinal cord injuries." Personally, since the uterus is categorized as part of the female genitals (a sex organ), I find a woman achieving an orgasm through some kind of uterine stimulation more believable than achieving it through nipple stimulation. Flyer22 (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I should have been more specific--I was referring to the section on "Evolutionary function," which contains the sentence "Elisabeth Lloyd has criticized the accompanying narration of this film clip which describes it as an example of "Sperm Upsuck", saying that it depicted normal contractions during a uterine orgasm, which have not been shown to have any effect on fertility.[49]" Looking at that reference, 49, I didn't see a statement about uterine orgasm. I don't disagree with what you've written above, I just don't think it's warranted to claim that there is a specific, distinguishabe uterine sort of orgasm, and that's how it sounds to me in the article. Audiosqueegee (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to this for now. I'll read the source in full later. Doesn't seem like a reliable source to me, but I suppose it's some kind of WP:PRIMARY source. Like I stated, I'll check on all that later. Flyer22 (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Multiple

I suggest to change "For some women, their clitoris and nipples are very sensitive after climax, making additional stimulation initially painful." to "For some women, their clitoris and nipples, and for some men, their penis, are very sensitive after climax, making additional stimulation initially painful." I know that Wikipedia prefers scientific to anecdotal evidence, but maybe my testimony (I am one of those "some") will be enough. As a new user I cannot make that change. Alexander Gras (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Alexander Gras. Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia goes by WP:Reliable sources. Adding in information based on only one's personal experience is WP:Original research, which is not allowed. The line there now should be sourced as well. If you can find a reliable source for what you want to add, then there isn't a problem with including your suggestion. Flyer22 (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Illogical redirect - removal request

I came here researching:- Sigmund Freud > Polymorphous perversity > Sexual gratification before crashing into one of the heads of the double headed bane of Wiki: the Redirect (FWIW the other being the Merge). Polymorphous pervesity is part of Freud's conceptualisation of sexual development and something quite remote from current concepts of the adult human orgasm.

This article is exclusively concerned with adult sexual orgasm. I believe that the redirect should be removed as it is illogical. I have commented to this effect on the Redirect's Talk Page, but in the meantime am forced to continue researching for this mahor element of Freud's thinking elsewhere. LookingGlass (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"Female Orgasm Weasel Word- Minor Edit Request

I cannot edit this page because of its semi-protected status, but I am concerned about the following sentence in the second paragraph of the "Female Orgasm" section: "This is because the clitoris has over 6,000-8,000 sensory nerve fibers, reportedly more than any other part of the human body." Reportedly? Are there reliable sources disputing the fact that the glans clitoris has more nerve-endings concentrated in a single area than any other body part? I've read that the bottom of the foot has more nerve-endings (through a cursory google search), but the concentration of these nerve endings is also key. I request a removal of the word "reportedly," and perhaps a rewording to "This is because the clitoris has between 6,000-8,000 sensory nerve fibers concentrated in a relatively small area, more than any other human body part."

Thanks. 69.112.123.68 (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, IP. Your request is sensible, and I have removed "reportedly." I included it while adding the material because it is only attributed to one woman (Rebecca Chalker), even though she is basically an expert on the female orgasm, and I would rather have some scientific sources backing this up. I haven't read her whole book, so maybe she has some scientific findings included in it. Flyer22 (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd also included "over" instead of your suggested wording of "between" because in this source, she says, "What female body part has over 6,000 nerve fibers, is the key to women's sexual pleasure, and has managed to elude countless female anatomy books? The Clitoris." And in this source (page 3), she says, "The clitoris is a powerful organ of sexual pleasure. The tip or glans alone has more than 8,000 sensory nerve endings-more than any other part of the human body."

I'm not sure if she's using "nerve fibers" to mean something different than nerve endings or if she's just being more exact in the second source. But even if "just being more exact in the second source," she's indicating that there are many more than just 8,000 by saying "[t]he tip or glans alone." I wasn't sure if I should report this information in a way that would confuse people about what nerve fibers and endings are, how to make it clearer that there may be well over 8,000, or if I should just report the 8,000 bit. I also realized that combining the information in the way that I have may be considered WP:SYNTHESIS. Flyer22 (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Update: I went ahead and went with one source, changing the text to "Clitoral orgasms are easier to achieve because the tip or glans of the clitoris alone has more than 8,000 sensory nerve endings, more than any other part of the human body." Flyer22 (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate photo?

How does the Frenzy of Exultations illustrate an orgasm? There is no source for this at all, nor is this even mentioned in the article for the painting. - It's totally WP:OR, most likely incorrect information. I suggest it should be removed. • GunMetal Angel 05:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:Consensus was formed for keeping the image last year, at Talk:Orgasm/Archive 2#extremely offensive and opressive, and the editors seemed pretty confident that the image is symbolic of having an orgasm. The editors' main reason for keeping the image was that there is no better image that could be found to depict this topic without using a pornographic image. Even if using a non-pornographic image, they pointed out the difficulty in depicting just what an orgasm is...just like with the current image. So that is why the image was kept. Read the discussion, and you will better understand why it remains as the lead image in this article. I didn't have strong feelings about the image then, and I don't now. But I agree with not having an explicit image of sexual activity as the lead image. WP:UNCENSORED is not a reason to use such images when they are not needed and/or don't significantly enhance the reader's understanding of a topic. Flyer22 (talk) 06:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Dysfunction Stat

"Even women who orgasm on a regular basis only climax about 50 to 70 percent of the time." I could not find support for this claim in any of the citations. Also, even if this data is valid, the 50-70% number must apply to that group of women as a whole -- not to every member of the group. However, I'm worried that this statement might be misinterpreted as meaning that every (or most) women climax at most 70 percent of the time.

Maybe the sentence could be changed to something like "Some women only climax about 50 to 70 percent of the time." Or maybe we could refer to this stat instead:

• Only 29% of women always have orgasms with their partner (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, Michaels, 1994).

http://www.iub.edu/~kinsey/resources/FAQ.html#orgasm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.170.147.73 (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe the line is backed to the "Frank JE, Mistretta P, Will" and "Giustozzi AA" sources. An editor added this line to the Sexual intercourse article with those sources some time ago, and I transferred it here. I think I originally had access to these two sources, but I no longer do. Judging by your comment, it seems you only have access to the abstract of the first source and, like me, are denied access to the second source. I don't see how the line can be misinterpreted in the way that you describe. It clearly says "Even women who orgasm on a regular basis only climax about 50 to 70 percent of the time." It's specifically talking about women who orgasm on a regular basis, most likely women who orgasm on a regular basis with their partner, because women who masturbate, using direct clitoral stimulation, usually reach orgasm without any difficulty. Your link backs the "alone to have orgasms" reality by saying, "Women are much more likely to be nearly always or always orgasmic when alone than with a partner." Orgasm through direct clitoral stimulation being easier than orgasm through vaginal penetration is already made clear in the Female orgasm part of the Achieving orgasm section. But to make this clear for the line in question, I've added your suggested line (the version seen in the source) before it. Hopefully, people will not think it is contradictory to the line after it, because, as stated, the already-existing line is talking about women who orgasm on a regular basis. Your line is talking about women who orgasm in general...and always with a partner. To make it even clearer, I clarified the line in question to say "with a partner" as well, since research has shown that women who masturbate usually do so with direct clitoral stimulation and generally always reach orgasm that way.

Also, I removed the third reference -- Richard Birch -- from the already-existing line because it doesn't back it at all (it actually backs the first line in the paragraph...sort of). I'll try to gain access to the aforementioned sources. If the sources say "Even women who orgasm on a regular basis only climax about 50 to 70 percent of the time.", we are not supposed to change that to "Some women only climax about 50 to 70 percent of the time." If the data is correct, while 50 to 70 percent may not apply to all the women studied, that is the general range that resulted from the study or studies, which I feel is clear. And, really, this data isn't too different than what a line from the source you provided says: "...among women currently in a partnered relationship, 62% say they are very satisfied with the frequency/consistency of orgasm (Davis, Blank, Hung-Yu, & Bonillas, 1996)." Sure, it doesn't say "62% of the time," but I'm getting the same vibe from it that I get from the data already in the article. Excellent site to link to, by the way. I've used that Kinsey resources site for references for the Sexual intercourse article. But it's odd that that the Orgasm section of that site doesn't mention clitoral stimulation. It mentions women having orgasms much easier through oral sex and by themselves, which usually implies clitoral stimulation, but it doesn't mention it directly. Despite the fact that Kinsey's research, like others', show that most of their female subjects could only reach orgasm through clitoral stimulation. Kinsey was the first researcher to blast/criticize Freud's "vaginal orgasm for mature women" theory, from what I've read, which I just added to the article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I found "Frank JE, Mistretta P, Will" here: http://www.aafp.org/afp/2008/0301/p635.html. However, I was unable to access "Giustozzi AA", as you mentioned.

You have a very interesting point about the fact that "29% of women always have orgasms with their partner" does not contradict "Even women who orgasm on a regular basis with their partner only climax about 50 to 70 percent of the time." At first, I thought it did, but you're right -- it doesn't contradict it. However, if both those statements are true, it has a somewhat surprising implication. It means that most of the "29% of women who always have orgasms with their partner" do not also "orgasm on a regular basis with their partner" (since presumably the women in the first category climax 100% of the time with their partner, and "Even women who orgasm on a regular basis..." implies that they are not well represented in the second category). 216.38.147.4 (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I don't see the "50 to 70 percent of the time" info in that link, unless I missed it. And since you still said "if both those statements are true," I take it you didn't find the info in that source either. But as for the implications, if both statements are true, I don't understand what you mean. The "29% of women who always have orgasms with their partner" line is about women who always orgasm with their partner. The "Even women who orgasm on a regular basis only climax about 50 to 70 percent of the time." line is about women who regularly orgasm with their partner...but not always. And we know that the latter line is also about "sex with a partner" because, as stated, women who masturbate usually reach orgasm. I'm going to clarify "not always" in the article for the second line, like I did for the Sexual intercourse article hours ago. I'm also going to look for something to specifically support the "50 to 70 percent of the time" line, and, if I don't find anything to support it, I will remove it (while keeping the line you proposed in of course). Something to also keep in mind is whether or not this information has been consistently reported. It may be that we need to include wording along the lines of "According to a [so and so] study..." Flyer22 (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't see any support in that source either. Also, your "but not always" clears things up nicely. Thanks!99.185.246.243 (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Innapropriate Picture 2

Uhhh! I would have to agree with GunMetal Angel and ask the question again: How does Frenzy of Exultations illustrate an orgasm? The answer given does not answer the question and nothing discussed about the painting alludes to orgasms. If the issue is about using non-pornographic images then who missed that in so many other articles such as subjects related to sexual intercourse and oral sex. That image seems totally out of place. Strange seeing it when entering that page. Dirtywordz (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Dirtywordz, Your comment would have been best placed in the already-existing #Inappropriate photo? section. I don't know what to tell you other than what I stated in that section, which I feel does answer the question. Again, even if we were to use a pornographic image, it is difficult to depict just what an orgasm is. So a pornographic image would not significantly enhance a reader's understanding of what an orgasm is any more than the current image does. Because of this, and editors feeling/proclaiming that the current image does depict an orgasm (I wasn't one of them who said so, as noted above), it was decided that having this image is the better option out of the two. If you did not read the WP:Consensus discussion I linked to, then do. Since this talk page is not highly active, I can ask the same editors to weigh in. There is also the option of going to editors I know are well or semi-versed in sexuality topics and asking them to weigh in or taking the matter to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality is not very active either. Flyer22 (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, I wouldn't really describe the few images in the Sexual intercourse article as pornographic, not in the sense that I think most people usually think of when they think "pornographic," but at least they show what the article is describing. The pictures in the Oral sex article also show what its text is describing. That's the predicament we are facing with this article, because how do you depict orgasm other than a diagram of the physiological changes that happen? Flyer22 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I gotcha but not quite. I guess an illustration of an individual immersed in titillation with an extremely pleasurable look upon their face and maybe some vibrating lines outlining them would be a bit more telling than a naked woman on a gagging horse. It just makes it looks like the editors were reaching so far that they went beyond the topic. I found it interesting that I was not the only one who has inquired. Why not have nothing rather than something that doesn't fit? Thanks again! My apologies if I seem to belabor the point. Dirtywordz (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

LOL, well, "an illustration of an individual immersed in titillation with an extremely pleasurable look upon their face and maybe some vibrating lines outlining them" would be depicting whatever sex act the person is engaged in, but not the achieved orgasm...unless we know the exact point the obviously pleasurable sexual interaction led to an orgasm. But even then, the image (or video) would still only be depicting the facial expressions, body, but not the orgasm. And an orgasm cannot be identified by facial expressions, unless you've been intimate with the person and know when their "orgasm face" is genuine, which is why it's easy for so many women to fake an orgasm. The orgasm is a mental/physiological thing and can only be demonstrated by devices showing the changes in the human body. Speaking of, I would not mind an image like that as the main image...if one were available at Wikimedia Commons (which is where any image on Wikipedia about orgasm would need to come from). I Googled the painting beside "orgasm" (regular Google and Google Books) to see if I could find why there were/are people who are convinced that the painting depicts orgasm, and I have yet to find any WP:Reliable sources (which is what most things on Wikipedia are supposed to be backed to) supporting this.[21][22] I'll keep looking. I've only skimmed over the links, so maybe I overlooked something. I was fine with this image being removed two years ago, but it seems that I have become a bit attached to it since then...seeing as I feel that it's better to have this main image than no main image at all. But if it's a lie that it depicts orgasm, it should be removed. It's described as symbolism art, so it's depicting something that may not be as clear as some would like. Oh, and we can scratch out contacting editors from the WP:Consensus discussion about the image, since all except for two of the editors are currently inactive or blocked. We could contact the two who aren't, but maybe that's not necessary. Flyer22 (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that painting was a pretty strange representation. I found a better picture (cc from http://www.flickr.com/photos/ares_tavolazzi/6076535631/). It's posted now. BlueSkies27 (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's an improvement. Where is the reliable source that that image is meant to represent an orgasm? She looks to me like she just remembered something she had forgotten to do. I think the more abstract horse one was much better. --Nigelj (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree and will now be reverting this new image. As stated more than once, there is no way to depict an orgasm, and certainly not an "orgasm face," unless we are demonstrating a device showing the changes in the human mind/body during orgasm. The image uploaded is beyond subjective. We don't know for a fact that this woman is having an orgasm. Flyer22 (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've asked two editors to weigh in and I will probably ask more. There's a better chance of getting opinions by individually asking editors familiar with this or other sexuality topics than there is if I were to ask for opinions at one of the related WikiProjects. Flyer22 (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that the existing image appears to depict an orgasm, but if we don't have a source stating that, then it's original research. Which is unfortunate, because it is a great image.

Another option is the Ecstasy of Saint Teresa, by Bernini. It's a very well-known piece of art, and sources do suggest that it depicts an orgasm. The available images don't show the statue from the ideal angle though (this would be better), but the image to the right may suffice. I don't think this is ideal either, but I'll throw the option out there for feedback. kyledueck (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The "Ecstasy of Saint Teresa" is a good suggestion, Kyledueck, since we know that it depicts an orgasm. I'd rather not go with the headshot, though. I believe that to fully appreciate the imagery, there should be a closeup shot of the image...but not so close that it's only a shot of the head. I'm sure that people are going to object to this picture too, saying that it isn't sexual enough or whatever, but it's a confirmed orgasm image.

What do you think, Nigel? Flyer22 (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

On a side note: Kyledueck, were you referring to "Frenzy of Exultations" being a great image or the one uploaded by BlueSkies27? Flyer22 (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to "Frenzy of Exultations" being a great image. kyledueck (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

For St Teresa, I thought at first you meant this one (not so good). The image to the right is not too bad, the angle is a bit wrong, but really what was so wrong with the Frenzy of Exultations? It's only an illustration, surely we don't have to have a literal source for adding a decorative image? --Nigelj (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind "Frenzy of Exultations" at all, and I prefer it, most likely because I'm so used to it now. I just felt that it might be best to have an image that has sources backing it as a depiction of orgasm. As noted above, I looked for sources calling "Frenzy of Exultations" a depiction of orgasm, but I couldn't find any. And if there are no reliable sources confirming what it is that we say it is, it's original research. I'm just tired of people objecting to the image, and my not even having a source to support its use in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the problem that we don't have a source for the statement "...depicts the orgasm" in the caption? I just remove those words, now hopefully it's just an illustration: what it depicts is in the eye of the beholder. Like any piece of art. Are people happy with that? --Nigelj (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You already know that I'm okay with the image and that Kyledueck likes it as well. I also don't mind that you removed "depicts an orgasm." But the image's relevancy to this article is still in question and will still be called into question, even more so now since it's just decoration and doesn't give any indication that it has to do with orgasm. It won't stop this discussion from coming up again, is my point. Neither would having a source for it, but at least we'd be able to make a solid case for keeping it if we had a source supporting it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I searched too and found nothing except some blog, and the picture was just used in an 'arty' way there - no facts. Well, if we have a consensus here now, we have something. By Wikipedia standards. --Nigelj (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"Frenzy of Exultations" isn't ideal, but it may be the best we have for now. Everyone interprets art differently, so I doubt we'll find a piece of art that everyone would agree on for this article. I'm not dismissing the objections though - they do have merit. I think the solution is to find a suitable replacement image, or a ref that supports the claim that current image depicts an orgasm, and leave "Frenzy of Exultations" in the article for now. kyledueck (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

limbic system

Hi,

I'm concerned about the line in the introduction: "Experienced by males and females, orgasms are controlled by the involuntary, or autonomic, limbic system."

The limbic system is an arbitrarily defined collection of brain regions used in emotions; it has nothing to do with the autonomic nervous system, which is what controls orgasms. I cannot make this change due to its protected status, and I created an account specifically to make this change. I would appreciate if someone with permissions could make this change!

Legrillon (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Legrillon. The issue with including "limbic system" in the definition was brought up before. See Talk:Orgasm/Archive 2#limbic system. Since the concept/definition of the limbic system is disputed (as shown in the Limbic system article), I'll go ahead and remove it from the lead of this article and leave in "autonomic nervous system" in place instead. I'll also add a Welcome tag to your talk page to guide you on how Wikipedia works. Flyer22 (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)